Bankers Insurance Co. v. Conway — upheld agency sanctions against a bail-bond insurer for its producers’ unfair practices

Case
Bankers Insurance Company v. Michael Conway, The Colorado Commissioner of Insurance, and The Colorado Division of Insurance
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Judge
Freyre (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
July 23, 2026
Docket No.
25CA0631
Topics
Insurance Regulation; Bail Bonds; Unfair Business Practices; Agency Liability
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Bankers Insurance Company underwrites bail bonds in Colorado through independent-contractor insurance producers authorized to accept applications and post bonds on its behalf. During a market conduct examination covering 2018, the Colorado Division of Insurance reviewed 1,336 bail-bond files containing 32,865 executed bonds, along with deeds of trust, company operations, forms, rates, complaints, and claims.

The examination found numerous producer violations, including failures involving privacy notices, fiduciary premium accounts, producer licensing and appointments, premium rates, transaction documents, collateral, and deeds of trust. The Insurance Commissioner concluded that the error rates exceeded the applicable examination thresholds, that Bankers should have known of the practices, and that Bankers could be held financially responsible under section 10-3-131(1). The Denver District Court affirmed the Commissioner’s order, and Bankers appealed.

The Court’s Holding

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Addressing an issue of first impression, it held that “unfair business practices” under section 10-3-131(1) is not limited to the practices expressly enumerated in section 10-3-1104. The statutory language, legislative history, and section 10-3-1107 permit the Commissioner to address practices reasonably implied to be unfair and violations elsewhere in title 10 or in the Commissioner’s lawful regulations.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s findings that the producers committed unfair business practices and that Bankers knew or should have known about them. It also held that “financially responsible” in section 10-3-131(1) encompasses fines as well as restitution. Finally, the court upheld the finding that Bankers’ producers engaged in unfair discrimination in applying bail-bond rates and rejected Bankers’ challenges concerning specified paperwork violations.

Key Takeaways

  • “Unfair business practices” under section 10-3-131(1) extends beyond the acts specifically listed in section 10-3-1104.
  • An insurer may be held responsible when widespread producer violations support a finding that it knew or should have known of those practices.
  • The statute’s phrase “financially responsible” authorizes fines and is not confined to consumer restitution.

Why It Matters

The decision gives Colorado insurance regulators broad authority to hold insurers accountable for producers’ conduct that violates title 10 or applicable regulations, even when the conduct is not expressly listed among the statutory unfair or deceptive practices. Insurers using independent producers should therefore monitor licensing, rates, fiduciary accounts, required disclosures, collateral handling, and transaction records rather than relying on the producers’ independent-contractor status.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top