STATE OF WASHINGTON · 2019. 12. 31. · p. 18. These bonds had liabilities of almost four ( 4) million dollars, including open liabilities at the outset of OIC's investigation of

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

STATE OF WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of

REGAN BAIL BONDS, INC.

and

DAVID A. REGAN,

Respondents.

Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

Agency No. 19-0370

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

The Insurance Code, Title 48 RCW, vests the authority to regulate all insurance

transactions in this state in the Insurance Commissioner. Nothing in the statutory

language or legislative history establishing the licensing scheme for bail bond agents

eliminates the Insurance Commissioner's authority to determine when an entity is acting

as a corporate surety that must be authorized by the Insurance Commissioner. There is

no genuine issue of the material facts detailed in the Amended Cease and Desist Order

No. 19-0370 ("Cease and Desist Order"). Regan Bail Bonds, Inc. and David A. Regan

( collectively "Respondents") are not authorized to act as a corporate surety. Even so, the

bail bonds issued by Respondents were secured by the general corporate assets of the

corporation, not by cash deposits or particular pieces of real or personal property. This

constitutes a corporate surety bond. Therefore, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner

("OIC" or "Insurance Commissioner") is entitled to summary judgment upholding the

Cease and Desist Order. The Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue the Cease

and Desist Order pursuant to RCW 48.02.080, RCW 48.17.063, and RCW

48.15.023(5)(a). This motion is based on all the documents in the record of this matter,

Exhibits 1-35 filed concurrently with this motion, and in particular, the Declarations of

Jessica Bullington, Jennifer Richards, Ron Pastuch, and Jeff Baughman.

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

LA- 1598499 - I

State of Washington Office of Insurance Commissioner

Insurance 5000 Building PO Box40255

Olympia, WA 98504-0255

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Did Respondents' conduct violate RCW 48.05.030, RCW 48.15.020(1), RCW 48.28.010, and RCW 48.17.530(1)(1)?

2. If so, should Amended Order to Cease and Desist No. 19-0370 be affirmed?

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On February 19, 2019, OIC received a complaint from a licensed resident surety

insurance producer ("the Complainant") regarding Respondents ' bail bond practices.

Exhibit 2. The complaint alleged that Respondents were "acting as its own surety

company and not licensed in that capacity'' Id. , at p. 1. The Complainant provided the

Insurance Commissioner' s Regulatory Investigations Unit ("Investigations") with

supporting documentation of Respondents ' conduct and a sworn declaration. Exhibit 3;

Exhibit 4. Investigator Jessica Bullington was assigned to investigate Respondents ' bail

bond practices. Exhibit 1, p. 2, para. 2.

Regan Bail Bonds Inc. ("Regan Bail Bonds") is a resident business entity first

licensed as an insurance producer in Washington on September 6, 2005. Exhibit 5. Regan

Bail Bonds is authorized to sell the surety line of insurance. Id. Regan Bail Bonds is

appointed to three (3) insurers and has five (5) affiliated insurance producers. Id. Regan

Bail Bonds does not possess a Certificate of Authority issued by the Insurance

Commissioner to act as an insurer and transact the business of insurance in Washington.

Exhibit 6. David A. Regan ("Regan") is a resident insurance producer first licensed in

Washington on May 1, 2000. Exhibit 7. Regan is authorized to sell the surety line of

insurance. Id. Regan is the Designated Responsible Licensed Person ("DRLP") for Regan

Bail Bonds and "responsible for Regan Bail Bonds' compliance with the insurance laws

and rules of Washington. RCW 48.l 7.090(3)(b)." Exhibit 5; Exhibit 8, p. 2, para. 9.

The Complainant provided copies of seven (7) bail bonds posted by Regan Bail

Bonds. Exhibit 3, pp. 4-17. Four (4) of the bonds properly name International Fidelity

Insurance Company ("IFIC") as the surety on the accompanying bond documents: a cover

sheet and a power of attorney ("POA'') for each bail bond. Id. at pp. 4-11 . Regan Bail

Bonds is appointed to IFIC and posted the four (4) bonds on the insurer's behalf. See OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 2 State of Washington JUDGMENT Office of Insurance Commissioner

Insurance 5000 Building Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063 PO Box 40255


LA - 1598499 - 1

• 1 Exhibit 5, p. 1 for Regan Bail Bonds' appointments. In Washington, "[a]n insurance

•

•

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

producer. .. shall not act as an agent of an insurer unless the insurance producer ... becomes

an appointed agent of that insurer. .. " RCW 48.17 .160. Three (3) of the bonds improperly

name Regan Bail Bonds as the surety on the accompanying bond documents: a cover sheet

and a POA for each bail bond. Exhibit 3, pp. 12-17.

Investigations discovered that the forms used for hundreds of bail bonds, posted

by Respondents and naming Regan Bail Bonds as surety, were altered versions of the bond

documents Respondents used when posting corporate surety bail bonds on behalf of

authorized insurers, IFIC and Allegheny Casualty Company ("ACC"). Exhibit 1, pp. 5-8,

11 ; Exhibit 3, pp. 4-17; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 20; Exhibit 25.1 Investigations further found

Regan Bail Bonds acted "as an unauthorized insurer by executing and posting bail bonds

as a surety." Exhibit 1, p. 19. Specifically, Investigations found:

[Regan Bail Bonds] does not hold a certificate of authority and has posted at least 325 surety bonds since January 1, 2018 in which [Regan Bail Bonds] is the surety as identified by the POA [Power of Attorney]. Additionally, [Regan Bail Bonds] collected and retained the full premium for the [Regan Bail Bonds] Bonds.

Id. Respondents provided Investigations with documentation and information pertaining

to the 325 bail bonds. Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 12. These bonds were

posted in 17 different courts in Washington by six (6) representatives acting on behalf of •

Regan Bail Bonds. Exhibit 1, pp. 17-18. Regan was one of these representatives. Id. , at

p. 18. These bonds had liabilities of almost four ( 4) million dollars, including open

liabilities at the outset of OIC's investigation of almost two (2) million dollars. Id. , at p.

