Lance Surety Bond Associates, Inc.

Today, a majority of surety bonds are purchased by principals through surety bond producers, also referred to as surety bond agents. This does not only pertain to contract bonds, but all other surety bonds to include the numerous commercial bonds available, as well as court bonds. Surety bond producers serve as middlemen between those in need of bonds, and the deep-pocketed surety bond companies. These agents are knowledgeable about the surety bond industry, and the industries in which they provide bond service, such as the construction industry. They work as part of bond agencies that focus on suretyship, but can also be a part of certain insurance agencies that have surety departments. The best, most professional surety bond producers have well-established relationships with multiple surety bond companies. This allows the agents to help find their customers (principals) the surety company that is the best fit for their particular needs.

When it comes to the construction business, surety bond producers not only help contractors obtain their required surety bonds, but they also can provide additional business advice, technical expertise, and managerial consulting. A good surety bond producer can become part of a contractor

While most of the larger property and casualty insurance companies out there have their own surety departments, there are also some companies (surety companies) that focus most, if not all, of their business efforts on the surety bond industry. Regardless of whether it

Today, everyone is looking for a way to cut expenses, even with state construction bonds (a type of contract bond). Some states that have not matched the federal Miller Act, with a threshold of $100,000, are now thinking about increasing their thresholds. Since there are not many claims under $100,000, it is believed that by changing the threshold to $100,000 taxpayers

All states are under a time crunch to rapidly implement Title V of 2008

In recent years, numerous state bills have been passed that look to hold sureties liable, and put contractors in default, when a contractor violates immigrations laws. Such bills have also made general contractors responsible (or liable) for immigration legislation compliance by all sub-contractors. However, due to the fact that the constitutionality of some of these laws is currently being challenged, the full affect of such immigration laws has not yet been experienced.

The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) has been working closely with other interested groups to monitor immigration laws to identify what, if any, impact they will have on the surety bond industry. Specifically, the SFAA has worked to help contractors found in violation of such laws by trying to change the way penalties are handed down. Their thought is that project termination should not necessarily be the first option for a penalty, because terminating an on-going project may end up costing the taxpayers more money. Such terminations have many underlying costs associated with delays, etc, and will ultimately prove to be nonbeneficial to the public entity.

Currently, Mississippi is the only state in the country that passed immigration legislation in 2008 that will have a visible impact on contract surety bonds.

Mississippi

Throughout 2008, most retainage legislation focused on trying to limit or completely prohibit the withholding of retainage after projects are 50% complete. Retainage legislation in Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and also Rhode Island was defeated this past year, thanks in part to the efforts of the Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) and AIA Surety.

The most significant retainage legislation that was enacted was California Senate Bill (SB) 593. SB 593 prohibits California

Retainage is a term that applies to the contracting business, and is therefore important to grasp when learning about contract bonds. While it is not necessarily a part of the surety bond industry, it is related.

Retainage is defined as the portion of a contractor

Despite collaborative efforts by The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), The National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP), and AIA Surety, individual surety legislation was defeated in both the states of Virginia and Maryland.

In Virginia, SFAA, NASBP and AIA worked to notify the opponents of the legislation they had gained in the previous year that there was new individual surety legislation in Virginia. This was introduced as Virginia House Bill (HB) 187. Unfortunately their efforts did not have the intended effect, as the bill failed to get out of the committee due to strong opposition.

In Maryland, House Bill (HB) 312 was also unable to make it past the committee. If passed, HB 312 would have successfully eliminated a sunset provision for Sep 30, 2009, on the state

If passed, Rhode Island Senate Bill (SB) 2323 and 2229 would have allowed anyone who is under a performance, payment or fiduciary bond (claimants, principals and obligees) to file claim against the surety bond company for a bad faith refusal to pay a claim, settle on a claim, or for failing to perform their obligations in a timely manner. The Senate Bill would have authorized claimants to go after both punitive and compensatory damages, and even attorney fees, and other costs associated with the lawsuit.

Senate Bill 2323 happens to be identical to a SB from last year that wasn

At first glance, some people may assume that mortgage bonds (mortgage banker bonds, and mortgage broker bonds) are all the same. While there are some similarities between the two types of commercial bonds mentioned above, there are also some clear differences which this article will outline.

Mortgage Banker vs. Mortgage Broker: Most surety bond companies classify mortgage banker and mortgage broker bonds in a similar fashion, but there are some operational elements to each that differentiate the two. Mortgage brokers serve as a