Hubbry Logo
SuretySuretyMain
Open search
Surety
Community hub
Surety
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Surety
Surety
Surety
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In finance, a surety /ˈʃʊərɪti/, surety bond, or guaranty involves a promise by one party to assume responsibility for the debt obligation of a borrower if that borrower defaults. Usually, a surety bond or surety is a promise by a person or company (a surety or guarantor) to pay one party (the obligee) a certain amount if a second party (the principal) fails to meet some obligation, such as fulfilling the terms of a contract. The surety bond protects the obligee against losses resulting from the principal's failure to meet the obligation.

Overview

[edit]

A surety bond is defined as a contract among at least three parties:[1]

  • the obligee: the party who is the recipient of an obligation
  • the principal: the primary party who will perform the contractual obligation
  • the surety: who assures the obligee that the principal can perform the task

European surety bonds can be issued by banks and surety companies. If issued by banks they are called "Bank Guaranties" in English and Cautions in French, if issued by a surety company they are called surety / bonds. They pay out cash to the limit of guaranty in the event of the default of the Principal to uphold his obligations to the Obligee, without reference by the Obligee to the Principal and against the Obligee's sole verified statement of claim to the bank.[citation needed]

Through a surety bond, the surety agrees to uphold—for the benefit of the obligee—the contractual promises (obligations) made by the principal if the principal fails to uphold its promises to the obligee. The contract is formed so as to induce the obligee to contract with the principal, i.e., to demonstrate the credibility of the principal and guarantee performance and completion per the terms of the agreement.[citation needed]

The principal will pay a premium (usually annually) in exchange for the bonding company's financial strength to extend surety credit. In the event of a claim, the surety will investigate it. If it turns out to be a valid claim, the surety will pay and then turn to the principal for reimbursement of the amount paid on the claim and any legal fees incurred. In some cases, the principal has a cause of action against another party for the principal's loss, and the surety will have a right of subrogation to "step into the shoes of" the principal and recover damages to make up for the payment to the principal.[2]

If the principal defaults and the surety turns out to be insolvent, the purpose of the bond is rendered nugatory. Thus, the surety on a bond is usually an insurance company whose solvency is verified by private audit, governmental regulation, or both.[citation needed]

A key term in nearly every surety bond is the penal sum. This is a specified amount of money which is the maximum amount that the surety will be required to pay in the event of the principal's default. This allows the surety to assess the risk involved in giving the bond; the premium charged is determined accordingly.[citation needed]

Surety bonds also occur in other situations, for example, to secure the proper performance of fiduciary duties by persons in positions of private or public trust.[citation needed]

History

[edit]

Individual surety bonds represent the original form of suretyship. The earliest known record of a contract of suretyship is a Mesopotamian tablet written around 2750 BC. Evidence of individual surety bonds exists in the Code of Hammurabi and in Babylon, Persia, Assyria, Rome, Carthage, among the ancient Hebrews, and (later) in England.[citation needed] The Code of Hammurabi, written around 1790 BC, provides the earliest surviving known mention of suretyship in a written legal code.[citation needed]

Suretyship was not always accomplished through the execution of a bond. Frankpledge, for example, was a system of joint suretyship prevalent in medieval England which did not rely upon the execution of bonds.[3]

The first corporate surety, the Guarantee Society of London (whose insurance business ultimately merged into Aviva), dates from 1840.[4][5]

In 1865, the Fidelity Insurance Company became the first US corporate surety company, but the venture soon failed.[citation needed]

In 1894 the US Congress passed the Heard Act, which required surety bonds on all federally funded projects.[citation needed] The US Supreme Court held in 1896, in Prairie State Bank v. United States, that an equitable claim by a surety to percentages of payment retained by the US government had priority over the claim of an assignee/lender.[6]

In 1908 the Surety Association of America, now the Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), was formed to regulate the industry, promote public understanding of and confidence in the surety industry, and to provide a forum for the discussion of problems of common interest to its members.[7] SFAA is a licensed rating or advisory organization in all states and is designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. The SFAA is a trade association consisting of companies that collectively write the majority of surety and fidelity bonds in the United States. Then in 1935 the Miller Act was passed, replacing the Heard Act. The Miller Act is the current federal law mandating the use of surety bonds on federally funded projects.[citation needed]

Reason for having a guarantor

[edit]

A surety most typically requires a guarantor when the ability of the primary obligor, or principal, to perform its obligations to the obligee (counterparty) under a contract is in question or when there is some public or private interest that requires protection from the consequences of the principal's default or delinquency. In most common law jurisdictions, a contract of suretyship is subject to the Statute of Frauds (or its equivalent local laws) and is unenforceable unless it is recorded in writing and signed by the surety and by the principal.

