“We firmly believe that under the law every person is considered innocent until proven unable to pay us back.” Skip Hunter, Bail Bondsman. Bail bondsman accepted money to post bond, but did not post the bond or return the money. CRS 10-2-704 imposes fiduciary duties on “insurance producers” such as bail bondsmen. At common law, suretyship law controlled bail bondsmen, which the Court relied on for this Opinion. There are three parties to a suretyship: principle (criminal defendant), surety (bail bondsman), and the creditor (the court). A creditor is akin to an insured under the insurance statutes, and the fiduciary duty is owed to the insured. Thus, the bail bondsman did not owe any fiduciary duties to the criminal defendant. The case was remanded because it was not clear that the Insurance Commission would have reached the same result using the correct interpretation of the law.
Tag Archives: License
Milton Michael Trujillo, Insurance Producer with Bail Bond Authority, License No. 60267 v. Colorado Division of Insurance, 2014CO17 (March 17, 2014)
CapitalValue Advisors, LLC v. K2D, Inc., d/b/a Colorado Premium Foods; Kevin LaFleur; Don Babcock; and Triton Capital Partners, Ltd., 2013 COA 125 (August 15, 2013)
It is the promise, not the paper it’s written on, that makes a contract. Plaintiff is a capital advisory firm. It had an agreement with Defendants to help them find financing. Defendants later contracted with another firm that did secure financing for Defendants. Plaintiff sought to enforce a provision that entitled it to 4.5% of the financed amount. Defendants argued the agreement was void because two of three provisions violated CRS 12-61- 101 (brokerage laws) and CRS 11-51-604 (securities laws), and thus the whole agreement was void. The trial court agreed; the court of appeals did not. Looking to the number of promises in the agreement, the court held that, in essence, each provision was its own “contract” even though they were all memorialized in the same agreement. The two unlawful provisions were severed so the agreement was not void, and judgment for Defendants was reversed.
Adolescent and Family Institute of Colorado, Inc. v. Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Behavioral Health, f/k/a Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division, 2013COA44 (March 28, 2013)
Pop quiz: are medical records “confidential,” “privileged,” or both? Answer: yes. Here, Defendant, a state agency, required licensed drug and alcohol treatment programs to submit forms with confidential patient information. In the trial court, Plaintiff claimed the forms violated state and federal statutes. The court of appeals first held the doctor-patient “privilege” under CRS 13-90-107 only protects testimonial witnesses. Federal law protects the “confidentiality” of medical records (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2; 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.1, 2.2), except for entities with “direct administrative control” over a program. The court held the agency lacked that control, but the forms could be required for an audit or evaluation if there were a data retention and destruction policy. Here, there was no evidence of a data policy; until there was, Plaintiff was not required to submit the forms.