(a) Treasury may initiate a revocation proceeding against a Treasury-certified company in one of two ways:
(1) Treasury, of its own accord, under § 223.19, may initiate revocation proceedings against the company when it has reason to believe that the company is not complying with 31 U.S.C. 9304-9308 and/or the regulations under this part; or
(2) Treasury, under § 223.20, may initiate revocation proceedings against the company upon receipt of a complaint from an agency that the company has not paid or satisfied one or more administratively final bond obligations due the agency.
(b) A revocation of a company's certificate of authority under § 223.19 or § 223.20 precludes the company from underwriting or reinsuring additional bonds for any agency, and therefore revokes the company's opportunity to have its bonds presented to any agency bond-approving official for acceptance.
[79 FR 62001, Oct. 16, 2014, as amended at 89 FR 48837, June 10, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
US for Benefit of Ehmcke Sheet Metal v. Wausau, 755 F. Supp. 906 (E.D. Cal. 1991).
· cites it 2× “31 C.F.R. § 223.18 . United States Treasury Department regulations require surety companies to be certified, to promptly resolve claims, to be licensed in the State where the bond is executed, and to be subject to Treasury Department review if unfavorable reports are received.”
Alvarez v. Ins. Co. of North Am., 667 F. Supp. 689 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Foremost among those is 31 CFR § 223.18 (a), which requires sureties to promptly honor their bonds, and which provides a procedure by which the Secretary of the Treasury will review reports of delinquent sureties, and, if warranted, revoke a surety’s certificate of authority.”
Tacon Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 860 F. Supp. 385 (S.D. Tex. 1994).
“31 C.F.R. § 223.18 . These regulations are strong evidence that Congress intended the performance of a surety to be assessed administratively rather than by the application by a federal court of the great variety of state-law causes of actions that expand the scope of the…”
United States v. Wausau Ins. Companies, 755 F. Supp. 906 (E.D. Cal. 1991).
· cites it 2× “31 C.F.R. § 223.18 . United States Treasury Department regulations require surety companies to be certified, to promptly resolve claims, to be licensed in the State where the bond is executed, and to be subject to Treasury Department review if unfavorable reports are received.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.