United States industry

[edit]

The SFAA published preliminary US and Canadian H1 surety results for the 2022 calendar year.[8] Direct written premium totaled $8.6 billion and a direct loss ratio of 14.5%, highlighting strong profitability in the surety industry. The industry remains highly fragmented with over 100 companies directly writing surety bonds with new market entrants entering or reentering on a fairly common basis.

As of 2009 annual US surety bond premiums amounted to approximately $3.5 billion.[9] State insurance commissioners are responsible for regulating corporate surety activities within their jurisdictions.[citation needed] The commissioners also license and regulate brokers or agents who sell the bonds.[citation needed] These are known as producers; the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) is a trade association which represents this group.[citation needed]

In 2008, the New York Times wrote "posting bail for people accused of crimes in exchange for a fee, is all but unknown in the rest of the world".[10]

Miller Act

[edit]

The Miller Act may require a surety bond for contractors on certain federal construction projects; in addition, many states have adopted their own "Little Miller Acts".[11] The surety transaction will typically involve a producer; the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) is a trade association that represents such producers.

Right of subrogation

[edit]

If the surety is required to pay or perform due to the principal's failure to do so, the law will usually give the surety a right of subrogation, allowing the surety to "step into the shoes of" the principal and use the surety's contractual rights to recover the cost of making payment or performing on the principal's behalf, even in the absence of an express agreement to that effect between the surety and the principal.

Distinction between a suretyship arrangement and a guaranty

[edit]

Traditionally, a distinction was made between a suretyship arrangement and that of a guaranty. In both cases, the lender gained the ability to collect from another person in the event of a default by the principal. However, the surety's liability was joint and primary with the principal: the creditor could attempt to collect the debt from either party independently of the other. The guarantor's liability was ancillary and derivative: the creditor first had to attempt to collect the debt from the debtor before looking to the guarantor for payment. Many jurisdictions have abolished that distinction, in effect putting all guarantors in the position of the surety.[citation needed]

Contract surety bonds

[edit]

Contract bonds, used heavily in the construction industry[12] by general contractors as a part of construction law, are a guaranty from a surety to a project's owner (obligee) that a general contractor (principal) will adhere to the provisions of a contract.[13] The Associated General Contractors of America, a United States trade association, provides some information for their members on these bonds. Contract bonds are not the same thing as contractor's license bonds, which may be required as part of a license.[citation needed]

Included in this category are bid bonds (guaranty that a contractor will enter into a contract if awarded the bid); performance bonds (guaranty that a contractor will perform the work as specified by the contract); payment bonds (guaranty that a contractor will pay for services, particularly subcontractors and materials and particularly for federal projects where a mechanic's lien is not available[14]); and maintenance bonds (guaranty that a contractor will provide facility repair and upkeep for a specified period of time[15]). There are also miscellaneous contract bonds that do not fall within the categories above, the most common of which are subdivision and supply bonds.[16] Bonds are typically required for federal government projects by the Miller Act and state projects under "little Miller Acts".[17] In federal government, the contract language is determined by the government. In private contracts the parties may freely contract the language and requirements. Standard form contracts provided by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) make bonding optional.[17] If the parties agree to require bonding, additional forms such as the performance bond contract AIA Document 311 provide common terms.[17]

Losses arise when contractors do not complete their contracts, which often arises when the contractor goes out of business. Contractors often go out of business; for example, a study by BizMiner found that of 853,372 contracts in the United States in 2002, 28.5% had exited business by 2004.[18] The average failure rate of contractors in the United States from 1989 to 2002 was 14% versus 12% for other industries.[19]

Prices are as a percentage of the penal sum (the maximum that the surety is liable for) ranging from around 1% to 5%, with the most credit-worthy contracts paying the least.[20] The bond typically includes an indemnity agreement whereby the principal contractor or others agree to indemnify the surety if there is a loss.[20] In the United States, the Small Business Administration may guaranty surety bonds; in 2013 the eligible contract tripled to $6.5 million.[21]

Commercial surety bonds

[edit]

Commercial bonds represent the broad range of bond types that do not fit the classification of contract. They are generally divided into four sub-types: license and permit, court, public official, and miscellaneous.

