Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana Auto Bonds

Written by JoAnn Smith on November 18th, 2013. Posted in Illinois, Indiana, Legislation, License and Permit Bonds, Motor Vehicle Bonds, Surety Bond Blog, Wisconsin

     auto bond
Auto Bonds remain important to car dealers
Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana auto bond requirements are all pretty straight forward as far as which kinds of dealerships are required to get bonded and which kind of auto dealer bonds. All three states are filled with industrious farms, thriving communities such as Hillsboro and Springfield and plenty of green forests for car camping and other types of outdoor enjoyment. Let’s not forget Chicago, with its bustling business and millions of drivers.  It shouldn’t be surprising to note that car dealerships do well in these areas. Here are the surety bond requirements you need to know for these three states if you were to consider opening a dealership in Wisconsin, Illinois or Indiana.

Wisconsin Car Dealer Bonds

Although a car dealership has the same requirement for selling both new and used vehicles, a $50,000 car dealer surety bond, that doesn’t mean the requirements are simple in Wisconsin for an auto dealership license bond. The company must get bonded and keep the bond active for the full two years of the license period. In addition, that bond must be in force when the dealership applies to renew their license at the end of the two year period.

Illinois Auto Bonds

The Illinois Motor Vehicle Department requires dealerships for both new and used vehicles to post a bond in the amount of $20,000 as part of their dealership license. The bond must be held by the designated agent for the dealership. No other type of vehicle dealer bond is required outside of this car dealer bond to get bonded for selling new and used vehicles in Illinois.

Indiana Car Bond Requirements

Everyone who knows Indiana knows it as The Hoosier State. Here the car dealership surety bond requirements are also very simple to follow, just like in Illinois and Wisconsin. All new and used car dealerships are required to have a $25,000 car dealer bond as part of their licensing. In addition, they have to be able to furnish that proof at the time of their licensing or renewal of their licensing.

Get Bonded Today

Need a surety bond? We can supply, in addition to car dealer bonds, just about any kind of surety bond you need. Whether it is a license bond for your new business or a public official bond for the cities recently appointed staff, BuySurety can help. Come by our site today and see how fast and easy it is to get bonded with BuySurety.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments Off on Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana Auto Bonds

Surety Bond Legislature Updates: Auto Dealerships

Written by JoAnn Smith on October 28th, 2013. Posted in Arkansas, California, Commercial Bonds, Indiana, Latest News, Legislation, License and Permit Bonds, Missouri, Motor Vehicle Bonds, Nevada, Oklahoma, Surety Bond Blog, Wisconsin

     surety bond legislature
Legislative Changes affected MVD Bonds this year
There was actually quite a bit of surety bond legislature this year in the various states regarding surety bonds for auto dealerships. Amongst the states looking to make changes to the requirements for auto dealer bonds are California, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Indiana and Oklahoma. There were several changes proposed in Missouri including both changes to the surety bond amounts and exactly which types of vehicle dealerships would require them, but both bills did not pass and are now dead in the water. Nevada did not make substantial changes but did pass a bill clarifying requirements for surety bonds provide consumers and not dealers with protection. Here are some details on bills either in process or passed recently: California – As of the end of September in 2013, a bill was still in the process of being passed that would now require dealers of such recreational off-highway vehicles as ATVs to be licensed and post a surety bond, although not in the same amounts as the current requirements for auto dealerships. Wisconsin – If AB 262 passes, the amount of a required MVD surety bond would increase from $25,000 to $50,000. Arkansas – While the bill is still in legislature, it looks very likely that dealers who sell recreational vehicles including both low-speed and ATVs will be required to be both licensed and bonded. Indiana – While the legislative bill eliminated the requirement of auto distributor branches to each have their own license and bonding, they will now require licenses and surety bonds for transfer dealers, wholesale dealers and automotive mobility dealers. Oklahoma – Used motor vehicle bonds have been increased from $15,000 to $25,000. But it isn’t all bad news, as the $1,000 surety bond that had been required of all motor vehicle sales representatives is now repealed. If you have any questions about these new surety bond requirements for auto dealers, be sure to give us a call and talk to one of our knowledgeable customer support staff at BuySurety. We have the MVD surety bonds you need at a price you can afford, and always are happy to help you stay current on all your surety bond requirements.

Tags: , , ,

Comments Off on Surety Bond Legislature Updates: Auto Dealerships

Indiana and Maryland Fidelity Bond Legislature

Written by JoAnn Smith on March 24th, 2013. Posted in Indemnity Bonds, Indiana, Legislation, Maryland, Surety Bond Blog

     surety bonds for employees
Hiring At Risk Youth in Indiana
March 24, 2013 – The Legislative Houses for both Indiana and Maryland were reviewing a number of bills that will impact the use of surety fidelity bonds during the first quarter of 2013. Among these bills were the establishment of a Hoosier Bonding Program to aid employers of at-risk employees in Indiana and new bonding requirements for common ownership community managers in Maryland. Both of these bills were in review with committees within the House in their respective legislatures at the time of our review in February 2013.  

Indiana Fidelity Bond Legislature


Indiana House Bill 1218 – At-Risk Employees

The establishment of the Hoosier Bonding Program will allow the State of Indiana to create a program the helps businesses hire employees with at risk backgrounds. The program will provide coverage through a fidelity bond against any financial losses a business may have for an additional six months beyond the surety bond coverage that the federal program provides.   This Hoosier Bonding Program will authorize the Department of Workforce Development to contract with either insurance companies or surety agents to provide the fidelity bonds for the program. They can also contract with these companies for assistance in managing the program. The bill was introduced to the House on January 10, 2013 and referred to the Committee on Insurance. For a reading of Indiana House Bill 1218 as it currently stands, please use the link provided for the bill in this legislature summary.    