17; Exhibit 12, pp. 259-291. Regan Bail Bonds collected approximately $294,570.20 in

premium for these bonds. Exhibit 1, p. 17; Exhibit 12, p. 259. Lastly, Investigations

found one of Regan Bail Bonds' representatives, Janet Capps, acted on their behalf and

produced at least 37 of the 325 bail bonds in Washington. Exhibit 1, pp. 17-18. Although

required by RCW 48.17 .060, Janet Capps is not licensed in Washington as an insurance

producer. Exhibit 8, p. 2, para. 10. Investigations requested to interview Respondents and

1 IFIC and ACC are part of an insurance group and use the same POA form. See Bullington Deel., p. 3, para. 15 .

OIC 'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

LA - 1598499 - 1

3 Stale of Washington Office of Insurance Commissioner

Insurance 5000 Bui lding PO Box40255


• 1 four (4) of Respondents ' representat_ives. Exhibit 1, p. 17, para. 3; See also Bullington

•

•

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Deel., p. 2, para. 13. Respondents and the representatives declined the Insurance

Commissioner' s request. Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15.

On July 30, 2019, the Insurance Commissioner ordered Respondents, and its

officers, commissioners, directors, trustees, employees, agents, and affiliates to

immediately cease and desist from specific conduct in violation of the Washington

Insurance Code ("Insurance Code"). A.mended Order to Cease and Desist No. 19-0370

("Cease and Desist Order"). The Insurance Commissioner issued the Cease and Desist

Order pursuant to his authority under RCW 48.02.080, RCW 48.17.063, and RCW

48.15.023(5)(a). Id. The Cease and Desist Order detailed Respondents' conduct which the

Insurance Commissioner found violated the Insurance Code. Id. On August 9, 2019,

Respondents filed a demand for hearing of the Cease and Desist Order. This matter is

scheduled for an administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings

("OAH") from January 30 to January 31 , 2020.

IV. AUTHORITY

A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See WAC

10-08-13 5. Summary judgment is designed to do away with unnecessary trials where there

is no genuine issue of material fact. LaPlante v. State, 85 Wn.2d 154, 158 (1975). See also

Jacobsen v. State, 89 Wn.2d 104, 108 (1977) ("A 'material fact' is one upon which the

outcome of the litigation depends") (citations omitted).

The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of

material fact and that, as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. Jacobsen, 89

Wn.2d at 108. "In ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court must consider the

material evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom most favorably for the

nonmoving party and, when so considered, if reasonable people might reach different

conclusions, the motion should be denied." Jacobsen, 89 Wn.2d 104, 108, 109. See also

Fleming v. Stoddard Wendie Motor Co. , 70 Wn.2d 465, 467 (1967). However, factual OIC' S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 4 State of Washington JUDGMENT Office of Insurance Commissioner

Insurance 5000 Building Docket No. 08-20 l 9-INS-00063 PO Box 40255


LA - 1598499 - I

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

issues may be decided on summary judgment "when reasonable minds could reach but

one conclusion from the evidence presented." Lane v. Harborview Med. Ctr., 154 Wn.

App. 279,288 (2010)(citing Van Dinter v. City of Kennewick, 121 Wn.2d 38, 47 (1993)).

If the moving party satisfies its burden, then the nonmoving party must present

evidence demonstrating material facts are in dispute. Atherton Condo. Ass 'n v. Blume Dev.

Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 516 (1990) ( citations omitted). The nonmoving party must "set forth

specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." LaPlante, 85 Wn.2d at 158.

Moreover, a nonmoving party may not successfully oppose a motion of summary

judgment by "nakedly asserting that there are unresolved factual questions." Bates v.

Grace United Methodist. Church, 12 Wn. App. 111, 115 (1974). Lastly, RCW 34.05.452

provides "[e]vidence, including hearsay evidence, is admissible if in judgment of the

presiding officer it is the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are

accustomed to rely in the conduct of their affairs."

B. Insurance and Surety Insurance Defmed

RCW 48.01.020 provides that "all insurance and insurance transactions in this

state, or affecting subjects located wholly or in part or to be performed within this state,

and all persons having to do therewith, are governed the Insurance Code." "Insurance is a

contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay a specified amount upon

determinable contingencies." RCW 48.01 .040. "Surety insurance" includes "bail bond

insurance" and "guaranteeing the performance of contracts, other than insurance policies,

and guaranteeing and executing bonds, undertakings, and contracts of suretyship." RCW

48.11.080(2) and RCW 48.11.080( 4).

C. Overview of OIC's Regulation of Surety Insurers

Generally, a person is prohibited from acting as an insurer and transacting

insurance in Washington unless they are authorized by a certificate of authority issued by

the Insurance Commissioner. See RCW 48.05.030(1) ("No person shall act as an insurer

and no insurer shall transact insurance in this state other than as authorized by a certificate

of authority issued to it by the [Insurance Commissioner] and then in force; except, as to

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

LA - 1598499-1

5 State of Washington Office of Insurance Commissioner



•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in [the Insurance Code].") RCW

48.01.050 defines insurer as including "every person engaged in the ,business of making

contracts of insurance ... " RCW 48.05.340 sets forth specific capital and surplus

requirements an insurer must meet to qualify for authority to transact any kind of insurance

defined in chapter 48.11 RCW.

ore shares jurisdiction over bail bonds with the Department of Licensing

("DOL"), but the two agencies regulate different aspects of bail bond business. See

Chapter 48.28 RCW and Chapter 18.185 RCW. Regarding the insurance aspect of bail

bonds, DOL agrees with the ore that "DOL does not purport to determine whether

conduct by a bail bond agent or agency is regulated by the OIC pursuant to the Washington

Insurance Code and related regulations. This determination is made by the OIC, and

includes any determination whether an individual bail bond product is insurance."

Exhibit 34, p. 3, para. 13. (Emphasis added.)

