New York Bill Would Require Insurance Fund Bond for Oil Carriers

Written by JoAnn Smith on June 23rd, 2014. Posted in Commercial Bonds, Freight Broker Bonds (ICC Bonds), New York, Surety Bond Blog, Warehousing Bonds

     insurance fund bond      
Disasters like this are covered by an insurance fund bond
With the memory of the recent disaster in Quebec still fresh in many minds, lawmakers in Albany New York have introduced a bill that would require all petroleum bulk storage facilities as well as any company transporting such materials to have sufficient insurance fund bond coverage.
 
While it cannot avert a disaster like the one in Quebec it could assure that taxpayers were not left holding the bill after the dust settled. The amount of coverage that would be required has been increased that would cover all decontamination and cleanup after such a crises.

Covering the Cost of Disaster

As more cities are seeing an increase in the amount of rail traffic that includes dangerous and toxic material travelling through highly populated areas, an increased need for some assurance that the high costs of recovery will be handled by the companies responsible. This is why the recent Assembly Bill 9926 was introduced in the New York Assembly. This bill will increase the amount of the required insurance fund bond that all companies must have if they store petroleum products in bulk storage facilities.

A Surety to Cover All Contingencies

Whether you are a company that moves dangerous materials or a truck broker that moves goods of all kinds, having the right surety bond coverage is an important part of business. With new laws coming into play each year, it is important to stay on top of the latest regulations in any business that deals with dangerous goods. You can find out the latest news on this blog or ask our informative and friendly BuySuretycustomer service staff about your surety bond coverage. From insurance fund bond coverage to basic license bonds, we can help your company find the surety bond you need today.

Tags: , , , ,


Comments Off on New York Bill Would Require Insurance Fund Bond for Oil Carriers

Surety Bond Legislature Update for South Dakota

Written by JoAnn Smith on February 12th, 2013. Posted in Agricultural Bonds, Legislation, South Dakota, Surety Bond Blog, Warehousing Bonds

     South Dakota's Famous Mount Rushmore
South Dakota’s Famous Mount Rushmore
The State of South Dakota passed three bills having to do with surety bonds in 2012, two in the House and one in the Senate. The lone Senate bill allowed a change in the posting of performance sureties for the South Dakota Housing Development Authority.   In the House, one of the bills was the repeal of all business having to do with the 2010 Centennial Logo including a bond posting. The remaining bill was a change to the procedures for anyone who wishes to claim against an agricultural dealer surety bond for grain warehouseman. All bills passed into law within the customary 90 days after enactment.  

Senate Bill No. 56 — Public Officials Performance Surety Bonds

With the passing of South Dakota Senate Bill 56 changes have been made in regards to the posting of public official performance surety bonds by the South Dakota Housing Development Authority (The Authority). Until the passing of SB 56 each commissioner of The Authority was required to post a $50,000 public official bond, with the Executive Director of The Authority requiring a $100,000 surety bond.   It also allowed a blanket bond to be posted that would cover all the commissioners, the executive director and all the employees of The Authority that required a public official surety bond. Under the new law, The Authority will be allowed the alternative of purchasing an insurance policy to cover everyone formerly covered by the blanket bond including the commissioners, the executive director and all applicable employees.   The insurance policy will, like the public official surety bond, be posted or purchased on the condition of the faithful performance of the duties of The Authority executives, commissioners and employees. This South Dakota Senate Bill 56 was enacted on March 01, 2012 and went into effect on June 01, 2012. For a look at the complete text of SB 56 please feel free to use the link provided in this summary.    

House Bill No. 1016 — Business Use Surety Bond

With the passing of South Dakota House Bill 1016 the application process for the use of the State of South Dakota’s State Centennial Logo was repealed. Part of the process for the business use of this logo was the posting of a surety bond, which has been eliminated along with the procedure for the use of the State Centennial Logo. The House Bill 1016 was enacted on February 08, 2012 and went into effect immediately. For anyone wishing to read South Dakota House Bill 1016 in its entirety please follow the link provided in this report.    

House Bill No. 1036 — Grain Warehousemen Surety Bond Claims Procedures

With the passing of South Dakota House Bill 1036, changes have been made regarding the procedures for anyone who holds an electronic warehouse receipt and wishes to file a claim on a grain warehouseman’s agriculture dealer bond. Under current laws, the claimant would be required to notify the Public Utilities Commission (The Commission) of their claim and could only proceed on the claim if The Commission was not intending to institute a claim on the posted bond.   With the passage of HB1036 the claimant can proceed if The Commission has not responded in writing within 60 days of the notification by the individual with a claim. At the passage of the 60 day period the claimant can proceed with their claim on the warehouseman’s surety bond. House Bill 1036 was enacted on February 24, 2012 and went into effect on May 24, 2012. For a look at the complete text of South Dakota’s House Bill 1036 be sure to follow the link provided in this bill summary.  

Tags: , , ,


Comments Off on Surety Bond Legislature Update for South Dakota