License and permit bonds

[edit]

License and permit bonds are required by certain federal, state, or municipal governments as prerequisites to receiving a license or permit to engage in certain business activities. These bonds function as a guaranty from a Surety to a government and its constituents (obligee) that a company (principal) will comply with an underlying statute, state law, municipal ordinance, or regulation.[citation needed]

Specific examples include:

  • Contractor's license bonds, which assure that a contractor (such as a plumber, electrician, or general contractor) complies with laws relating to his field. In the United States, bonding requirements may be at federal, state, or local level.[22]
  • Customs bonds, including importer entry bonds, which assure compliance with all relevant laws, as well as payment of import duties and taxes.[citation needed]
  • Tax bonds, which assure that a business owner will comply with laws relating to the remittance of sales or other taxes.[citation needed]
  • Reclamation and environmental protection bonds
  • Broker's bonds, including insurance, mortgage, and title agency bonds
  • ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) bonds
  • Motor vehicle dealer bonds
  • Freight broker bonds
  • Money transmitter bonds
  • Health spa bonds, which assure that a health spa will comply with local laws relating to their field, as well as refund dues for any prepaid services in the event the spa closes.

Court bonds

[edit]

Court bonds are those bonds prescribed by statute and relate to the courts. They are further broken down into judicial bonds and fiduciary bonds. Judicial bonds arise out of litigation and are posted by parties seeking court remedies or defending against legal actions seeking court remedies. Fiduciary, or probate, bonds are filed in probate courts and courts that exercise equitable jurisdiction; they guaranty that persons whom such courts have entrusted with the care of others' property will perform their specified duties faithfully.[citation needed]

Examples of judicial bonds include appeal bonds,[23] supersedeas bonds, attachment bonds, replevin bonds, injunction bonds, mechanic's lien bonds, and bail bonds. Examples of fiduciary bonds include administrator, guardian, and trustee bonds.

Public official bonds

[edit]

Public official bonds guarantee the honesty and faithful performance of those people who are elected or appointed to positions of public trust. Examples of officials sometimes requiring bonds include: notaries public, treasurers, commissioners, judges, town clerks, law enforcement officers, and credit union volunteers.[citation needed]

Miscellaneous bonds

[edit]

Miscellaneous bonds[24] are those that do not fit well under the other commercial surety bond classifications. They often support private relationships and unique business needs. Examples of significant miscellaneous bonds include: lost securities bonds, hazardous waste removal bonds, credit enhancement financial guaranty bonds, self–insured workers compensation guaranty bonds, and wage and welfare/fringe benefit (trade union) bonds.[citation needed]

Business service bonds

[edit]

Business service bonds are surety bonds which seek to safeguard a bonded entity's clients from theft. These bonds are common for home health care, janitorial service, and other companies who routinely enter their homes or businesses. While these bonds are often confused with fidelity bonds, they are much different. A business service bond allows the bonded entity's client to claim on the surety bond when the client's property has been stolen by the bonded entity. However, the claim is only valid if the bonded entity's employee is convicted of the crime in a court of law. Additionally, if the surety company pays a claim on the bond, they would seek to be reimbursed by the bonded entity for all costs and expenses incurred as a result of the claim. This differs from a traditional fidelity bond where the insured (bonded entity) would be responsible for paying the deductible only in the case of covered claim up to the policy limit.[citation needed]

Penal bonds

[edit]

The penal bond is another type of the bond that was historically used to assure the performance of a contract. They are to be distinguished from surety bonds in that they did not require any party to act as surety—having an obligee and obligor sufficed. One historically significant type of penal bond, the penal bond with conditional defeasance, printed the bond (the obligation to pay) on the front of the document and the condition which would nullify that promise to pay (referred to as the indenture of defeasance—essentially, the contractual obligation) on the back of the document.[25] The penal bond, although an artifact of historical interest, fell out of use by the early part of the nineteenth century in the United States.[26]

Electronic surety bonds

[edit]

In certain situations, an electronic surety bond (ESB) can be used in lieu of a traditional paper surety bond. In 2016, the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) initiated a system for the issuance, tracking, and maintenance of ESBs in support of some licenses being managed through the NMLS. This new online system speeds bond issuance and decreases paperwork, among other potential benefits.[citation needed]

Timeline

[edit]

The NMLS ESB initiative began on January 25, 2016, when surety bond companies and providers were able to begin the account creation process. The second phase began on September 12, 2016, when an initial group of nine state regulatory agencies began accepting ESBs for certain license types. This initial rollout included agencies in Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

On January 23, 2017, another group of twelve state agencies were added to allow ESB capability for certain license types. This group included agencies in Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. Minor upgrades were also completed early in 2017. The types of licenses transitioning to ESBs and the implementation timelines vary by licensing agency. The NMLS plans to roll out additional state agencies and update the system with added functionality over time.[27]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Surety

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Surety denotes a contractual arrangement in which one party, known as the surety, pledges to fulfill the debt, duty, or obligation of a second party, the principal, toward a third party, the obligee, should the principal fail to do so. This three-party mechanism, distinct from insurance by its expectation of reimbursement from the principal and focus on performance guarantee rather than loss indemnification, underpins surety bonds widely employed to mitigate risk in commercial transactions. Surety practices trace their origins to ancient civilizations, with the earliest documented examples appearing in Babylonian financial guarantees around 670 B.C. and evolving through Roman law into modern frameworks formalized in the 19th century via corporate suretyship in the United States and Europe. In contemporary applications, surety bonds—categorized into contract bonds for project completion (e.g., in construction) and commercial bonds for regulatory compliance—are integral to government procurement, licensing, and court proceedings, ensuring accountability and protecting obligees such as public entities and private clients without the surety assuming primary risk.