Surety insurance is a kind of insurance defined by the Insurance Code. RCW

48.11.080(2) and RCW 48.11 .080( 4). A surety insurer is required to "maintain unimpaired

a combined total of: $2,000,000 of paid-in capital stock or basic surplus plus $2,000,000

in additional surplus." RCW 48.05 .340(1). In addition to capital and stock requirements,

a surety insurer in Washington must comply with many other requirements set forth by

the Insurance Code, such as RCW 48.05.040 [Certificate of Authority required] , RCW

48.05.250 [Filing of Annual Statement], RCW 48.05.280 [Records and Accounts of

Insurers] , Chapter 48.19 RCW [Insurance Rates], and RCW 48.28.010 [surety bond must

be guaranteed by authorized insurer or placed as surplus line coverage pursuant to Chapter

48.15 RCW].

D. Insurance Commissioner's Authority to Issue Cease and Desist Order to Prevent Unauthorized and Unlicensed Insurance Activity

The Insurance Commissioner acts to protect the public interest. RCW 48.01.030

provides:

The business of insurance is one affected by the public interest, requiring that all persons be actuated by good faith, abstain from deception, and practice honesty

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket No. 08-20 l 9-INS-00063

LA - 1598499 - I




•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and equity in all insurance matters. Upon the insurer, the insured, their providers and their representatives rests the duty of preserving inviolate the integrity of msurance.

The Insurance Commissioner must execute his duties and enforce the provisions of the

Insurance Code. RCW 48.02.060. The Insurance Commissioner has broad authority to

issue cease and desist orders against individuals, companies, insurers and other entities

pursuant to the Insurance Code. RCW 48.02.080(3)(a).

The Insurance Commissioner has the duty to protect consumers and the public

from being harmed by companies who are not properly authorized by the Insurance

Commissioner as insurance companies. RCW 48.15.020 prohibits an insurer that is not

authorized by the Insurance Commissioner from soliciting insurance business or

transacting insurance business in Washington. RCW 48.15.020(1).2 If the Insurance

Commissioner ''has cause to believe that any person has violated the provisions of RCW

48.15.020(1), the [Insurance Commissioner] may: (i) Issue and enforce a cease and desist

order." RCW 48.15.023(5)(a)(i).

The Insurance Commissioner also has the duty to protect consumers and the public

from being harmed by individuals who are not properly licensed by the Insurance

Commissioner as insurance producers. "A person shall not sell, solicit, or negotiate

insurance in [Washington] for any line or lines of insurance unless the person is licensed

for that line of authority." RCW 48.17 .060(1 ). If the Insurance Commissioner ''has cause

to believe that any person has violated the provisions of RCW 48.17.060, the [Insurance

Commissioner] may: (i) Issue and enforce a cease and desist order in accordance with the

provisions ofRCW 48.02.080." RCW 48.17.063(4)(a)(i).

The Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue the Cease and Desist Order

pursuant to RCW 48.02.080(3)(a), RCW 48.15.023(5)(a)(i), and 48.17.063(4)(a)(i). As

the facts underlying Respondents ' conduct are undisputed and Respondents' actions

2 RCW 48 .15 Chapter provides a framework and requirements for specific insurance coverage to be procured from unauthorized insurers. See, e.g., RCW 48.15.040, RCW 48.15.042, andRCW 48.15.070. Respondents, however, did not act as surplus line brokers pursuant to RCW 48.15 Chapter and, as a result, their conduct did not comply with these statutes .


LA - 1598499 - 1


Insurance 5000 Building PO Box 40255


•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

clearly violated the Insurance Code, OIC requests the Court grant this motion and uphold

the Cease and Desist Order.

V. ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENT

A. Based on the undisputed facts, the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue the Cease and Desist Order upon the finding that Respondents violated RCW 48.05.030.

i. Respondents ' transacted insurance business in Washington.

Respondents conduct clearly falls under the Insurance Code's definitions of

insurance and surety insurance. "Insurance" is "a contract whereby one undertakes to

indemnify another or pay a specified amount upon determinable contingencies." RCW

48.01.040. "Words in a statute are given their ordinary meaning and common meaning

absent a contrary statutory definition." John H Sellen Cons tr. Co. v. Dep 't of Revenue, 87

Wn.2d 878, 882 (1976). The bail bonds at issue are clearly insurance contracts whereby

Regan Bail Bonds, for each bail bond, guaranteed a contract to pay a specified amount

13 (the bail bond amount) upon a determinable contingency (Respondents are unable to

14 produce the defendant after defendant fails to appear). It is undisputed that Respondents

15.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

posted 325 bail bonds, naming Regan Bail Bonds as surety, in 17 different Washington

courts. Exhibit 1, pp. 17-18; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 33. The majority of the bail bonds

guaranteed by Regan Bail Bonds were posted in Clark County. Exhibit 1, p. 18; Exhibit

33. Respondents' conduct falls expressly within the Insurance Code's definition of

insurance. Respondents' statements bolster the OIC's position. Respondents state:

When [Regan Bail Bonds] posts a bond stating its name on the bond, [Regan Bail Bonds] does not intend to act as a corporate surety, but rather as a bail bond company promising as a third-party to either incur financial burden or force performance.

(Emphasis added.) Exhibit 10, p. 3, para. 6. Respondents further explain their conduct:

The defendant will pay the bonding company [Regan Bail Bonds} a fee for the bonding company to post the bond ( often a percentage of the value of the bond). The posting of the bond promises the court that the bonding company will pay the value of the bond if they are not able to produce the defendant after a failure to appear at subsequent court dates .


LA - 1598499 - 1


lnsurance 5000 Building PO Box 40255


•

•

1 (Emphasis added.) Respondents ' Motion for a Protective Order, filed with OAH on 10-

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

15-19. In their statements, Respondents admit they undertake to pay the value of the bond

if they are unable to produce the defendant after the defendant fails to appear at a court

proceeding.

Respondents ' conduct also falls expressly within the Insurance Code's definition

of surety insurance. Under the Insurance Code, the bail bonds at issue constitute surety

insurance, a specific type of insurance. "Surety insurance" includes "bail bond insurance"

and "guaranteeing the performance of contracts, other than insurance policies, and

guaranteeing and executing bonds, undertakings, and contracts of suretyship." RCW

48.11.080(2) and RCW 48.11.080( 4). In discussing RCW 48.11.080, the Washington

Supreme Court states:

[S]urety insurance is commonly defined as insurance against defaults on the part of persons who have undertaken contract obligations ... Credit, bail bond, fidelity and guaranty insurance all contain some sort of suretyship relationship and insure against defaults by those who have undertaken contract obligations.

