Bankers Insurance Co. v. Conway.
2026 COA 60. No. 25CA0631. Insurance Regulation—Acts of Producers—Unfair Business Practices—Unfair Competition and Deceptive Practices.
July 23, 2026
Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers), an insurer as defined in CRS § 10-2-103(6.5), is licensed by the Colorado Division of Insurance (the division) and authorized to conduct business in Colorado. Bankers acts as the surety for bail bond transactions. These transactions are handled by bail bond companies, which are “producers” as defined in § 10-2-103(6)(a). Bankers hires producers as independent contractors and gives them powers of attorney to act on its behalf in accepting bail bond applications and posting those bonds with the court. In 2019, the division conducted a market conduct examination (MCE) of Bankers for the prior year. The division’s final report identified 15 producer errors (violations of law or regulation) that greatly exceeded the error tolerance thresholds and recommended fining Bankers $153,105 under § 10-3-131(1). Bankers requested a hearing before the Colorado Insurance Commissioner (the commissioner) in accordance with § 10-1-305(6)(c), challenging 12 producer errors. The commissioner issued a final agency order (the order) concluding that (1) because the error rates exceeded the thresholds set forth in the Market Regulation Handbook, Bankers should have known of them; (2) the phrase “unfair business practices” is not limited to the statutory definition but includes practices “reasonably implied”; and (3) the phrase “financially responsible” includes fines. The commissioner adopted the division’s final report with slight modifications. Bankers appealed the order to the district court, arguing there was no legal authority or record support to show that the producer errors were unfair business practices, that insufficient evidence showed Bankers knew or should have known of the producer errors, and that § 10-3-131 was limited to restitution and did authorize fines or penalties. The district court affirmed the order.
On appeal, Bankers argued that the district court erred by letting the commissioner hold it liable for its insurance producers’ unfair business practices, contending that the phrase “unfair business practices” in § 10-3-131 is limited to those practices defined in § 10-3-1104 and that insufficient evidence supports the order. The court of appeals concluded that the phrase “unfair business practices that violate this title [10],” as used in § 10-3-131(1), is not limited to the practices enumerated in § 10-3-1104. Further, substantial evidence supports the order’s conclusions that Bankers’ producers engaged in unfair business practices by failing to provide required notices to their customers, not properly using required fiduciary accounts, improperly charging fees, issuing inaccurate premium and collateral receipts, not providing examiners with the files or required forms for the bail bond transactions written for Bankers, issuing inaccurate disclosure statements, and failing to timely reconvey or document deed of trust transactions. And Bankers accepted business from producers who wrote bail bonds even though the producers were not properly appointed.
Bankers also contended that “financially responsible” in § 10-3-131(1) only authorizes the commissioner to assess restitution and not fines. The court construed the statute as a whole and concluded that “financially responsible” encompasses both restitution and fines. It thus concluded that the fines imposed by the commissioner were authorized under § 10-3-131(1).
Bankers further asserted that there is insufficient competent evidence to support the commissioner’s finding that Bankers’ producers committed unfair discrimination under § 10-3-1104(1)(f)(II). However, substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s finding that Bankers charged unfair discriminatory rates.
Lastly, Bankers maintained that certain paperwork errors do not violate any of the specific unfair business practices listed in § 10-3-1104 and that the commissioner erred in interpreting provisions of the statute to conclude otherwise. However, regardless of whether Bankers is successful in this argument, the same number of violations and penalties would apply, so this issue is moot.
The judgment was affirmed.