BC 2012 12 03 Recessed Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

December 3, 2012 (Recessed Meeting) Page 1323 and things that we have knowledge of. That way we would show a good faith effort on our part to disclose these items. And then whatever result should happen from there that would be the next step from there - to take action if there is anything resulting from our disclosing that information to Ohio Casualty, because certainly, we can disclose that proof of applying to Penn National. Apparently, because they have done a lot of public officials bonds, that information - they probably did some research and found that fact out. And I believe that probably was one of the factors - that even though nobody knows, but it's probably more likely - I mean that's the most obvious thing that could be a factor in their turning down, denying the bond application. Koch: Well, let me answer it this way: that information is in the public sector, it's a matter of public record. I - Tony may be able to talk more about this, I've never been an underwriter, I can't speak to what information any particular company would consider to be relevant on the issue of whether they want to write a surety bond. What we do know is that Penn National turned down this bond or the proposed bond application. We know that, we don't know what they looked at. I would say that it's probably a fair assumption that they did some sort of examination of the public records in some form or fashion. That would not be surprising to me, but I have no knowledge of what they did or did not do. It is a matter that I think one could reasonably believe might be of interest or relevant to a company. If you had a statement today from Liberty Mutual or from Western Surety either one, that they were aware of that information, had considered it in the their underwriting process, and then had decided to issue the bond - that would clearly be the end of the matter under the statute, in my opinion. And I think that then the bond would be completely regular in form, you would have discharged your obligations under the statute to have the company be aware of everything that any one member of this board was aware of and the likelihood that you could be held accountable personally - if there was some issue later with the bond - I think would be very much lessened, if not completely eliminated. You know it really does turn what on that statutory language says, but to the extent that this board has knowledge, that it reasonably believes - if you in fact do reasonably believe that - might affect the decision of a surety company, then it would be my opinion that that should be disclosed in order to discharge the obligation that you potentially have under that statute that I quoted (58- 72 -60). But that's a decision that the board has to make and that's - Carruth: (Inaudible) I don't know if we could get them on the phone if they would be willing to talk over the phone, if they would be willing we would be notifying them right now... (Inaudible). Koch: I don't know any - and if Tony can speak to this - but my experience has been just in different situations dealing with insurance companies - very rarely, if ever- are allowed to speak to an underwriter. They are kinda put in this little ivory tower, by themselves, I think you would know that. And they don't really speak to anyone. Now there are other people that are involved in the chain, you have agents - the county, for example, has an agency that we use to kind of deal with the insurance companies. And we don't really deal with them directly, we go through an agent, sort of like what Mr. Small and his situation with Mr. Cash. So you can talk to the agent - and the agent or perhaps some representative from the company, aside from an underwriter, can give you information. And it seemed to me that anytime a company is passing along an application that you submit, you have a right to know what the decision was and why. You're not going to get that from the underwriter because they don't - they don't talk to very many people. They certainly don't talk to applicants and they try to keep that process separate from the business part of the company. But certainly, agents or other representatives of the company can supply that sort of information. Poole: Any other comments or questions? I think my concern is what we've talking about - is the liability that we carry individually and the assurance that whoever the bonding company is is aware of - what - and I don't even know all the details behind it ... and honestly I didn't read what was in the paper. But I think that's where, that's the deciding factor. I would have been much happier to have had a statement from Penn National that would have put the matter to rest and we would have felt, we would have known that we were covered and that we were - and that there wasn't any, any reason why two weeks from now when the company has more time - possibly more time to do any research - that we know nothing is going to come back up. I also have concerns about the office being open and functioning as it should. So I don't know - I think your agent went out - I don' t know if he was going out for a reason that pertains to this issue. Small: We're working to see if we can get a quick fax, Madam Chairman. If that is what the board is asking for. Poole: That's only - I mean - plain and simple it's a matter of following the law that's written and making sure that that we have done a good effort, a reasonable effort, and maybe extra effort I guess to make sure that we're (inaudible)that it has been fully disclosed. I don't know if anybody else