Seattle-First Nat '! Bank v. Wash. Ins. Guar. Ass 'n, 116 Wn.2d 398, 406 (1991). A bail

bond is "the contract between the defendant, the surety and/or the court to insure the

appearance of the accused before the court(s) ... " WAC 308-19-030(3). A surety is "the

depositor/owner of cash if a cash bail bond, the property owner(s) if a property bond, the

insurance company if a corporate surety bond, that guarantees performance of the bail bond

contract for compensation." WAC 308-19-030(5). See Exhibit 34.

By posting the bonds, Respondents have executed and guaranteed bonds,

undertakings, and contracts of surety insurance. RCW 48.11 .080(2) and RCW

48.11.080( 4). Respondents have insured against debts and/or defaults. Seattle-First Nat 'l

Bank, 116 Wn.2d at 398. Specifically, if the defendant does not appear, Respondents have

agreed to pay the bail bond amount to the Washington county where the bond has been

posted (incur a financial burden) if they are unable to produce the defendants ( event of

nonperformance or compel performance). See also State v. Barton, 181 Wn.2d 148, 155-

156 (2014).

OIC' S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

LA - 1598499 - 1




•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ii. The bonds at issue are not valid property bonds, but are insurance.

Respondents have erred in characterizing the bonds at issue, as "individual bonds

also known as property bonds" Exhibit 10, pp. 2-3. Respondents state "the at-issue bonds

posted were backed by property owned by Regan, and Regan was thus a property

bondsman, still defined as ' surety' but not a ' surety insurer' or a ' corporate surety'."

Respondents' Hearing Demand filed with OAH on 8-9-19, p. 1, section a. When asked to

provide documentation of the bonds naming Regan Bail Bonds as surety, Respondents

provided Investigations with three (3) reports named "Property bond report 1," "Property

bond report 2," and "Property bond report 3." Exhibit 12, pp. 260, 265, 272. The reports

state "Insurer: Regan Bail Bonds Property," and list the bonds at issue as "property

bonds." Id., at pp. 260, 265, 272, 261-291. Regan told IFIC that these bonds are accepted

by various Washington courts under some sort of "property pledge" or "deposit" with the

courts. Exhibit 19, pp. 2-3 ; Exhibit 22, p. 1, para. 4. When asked by Investigations to

show how these bonds constitute property bonds, Respondents were unable to do so.

Exhibit 11; Exhibit 13.

These bonds do not constitute property bail bonds as defined by DOL. See Exhibit

34, p. 2, paras. 9, 10 and p. 3, para. 16. Per DOL, "[a} bail bond is not a property bail

bond if the agent does not identify to the court the specific property being used to secure

the bond." Id. , at p. 3, para. 16 (Emphasis added.) Despite their label by Respondents,

these bonds are not associated with any specific property of Regan Bail Bonds or specific

property of another, such as the defendant. Respondents did not identify to the Insurance

Commissioner, or the Courts where they posted these bonds, of any specific property used

to secure the bonds. Exhibit 13. For example, the Superior Court and District Court of

Clark County, Washington, wherein Respondents posted the majority of the bonds at

issue, reported the Respondents did not post any property bonds in their jurisdictions.

Exhibit 1, pp. 12-13, Exhibit 31; Exhibit 32. The bail bonds at issue clearly constitute

corporate surety bail bonds and fall under the Insurance Code' s definitions of insurance

and surety insurance. RCW 48.01.040, RCW 48.11.080(2) and RCW 48.11.080( 4).


LA - 1598499 - 1




•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Respondents have acknowledged the bonds at issue are not associated with any

specific property, but instead, solely backed by Regan Bail Bonds' promise as a third

party to incur financial burden if the corporation is unable to force performance. See

Respondents ' Motion for a Protective Order, p. 5, para. 3; Exhibit 10, p. 3; Exhibit 13.

Respondents are licensed insurance producers who have acted properly on behalf of

multiple surety insurers. Respondents have disregarded the Insurance Commissioner' s

authority to regulate their conduct when they operate in a manner exceeding their

permitted authority as insurance producers. DOL defines "corporate surety bail bonds" as

"a bail bond contract that is guaranteed by a domestic, foreign or alien insurance company

which has been qualified to transact surety insurance business in Washington State by the

Insurance Commissioner. WAC 308-19-030(16)." Exhibit 34, p. 2, para. 11. Regan Bail

Bonds is a domestic corporation that has guaranteed bail bonds and, in return, received

compensation in the form of premiums. The Insurance Commissioner has issued the Cease

and Desist Order because Regan Bail Bonds has ignored its legal requirement to become

authorized by the Insurance Commissioner before transacting surety insurance as an

insurer in Washington.

iii. Respondents acted as an unauthorized insurer in Washington.

Respondents transacted surety insurance in Washington as an insurer without

receiving authorization, justifying the issuance of the Cease and Desist Order by the

Insurance Commissioner. Respondents ' conduct is undisputedly within the Insurance

Commissioner's authority to regulate. "Insurer" is defined as "every person engaged in

the business of making contracts of insurance . .. " RCW 48.01.050. As discussed above,

the bail bonds constitute contracts of surety insurance. Respondents refer to themselves as

an "Insurer" in several of their own reports of these bail bonds. Exhibit 12, pp. 260, 265,

272. Respondents ' reported to Investigations that they collected $294,570.20 in premium

for the bonds at issue. Exhibit 12, p. 259.

OIC 'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

LA - 1598499 - I




•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

a. In order to conduct surety insurance business in Washington as an insurer, Respondents deceptively altered a bail bond cover sheet and IFIC's POA.

After being contacted by IFIC, Regan stated that ''he might have used [IFIC's]

forms as a template for his property bond business." Exhibit 22, p. 1, para. 3. Regan stated

to IFIC that "he may have copied the format of [IFIC's] form, but [IFIC] shouldn't be

concerned because nearly all POAs from different surety companies look very similar."