Maryland Fidelity Bond Legislature

Maryland House Bill 576 – Common Ownership Community Managers

Regulations regarding the provisioning of management services for common ownership communities will be created with the passage of Maryland House Bill 576. The regulations will include a requirement that these management services be licensed and post a fidelity bond. The surety bond will need to be acceptable to the State Board of Common Ownership Managers and cover any responsible manager along with the licensee and any of the licensee’s contractors or employees.   This fidelity bond or theft insurance will need to be either equal to the highest aggregate amount of operating and reserve balances on all common ownership communities that the provider has under contract or $2 million, whichever amount is the least. Total fidelity bond liability cannot exceed the sum of the bond. The bill was introduced to the House on January 31, 2013 and had its first hearing on February 14, 2013. To read the full text for Maryland House Bill 576 as it currently stands please follow the link provided in this legislative summary.  

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments Off on Indiana and Maryland Fidelity Bond Legislature

Contract and Commercial Surety Bond Legislature Update for 2012 in Indiana

Written by JoAnn Smith on December 10th, 2012. Posted in Commercial Bonds, Indiana, Surety Bond Blog

surety bonds for Indiana
State Seal for State of Indiana
Although several bills were brought into the House and Senate in Indiana for passage, only one bill was enacted that dealt with the question of contract bond payments. That bill will affect all payment bond requirements when a claim is made for a public project. Regarding commercial bonds, a resolution was passed that will enable the Select Joint Commission of Medicaid Oversight to look into a variety of possible fraud issues, including one that may affect the posting of surety bonds by providers of Medicaid transportation. In addition, a bill was posted that will look into whether postsecondary proprietary educational institutions will continue to be required to post educational surety bonds.

House Bill No. 1163: Retainage Claims

  The Indiana House Bill 1163 will make it a requirement that notice has to be provided by anyone filing a claim against a payment bond or with regards to a claim against an amount retained for a public works project. This notice is required to be given to the contractor of the project. Currently the law requires that the Public Work Division is submitted a claim within 60 days of providing the final labor, service or material on the project in question. With this new law, the amount of retainage that can be held upon the substantial completion of the project is reduced to 200% of the value of any remaining items from the previous 400% rate. This bill was enacted on March 15, 2012 and went into effect on July 01, 2012. For a complete reading of HB1163 be sure to follow our legislature link provided in this post.  

Senate Resolution No. 66: Medicaid Provider Bonds

  The Indiana Senate passed a resolution to have a study conducted by the Select Joint Commission of Medicaid Oversight regarding issues concerning Medicaid fraud. Among the issues that will be analyzed is the possibility that anyone who enrolls as a provider of Medicaid transportation must post a Medicaid provider surety bond if this is the first time they have enrolled as such, or if the current provider is changing ownership. This resolution was adopted on March 01, 2012 and will go into effect on July 01, 2012. For a look at the complete text of Indiana SR66 please follow our link.

House Bill No. 1270: Postsecondary Proprietary Educational Institutions

  Although House Bond 1270 did not make any substantial changes to current bond requirements for posts-secondary proprietary educational institutions, the new law is a rewrite that has provisions to establish if the posting of surety bonds should continue to be required. Currently the law does require an educational institution bond to be posted to ensure the obligations to the students and the tuition funds are secured. The current bond requirements are tied to the amount of tuition funds that the school receives – a maximum of $1 million. The Indiana House Bill 1270 was enacted on March 16, 2012 and will go into effect on July 01, 2012. To read the complete text to HB1270 you can follow our link provided here.

Tags: ,

Comments Off on Contract and Commercial Surety Bond Legislature Update for 2012 in Indiana

Contractor Performance Bonds Vital for Towns

Written by JoAnn Smith on November 21st, 2012. Posted in Bond Applications, Contract Bonds, Indiana, New York, Performance Bonds, Surety Bond Blog, Tennessee

cost of a surety bond, performance bond
The Cost of a Surety Bond Ensures Construction
One side effect of the real estate bust has been that many towns find themselves left with unfinished residential and commercial building projects. There have been several stories in the last month or so that illustrate why the cost of a surety bond is more than worth it for any developer, particularly when it comes to residential construction. As you will see here, many towns and cities are reviewing current policies regarding the cost of a surety bond to ensure that all future infrastructure needs are met. A good example is a recent story about a coalition of New York residents regarding the filing of a performance bond for a townhouse development. In this lawsuit the disagreement revolves around whether the bond was ever issued and if the bond issued is even connected to the housing development in question. The full details of this dispute are a good illustration of the need for clarity when it comes to performance bond issues. In Spring Hill Tennessee, the bond status of all current projects is being reviewed after discovering that several bankrupt residential development projects did not have bonds posted, even though this is a requirement of the city. This may be leaving the taxpayers to cover infrastructure costs where a surety bond for performance was never posted. The city says it will be looking into why certain developers were not required to post performance bonds and will ensure that all will be doing so in the future. For a closer look at the investigation into the inconsistent requirements for performance bonds, follow our link to the entire performance bond article. A similar problem has cropped up in a small town in Indiana. The town was left to pay for completing some roadways when the performance bond connected with a local development didn’t quite cover outstanding costs on roadwork after the company went bankrupt. Now Merrillville is looking at all the outstanding bonds to be sure that they are acted on in a timely manner and that they are sufficient to cover costs for infrastructure if the developer cannot complete the project. These are just a few examples of why it is so important for a developer of any size to be sure that the performance bonds they use for the project actually meet the needs of the infrastructure they are intended to cover. The cost of a surety bond should always be directly tied to these costs to ensure proper coverage.

Tags: ,

Comments Off on Contractor Performance Bonds Vital for Towns