Surety Bail Bondsmen of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner

2010 OK 73, 243 P.3d 1177, 2010 WL 4102921
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 2, 2010
Docket106,025
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 2010 OK 73 (Surety Bail Bondsmen of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Surety Bail Bondsmen of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner, 2010 OK 73, 243 P.3d 1177, 2010 WL 4102921 (Okla. 2010).

Opinion

TAYLOR, V.C.J.

{1 The dispositive questions presented in this appeal are whether title 59, section 1320(B) of the 2001 Oklahoma Statutes 2 limits a professional bondsman to writing bonds on no more than ten defendants a year in a county in which the professional bondsman is not registered, and, if so, whether a professional bondsman can cireumvent this limitation by employing a surety bondsman to act on the professional bondsman's behalf pursuant to a power of attorney. We answer the *1180 first question in the affirmative and the see-ond question in the negative.

I. HISTORY

T2 In 1984, the Oklahoma Legislature amended the Bail Bondsmen Code, 59 O.S. 2001, §§ 1301-1340, to include a provision limiting a bondsman to writing "bonds on no more than ten defendants" a year in a county in which the bondsman was not registered. 1984 Okla. Sess. Laws 804, ch. 225, § 21 (now codified at 59 0.8.2001, $ 1320(B)). This provision is commonly known as the ten bond rule. In 1990, an attorney asked the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) to interpret title 59, section 1820(B).

13 In a letter addressed to the attorney and dated January 26, 1990, the assistant general counsel of the Oklahoma Department of Insurance (Department) responded:

[Ilt is the informal opinion of the OKkla-homa Insurance Commissioner that a professional bail bondsman may not write on more than ten (10) defendants per year in those counties in which he neither resides nor offices. However, the professional bail bondsman may appoint licensed surety agents to act in his behalf. Those surety agents may write an unlimited number of bonds in the county of their residence or office, but not both, as long as the amount written, coupled with that which the professional bondsman and his other appointed agents have written, does not exceed the professional bail bondsman's lability writing limit with the Oklahoma Insurance Commission.

Under this informal opinion, a professional bondsman is prohibited from writing bonds on more than ten defendants a year in a county in which the professional bondsman neither resides nor offices unless he authorizes a surety bondsman to act as his agent pursuant to a power of attorney.

T4 Surety Bail Bondsmen of Oklahoma, Inc. and Cathy Boyd (collectively, plaintiffs) filed a complaint with the Departments 3 They then filed a motion for summary adjudication, asking for a ruling "[that any bonds written under the authority of a power of attorney are subject to the legal limitations imposed upon the principal bondsman, including the ten defendant out-of-county limit contained in 59 0.8.Supp.1989, § 1820." The plaintiff intervenors, i.e., the International Fidelity Insurance Company, Allegheny Casualty Company, and American Surety Company, filed a motion to intervene and to be added as parties to the petition for summary adjudication. The motion was granted. The Commissioner and Carrasco responded to the motion for summary adjudication.

T5 On April 7, 2005, the Department's administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and, on June 23, 2005, issued an order. The ALJ stated the Commissioner's position regarding title 59, section 1320(B) as:

[A] professional bail bondsman may appoint licensed surety bail bondsmen to act in his behalf. Those surety bail bondsmen may write an unlimited number of bonds in their county of registration, as long as the amounts written, coupled with that which the professional bondsman and his other appointed bondsmen have written, does not exceed the professional bail bondsman's liability writing limit with the Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner.

The ALJ succinctly stated the Commissgioner's reasoning as it is the surety bondsman who writes the bond because the surety bail bondsman prepares and completes the appearance bond and files it with the court. The ALJ found that section 1320(B) is ambiguous and that the Commissioner's interpretation of section 18320(B) is reasonable.

T 6 The plaintiffs filed a petition appealing the agency's ruling and filed a brief in the *1181 district court. 4 The plaintiffs' positions in its brief before the district court, among other things, were (1) title 59, section 1820(B) is unambiguous and limits a professional bondsman's authority even when acting through a surety bondsman under a power of attorney; (2) the surety bondsman, as an agent for the professional bondsman, is subject to the legal limitations imposed on the professional bondsman; (8) the professional bondsman, not the surety bondsman, writes the bonds contrary to the Commissioner's reasoning; and (4) the Commissioner's construction of section 1820(B), even if long-standing, is not controlling. The Commissioner and Carras-co filed responsive briefs. The Commissioner urged that her construction of section 1320(B) is reasonable and entitled to deference and that the agency's ruling should be upheld. Carrasco merely referenced the response filed in the administrative proceedings.

T7 The district court entered finding of facts and conclusions of law on June 16, 2008, and, on June 18, 2008, entered judgment affirming the agency's decision in favor of the Commissioner and Carrasco. The district court found (1) when title 59, sections 1301(B)(5) 5 and (10), 6 1306(A)(2)(8) and (4), 7 1314(B)(2), 8 1316 9 and 1821 10 are read to *1182 gether, it is clear that the Legislature intended for the power of attorney to be a grant of the use of a monetary amount of surety and not a grant for a surety bondsman to use the professional bondsman's license, (2) "[the Surety Bondsman may write an unlimited number of bonds in the county where he/she resides or offices, as long as the amount written by the Surety Bondsman, added to that amount written by the Professional Bondsman, does not exceed the Professional Bondsman's monetary writing limits established by the Insurance Department," (8) the Commissioner's construction of title 59, seetion 1820(B) is entitled to deference, and (4) the Commissioner's construction of section 1320(B) does not result in a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Oklahoma constitutions.

18 The plaintiff intervenors appealed to this Court. The plaintiff intervenors, Car-rasco, and the Commissioner filed briefs in this Court; and the appeal was assigned to the Court of Civil Appeals for disposition. The Court of Civil Appeals found that title 59, section 1820(B) is unambiguous and that it does not limit a surety bondsman to writing only ten bonds a year for a professional bondsman in the county where the surety bondsman, but not the professional bondsman, is "registered." The plaintiff interve-nors filed a petition for writ of certiorari. This Court granted the writ.

II.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

WESTERN HEIGHTS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. STATE
2022 OK 79 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2022)
TOCH, LLC v. CITY OF TULSA
2020 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2020)
SMITH v. CITY OF STILLWATER
2014 OK 42 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
Dowell v. Pletcher
2013 OK 50 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2013)
Wall v. Marouk
2013 OK 36 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 OK 73, 243 P.3d 1177, 2010 WL 4102921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surety-bail-bondsmen-of-oklahoma-inc-v-insurance-commissioner-okla-2010.