Id.; See also Exhibit 19. Respondents altered and used the forms belonging to IFIC; in

doing so, Respondents removed the insurer authorized by the Insurance Commissioner

from the insurance transactions, took the insurer's place as surety and guaranteed at least

325 bail bonds. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 12. Respondents understand the proper avenue to post

corporate surety bonds, as they have acted on behalf of multiple insurers and properly

posted bail bonds guaranteed by such insurers. See Exhibit 20; Exhibit 25; Exhibit 29.

Many of the bail bonds which were properly posted by Respondents and guaranteed by

authorized insurers which Respondents are appointed to, included POA forms which state:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that [Insurer's Name], a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the [State], has constituted and appointed, and does hereby constitute and appoint, its true and lawful Attorneyin-Fact, with full power and authority to sign the company's name and affix its corporate seal to, and deliver on its behalf as surety, any and all obligations herein provided, and the execution of such obligations in pursuance of these presents shall be as binding upon the company as fully and to all intents and purposes ... "

(Emphasis added.) Exhibit 1, p. 8; Exhibit 20; and Exhibit 25. Respondents altered

IFIC's POA form despite it clearly stating: "THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS VOID

IF ALTERED OR ERASED ... " (Bold in original.) Exhibit 20; Exhibit 22; Exhibit 25.

Per the language of the POA form, the purpose of the form is ~o appoint a representative

of Respondents to act as Attorney-in-Fact on the surety insurer's behalf in executing bail

bonds. Exhibit 20; Exhibit 25. In addition, the POA authorizes Respondents to sign the

insurer's name and affix the insurer's corporate seal. Id.

Respondents' altered POAs state:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Regan Bail Bonds, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, has

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 12 State of Washington JUDGMENT Office of Insurance Commissioner

Insurance 5000 Building Docket No. 08-20 l 9-INS-00063 PO Box 40255


LA - 1598499 - 1

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

constituted and appointed, and does hereby constitute and appoint, its true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact, with full power and authority to sign the company' s name and affix its corporate seal to, and deliver on its behalf as surety, any and all obligations herein provided, and the execution of such obligations in pursuance of these presents shall be as binding upon the company as fully and to all intents and purposes .. . "

(Emphasis added.) Exhibit 1, p. 8; Exhibit 12. Respondents removed IFIC from the

POAs and took the place of the authorized insurer. Id. Respondents also removed IFIC's

corporate seal affixed on the forms, as well two bar codes and a form identification

number. Id.

The bail bonds, guaranteed by authorized insurers, included bail bond cover sheets

which state the following:

That we, [Defendant 's name] , as principle [ Authorized Insurer 's Name} , a [State] Corporation, as surety (identified by power of attorney # ___ ___, Are held an firmly bound unto the court of jurisdiction, in the penal sum of$ ___ For the payment where of well and truly to be bade we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally firmly by the presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the above said principal, shall appear at the next regular or special term as ordered by the court to answer the charge/s of ------

Exhibit 1, p. 6; Exhibit 3, pp. 4, 6, 8, 10. (Bracketed language and emphasis added.)

These bond documents included the names of both Regan Bail Bonds and the authorized

insurer Regan Bail Bonds is appointed to. Id. Investigations gathered many bail bond

documents which were altered by Respondents and state as follows:

That we, Regan Bail Bonds, a Washington Corporation, as surety (identified by power of attorney # ___ ~ Are held and firmly bound unto the court of jurisdiction, in the penal sum of$ ___ For the payment where of well and truly to be bade we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally firmly by the presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the above said principal, shall appear at the next regular or special term as ordered by the court to answer the charge/s of _____ _

(Emphasis added.) Exhibit 1, p. 7; Exhibit 3, pp. 12, 14; Exhibit 33, pp. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 ,

and ending at p. 122. Similar to the POAs, Respondents removed the authorized insurer

from these documents. In adding Regan Bail Bonds' name in the place where the


LA - 1598499 - 1




•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

defendant' s name was initially listed, Respondents also removed the defendant from the

contractual language of the bail bond form.

The bail bonds at issue were not "guaranteed by an authorized surety insurer, or

by an unauthorized surety insurer as a surplus line pursuant to chapter 48.15 RCW of [the

Insurance Code]."3 Regan Bail Bonds was not authorized by the Insurance Commissioner

to act as a surety insurer and, therefore, did not comply with the necessary requirements

and qualifications to act as an insurer. By acting as an unauthorized surety insurer,

Respondents improperly collected $294,570.20 in premium. Exhibit 1, p. 15; Exhibit 12,

p. 259. RCW 48.18.170 defines "premium" as "all sums charged, received, or deposited

as consideration for an insurance contract or the continuance thereof." Because

Respondents removed the authorized insurer from the bail bond insurance transactions,

the premiums were retained solely by Respondents.

b. Respondents understood the proper manner for posting bail bonds, as evidenced by their own website and the lawful corporate surety bail bonds they posted during the same time of posting unauthorized bail bonds.

The "How Does Bail Work: The Bail Bondsman" section of Respondent ' s website

states:

After the courts determine the amount of bail for the defendant, they (the defendant) can then contact a bail bondsman to handle their case if they can' t afford bail. The bail bond agency has backing by an insurance company that permits them to pledge to pay the bond in full if the def endant fails to make court appearances. In exchange for making this payment and keeping this promise to the court, the bail bondsman collects a premium from the defendant or their friends & family.

(Emphasis added.) Exhibit 16, p. 2, para. 2. Respondents ' website also advertises under

the "FAQS - How does bail work?" section, three different methods of release: Surety bail

3 See also RCW 48.28.010 ("Whenever by law or by rule of any court, public official, or public body, any surety bond, recognizance, obligation, stipulation or undertaking is required or is permitted to be given, any such bond, recognizance, obligation, stipulation, or undertaking which is otherwise proper and the conditions of which are guaranteed by an authorized surety insurer, or by an unauthorized surety insurer as a surplus line p ursuant to chapter 48.15 RCW of this code . .. " ) (Emphasis added.)


LA - 1598499 - 1




·• 1 bond, cash bail and pre-trial release program. Exhibit 17, pp. 1-2. The website explains:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Surety bail bond is when the bail agent guarantees to the court that the.y will pay the full bail bond amount if a defendant fails to appear for their scheduled court appearances. The bail agent's guarantee is made through a surety insurance company that financially backs the bail agent if they are unable to pay the court. 4

(Emphasis added.) Id., at p. 1. For the other method of bail, Respondents state: 'Cash bail'

requires an individual to post the total amount of the Bail (not just 10%) in American

currency cash .... Id. Respondents' website does not explain the conduct underlying the

bail bonds which are the subject of the Insurance Commissioner's Cease and Desist Order.

During the time Respondents posted the bail bonds at issue, they also posted many

corporate surety bail bonds the proper way. See Exhibits 18, pp. 8-15; Exhibits 19; 20;

21; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30. Respondents have deceptively altered the forms of an

authorized insurer, IFIC, in order to circumvent the proper processes required by the

Insurance Code and laid out by their own website. Regan Bail Bonds is a corporation that

has guaranteed bail bonds and acted in a manner not authorized by the Insurance

• 13 Commissioner. Regan Bail Bonds acted as a surety insurer without holding a Certificate

•

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of Authority and without complying with the requirements of the Insurance Code. In order

to prevent Regan Bail Bonds from conducting further business as an unauthorized insurer,

the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue a Cease and Desist Order against

Respondents pursuant to RCW 48.02.080(3)(a) and RCW 48.15.023(5)(a)(i).

B. Based on the undisputed facts, the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue the Cease and Desist Order upon the finding that Respondents violated RCW 48.15.020(1).

Respondents violated RCW 48.15.020(1) by transacting insurance business in

Washington without being authorized by the Insurance Commissioner. "An insurer that is

not authorized by the [Insurance Commissioner] may not solicit insurance business in

[Washington] or transact insurance business in [Washington] . . . " RCW 48.15.020(1). As

discussed above, Regan Bail Bonds acted as a surety insurer in Washington without

4 For more information, see https://www.reganbail.com/ . 26 OIC' S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15

JUDGMENT



Olympia, WA 98504-0255 Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

LA - 1598499 - 1

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

holding a Certificate of Authority and without complying with the requirements of the

Insurance Code. In order to prevent Regan Bail Bonds from conducting further business

as an unauthorized insurer, the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue a Cease

and Desist Order against Respondents pursuant to RCW 48.02.080(3)(a) and RCW

48. l 5.023(5)(a)(i).

C. Based on the undisputed facts, the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue the Cease and Desist Order upon the f'mding that Respondents violated RCW 48.28.010.

Respondents violated RCW 48.28.010 by guaranteeing bail bonds as a surety

insurer without complying with the requirements of the Insurance Code. Respondents did

not comply with the requirement in RCW 48.28.010 that surety bonds must be

"guaranteed by an authorized surety insurer, or by an unauthorized surety insurer as a

surplus line pursuant to chapter 48. 15 RCW of [the Insurance Code}. .. " RCW 48.28.010.

Respondents posted the bonds at issue without receiving authorization from the Insurance

13 Commissioner or complying with chapter 48.15 RCW. In order to prevent Regan Bail

14 Bonds from conducting further business as an unauthorized insurer, the Insurance

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Commissioner was authorized to issue a Cease and Desist Order against Respondents

pursuant to RCW 48.02.080(3)(a).

D. Based on the undisputed facts, the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to issue the Cease and Desist Order upon the f'mding that Respondents violated RCW 48.17 .530(1)0).

Respondents violated RCW 48.17.530(1)(1) by knowingly accepting insurance

business from at least one employee, Janet Capps, who does not hold the proper licensure

to act as an insurance producer in Washington. Janet Capps, an employee of Respondents,

posted at least 37 bail bonds in Washington. Exhibit 1, p. 18; Exhibit 12, pp. 261-275.

Although required by the Insurance Code, Janet Capps is not licensed as an insurance

producer in the state of Washington. Exhibit 8, para. 10. Insurance specifically includes

surety insurance. RCW 48.11.080(2). Individuals that sell, solicit, or negotiate surety

insurance in Washington are required to be licensed as insurance producers. RCW

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ruDGMENT Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

L A - 1598499 - 1




•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

48.17.060(1). Janet Capps, while employed by Respondents, and acting on their behalf,

posted bail bonds. Respondents report Ms. Capps's job responsibilities include

"completing defendant and cosigner paperwork, collecting premium money, talcing

pictures of defendants, and posting bail bonds all at the instruction of the Vancouver

office." Exhibit 35, p. 6. In order to prevent Respondents from accepting further insurance

business from unlicensed individuals, the Insurance Commissioner was authorized to

issue a Cease and Desist Order against Respondents pursuant to RCW 48.02.080(3)(a)

and 48.l 7.063(4)(a)(i).

E. Respondents have not presented information to the Insurance Commissioner "demonstrating material facts are in dispute."

ore has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that, as a

matter of law, summary judgment is proper. Jacobsen, 89 Wn.2d at 108. On the other

hand, Respondents have not presented any information to the Insurance Commissioner

demonstrating specific material facts are in dispute. Atherton Condo. Ass 'n v. Blume Dev.

Co., 115 Wn.2d 506 at 516; LaPlante, 85 Wn.2d at 158. As a result, an administrative

hearing is not necessary for the Court to decide this matter.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence, authority, and arguments made above, the Insurance

Commissioner has the authority and undisputed factual basis to issue the Cease and Desist

Order. Respondents have undisputedly violated the Insurance Code. Further, under these

circumstances, the Insurance Commissioner is authorized to impose an order to cease and

desist as a remedy for said violations. As a result, ore respectfully requests that the

Administrative Law Judge grant its motion for summary judgment and uphold the

Insurance Commissioner' s Cease and Desist Order.

DATED this IY ~ day of November, 2019.


LA - 1598499 - 1

s~~~ Insurance Enforcement Specialist Legal Affairs Division




•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

The undersigned certifies under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

of Washington that I am now and at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United

States, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party to

or interested in the above-entitled action, and competent to be a witness herein.

On the date given below I caused to be served the foregoing OIC'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARATION. OF JESSICA BULLINGTON, AND

CORRESPONDING EXHIBITS 1-35 on the following individuals in the manner

indicated:

Terry A. Schuh Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 949 Market Street Suite 500 Tacoma WA 98402 253.593 .2200/fax

Spencer D. Freeman Attorney at Law Freeman Law Firm, Inc. 1107-½ Tacoma Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98402 [email protected] [email protected]

By facsimile (15 pages of filing plus By electronic service via SFT (Secure File Facsimile Cover Sheet) and by depositing Transfer) pursuant to the electronic service complete filing in the US. mail via state agreement between the parties. Consolidated Mail Service with proper postage affixed.

;tto SIGNED this _lL day of November, 2019, at Tumwater, Washington.

~~-DawnKrech Paralegal


LA - 1598499 - 1




• 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of Docket No. 08-2019-INS-00063

Agency No. 19-0370 REGAN BAIL BONDS, INC.

and

DAVID A. REGAN,

Respondents.

I, Jessica Bullington, declare as follows:

DECLARATION OF JESSICA BULLINGTON IN SUPPORT OF OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1.

knowledge.

I am over the age of 18 and make this declaration based on my personal

2. I am employed by the Washington State Office of Insurance

Commissioner's Regulatory Investigations Unit ("Investigations"). I have held this

position for approximately one and a half (1.5) years and I have worked for the Office

of the Insurance Commissioner ("OIC") for nearly four (4) years. During my time at the

OIC, I have also held the position of Intake Coordinator in Investigations and the

position of Market Conduct Analyst in the OIC's Company Supervision Division.

3. Prior to my employment with the OIC, I worked in the insurance industry

for almost two (2) decades. During that time, I was licensed as an insurance producer

for over 10 years.

4. It is one of my primary responsibilities to conduct investigations on

insurance agencies, insurance producers, insurers, and other regulated entities for

compliance with the Washington Insurance Code and related regulation.

5. I am experienced and familiar with the Washington Insurance Code and

related regulation. I am also experienced and familiar with the Insurance

• 26 Commissioner's obligations under the statutes and rules pertaining to insurance.


LA- 1598499




•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

6. Regan Bail Bonds Inc. ("Regan Bail Bonds") is a resident insurance

producer first licensed in Washington on September 6, 2005. Regan Bail Bonds is

authorized to sell the surety line of insurance and is appointed to three (3) insurers.

7. David A. Regan ("Regan") is a resident insurance producer first licensed

in Washington on May 1, 2000. Regan is authorized to sell the surety line of insurance

and is appointed to four (4) insurers. Regan is the Designated Responsible Licensed

Person ("DRLP") of Regan Bail Bonds. Collectively, Regan Bail Bonds and Regan are

referred to as "the Respondents."

8. On February 17, 2019, the Insurance Commissioner received a complaint

from a licensed resident surety insurance producer regarding the Respondents' bail

bonds practices.

9. On March 4, 2019, I was assigned to investigate the bail bond practices

of the Respondents, particularly the allegations in the complaint.

10. As part of the investigation, I contacted the insurers the Respondents

were appointed to.

1 L As part of the investigation, I contacted many of the Washin~on courts

where Respondents posted bail bonds.

12. As part of the investigation, I contacted the Respondents and requested a

response to the Insurance Commissioner's Notice of Investigation. I also requested

1 7 further documentation and information about the bail bonds Respondents posted in

18 · Washington.

19

20

21

22

23

24

13. As part of the investigation, the OIC requested an interview with the

Respondents and four ( 4) representatives who acted on their behalf in posting the bail

bonds at issue. The Respondents and the representatives declined the OIC's interview

request.

14. In response to the OIC's request for copies of all bail bonds executed by

the Respondents since January 1, 2018, the Respondents provided a single document, in

most instances a Power of Attorney ("POA'') form, to evidence each bail bond. Each

25 bail bond document had one of three (3) sureties identified: International Fidelity

• 26 DECLARATION OF JESSICA BULLINGTON IN SUPPORT OF OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LA- 1598499




• 1 Insurance Company ("IFIC"), Allegheny Casualty Company ("ACC"), or Regan Bail

•

•

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Bonds.

15. IFIC and ACC are part of the IAT Insurance Group, Inc., an insurance

holding company and group recognized by the National Association of Insurance

Commissioners (' 'NAIC"). These insurers use the same bail bond forms, including POA.

See Exhibits 20 and 25, attached hereto.

16. The Respondents provided 225 POAs, one of which was a duplicate. See

Exhibit 1, pp. 1-225, attached hereto. The Respondents also provided 33 bail bonds

evidenced by a bail bond form of a different format. Id., at pp. 226-258. Combined,

these forms evidenced 257 bail bonds in which Regan Bail Bonds was identified as

surety.

17. In response to the OIC's request for detailed information for all bonds

11 executed by the Respondents since January 1, 2018, the Respondents provided

12 information which they separated into three (3) groups and the cover for each group had

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

a handwritten note. The note for the bail bonds guaranteed by IFIC said, "These are

International Fidelity." The note for the bail bonds guaranteed by ACC said, "These are

Allegheny Casualty." The note for the bail bonds guaranteed by Regan Bail Bonds said,

"These are the Property Bonds" and the document further identifies the "Insurer'' as

"Regan Bail Bonds Property."

18. The Respondents provided information documenting 324 bail bonds

guaranteed by Regan Bail Bonds. In one (1) instance, Respondents providep a copy of

a bail bond POA but failed to provide the correlating information for the bail bond. In

68 instances, Respondents provided information for the bail bond but failed to provide

a copy of any bail bond documents.

19. Respondents reported that the total premium collected for the 324 bail

bonds guaranteed by Regan Bail Bonds was $294,570.20. I used the information and

documentation provided by the Respondents to calculate the total liabilities under the

325 bail bonds, which totaled $3,693,056. Additionally, I used the information and

documentation provided by the Respondents to calculate the open liabilities under the

324 bail bonds, which totaled $1,993,652. It was unknown if the liabilities related to the


LA- 1598499




• 1 325th bond were open as the Respondents provided a copy of the bail bond POA but

•

•

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

failed to provide the correlating information for the bail bond.

20. The investigation found that the Respondents posted, in 17 courts located

in eight (8) counties in Washington, at least 325 bail bonds guaranteed by Regan Bail

Bonds for at least 228 defendants. Approximately 85%, or 276, of the bail bonds

guaranteed by Regan Bail Bonds were posted in a municipal, district, or superior court

in Clark County. 1

21. A true and correct copy of the OIC Investigative Report dated May 15,

2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

22. A true and correct copy of the February 19, 2019 Complaint received by

the Insurance Commissioner is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

23. A true and correct copy of the supporting documentation submitted by

11 the Complainant is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

24. A true and correct copy of the September 10, 2019 Declaration of

Thomas Loos (Complainant) is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

25. A true and correct copy of the OIC Master Record Printout of the

licensing of Regan Bail Bonds, Inc. is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

26. A true and correct copy of the May 14, 2019 Declaration of Ronald

Pastuch, OIC Holding Company Manager, is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

27. A true and correct copy of the OIC Master Record Printout of the

licensing of David A. Regan is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

28. A true and correct copy of the November 12, 2019 Declaration of Jeff

Baughman, OIC Producer Licensing & Oversight Manager, is attached hereto as

Exhibit 8.

29. A true and correct copy of the OIC Notice of Investigation letter sent by

Investigations to the Respondents on March 4, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

1 As explained in Exhibit 1, p. 18, attached hereto, the 276 bonds were posted in the following Clark County Courts: Clark County District Court, Clark County Superior Court, Battleground Municipal Court and Camas Municipal Court. See https://www.courts.wa.gov/court dir/orgs/266.html for Clark County Court directory.


LA- 1598499




•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

30. A true and correct copy of Respondents' April 10, 2019 written response

to Investigations' Notice of Investigation letter, is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

31. A true and correct copy of my email sent on April 10, 2019, to Kim

Shomer, Respondents' former counsel, requesting additional information is attached

hereto as Exhibit 11.

32. True and correct copies of the Power of Attorney forms for the bail bonds

Respondents reported posting in Washington, which named Regan Bail Bond, Inc. as

surety, as provided to Investigations by the Respondents on April 10, 2019, are attached


33. A true and correct copy of the April 17, 2019 Memorandum of Interview

of Attorney Kim Shomer is attached hereto as Exhibit 13.

34. A true and correct copy of Ms. Shomer's April 25, 2019 email stating

that the Respondents decline ore•s request for an interview is attached hereto as

Exhibit 14.

35. A true and correct copy of the April 29, 2019 email from Erin McAleer,

counsel for the four ( 4) individuals that posted several of the bail bonds for Respondents

included in Exhibit 12, is attached hereto as Exhibit 15. The individuals also declined

OrC's request for an interview.

36. A true and correct copy of Regan Bail Bond, Inc. 's website "Get Bail"

page is attached hereto as Exhibit 16.

3 7. A true and correct copy of Regan Bail Bond, Inc.' s website "FAQ" page

is attached hereto as Exhibit 17.

38. A true and correct copy of the ore Information Request letter sent by

Investigations to International Fidelity Insurance ("IFre") on March 4, 2019, is attached


39. A true and correct copy of IFre•s March 25, 2019 response to the ore

23 Information Request letter, is attached hereto as Exhibit 19.

24 40. True and correct copies of the bail bonds Respondents posted on behalf

25 of IFre and provided by IFre on March 25, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 20.


LA- 1598499




•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

41. A true and correct copy of a spreadsheet submitted by IFIC listing the

bail bonds Respondents posted on behalf of IFIC during the period January 1, 2018 to

March 5, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 21.

42. A true and correct copy of the November 6, 2019 Declaration of Robert

Kersnick, the Vice President of IFIC, is attached hereto as Exhibit 22.

43. A true and correct copy of the OIC Information Request letter sent by

Investigations to Allegheny Casualty Company ("ACC") on-March 5, 2019, is attached


44. A true and correct copy of ACC's March 26, 2019 response to the OIC

Information Request letter, is attached hereto as Exhibit 24.

45. True and correct copies of the bail bonds Respondents posted on ACC's

behalf and provided by ACC on March 26, 2019, is attached hereto as Exhibit 25.

46. A true and correct copy of a spreadsheet submitted by ACC listing the

bail bonds Respondents posted on behalf of ACC during the period January 1, 2018 to


47. A true and correct copy of the OIC Information Request letter sent by

Investigations to Financial Casualty and Surety Company ("FCS") on March 5, 2019, is

attached hereto as Exhibit 27.

48. A true and correct copy of FCS's March 12, 2019 response to the OIC

Information Request letter, is attached hereto as Exhibit 28.

49. A true and correct copy of the supporting documentation of the bail

bonds Respondents posted on FCS's behalf and provided by FCS on March 12, 2019,

is attached hereto as Exhibit 29.

50. A true and correct copy of a spreadsheet submitted by FCS listing the

bail bonds Respondents posted on behalf of FCS during the period January 1, 2018 to


51. A true and correct copy of the April 30, 2019 Declaration of Nancy Jo

24 Campbell, the Department Information Systems Coordinator for Clark County Superior

25 Court Clerk, is attached hereto as Exhibit 31.


LA- 1598499




•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

• 26

52. A true and correct copy of the May 8, 2019 Declaration of Brad Alberts,

the Deputy Administrator for Clark County District Court, is attached hereto as Exhibit

32.

53. True and correct copies of many of the bail bond covers for the bonds

Respondents posted in Clark County Superior Court, which named Regan Bail Bond,

Inc. as surety, were provided to Investigations by the Clark County Superior Court, and


54. A true and correct copy of the November 7, 2019 Declaration of Jennifer

Richards, Public Protection Services Administrator at the Department of Licensing, is


55. A true and correct copy of the Respond�nts' 10-28-19 answers to OIC's

discovery requests, is attached hereto as Exhibit 35.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

EXECUTED this n_ day of November, 2019, at Tumwa r

DECLARATION OF JESSICA

BULLINGTON IN SUPPORT OF OIC'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LA- 1598499

Investigator Legal Affairs Division




•

Documents

STATE OF WASHINGTON · 2019. 12. 31. · p. 18. These bonds had liabilities of almost four ( 4) million dollars, including open liabilities at the outset of OIC's investigation of