Fundamentals

Definition and Three-Party Structure

A surety is a legal undertaking in which one party, known as the surety, promises to fulfill the obligation or liability of a second party, , toward a third party, the obligee, should fail to do so. This arrangement forms the basis of surety bonds, which are written instruments guaranteeing , , or compliance with contractual or statutory duties. Unlike a direct promise, the surety's liability is secondary and arises only upon the principal's default, emphasizing a risk-transfer mechanism rooted in the principal's creditworthiness rather than the surety's assumption of primary risk. The three-party structure distinguishes surety from bilateral agreements. The principal is the entity or individual primarily responsible for executing the underlying obligation, such as completing a project or paying debts; the surety evaluates the principal's capacity before issuing the bond, often requiring collateral or . The obligee is the requiring assurance of performance, typically a , project owner, or , who specifies bond terms to mitigate potential losses from non-performance. The surety, usually a licensed or , issues the bond as guarantor but seeks reimbursement from the principal upon any claim payout, creating a tripartite dynamic where the surety acts as a of trust rather than a primary insurer. This structure ensures that the obligee receives protection without direct recourse to the surety unless default occurs, while the principal maintains operational freedom under monitored risk. Surety bonds thus embody a conditional , with the surety's triggered by verifiable breach, as codified in various jurisdictions' contract laws. For instance, under U.S. federal acquisition regulations, bonds explicitly define these roles to secure government contracts.

Distinctions from Guaranty and Insurance

A surety arrangement fundamentally differs from a guaranty in the nature of the surety's liability. In a surety bond, the surety assumes primary and direct , coextensive with that of , allowing the obligee to pursue the surety immediately upon the principal's default without first exhausting remedies against the principal's assets. By contrast, a guaranty imposes secondary on the guarantor, who is only accountable after the creditor has pursued the principal debtor and failed to recover fully, often requiring proof of exhaustion of the principal's resources. This distinction arises because the surety binds itself to the same underlying as , enabling and joint suits against both parties, whereas the guarantor's promise forms a separate, collateral agreement. Suretyship also contrasts with guaranty in defenses and remedies. Sureties benefit from rights upon performance, stepping into the obligee's position to enforce from , but they lack the guarantor's defenses such as discharge by extension of time to , which more readily applies to secondary guarantors. In practice, this primary obligation encourages sureties to mitigate risks proactively, often through 's , unlike the more passive role of a guarantor awaiting default. Relative to insurance, surety bonds involve a three-party structure—principal, obligee, and surety—where the bond guarantees the principal's fulfillment of obligations to the obligee, with the surety providing credit enhancement rather than risk transfer to the principal. Insurance, however, operates as a two-party indemnity contract between the insured and insurer, designed to compensate the insured for losses from unforeseen events, with the insurer pooling risks across policyholders and anticipating claims as a core business model. Consequently, sureties expect zero net loss, as the principal contractually indemnifies the surety for any outlays, shifting ultimate risk back to the principal; insurers, by contrast, bear the loss permanently to protect the insured. Regulatory treatment underscores this divergence: surety bonds are typically classified outside insurance frameworks in many jurisdictions, exempt from insurance reserve requirements because they do not indemnify against loss but enforce performance, whereas insurance mandates actuarial loss provisioning. Claims processes further differentiate them; a surety pays the obligee upon verified default then pursues the principal for reimbursement, often denying claims if the principal performs adequately, while insurance payouts focus on validating the insured's loss without such recourse. This structure aligns surety with credit instruments, prioritizing prevention over compensation.

Economic and Risk-Management Rationale

Surety bonds enable efficient risk allocation by transferring performance risk from the obligee to a specialized , which employs rigorous to assess the principal's , experience, and capacity before issuing the bond. This prequalification process reduces between parties, as sureties leverage expertise in evaluating contractors that obligees may lack, thereby lowering the overall compared to unbonded arrangements. Economically, surety bonds preserve capital for principals, who pay only an annual premium—typically 0.5% to 3% of the bond amount for contract surety—rather than posting full cash deposits or letters of credit that tie up liquidity equivalent to the entire penal sum. This structure facilitates access to larger contracts, particularly for small businesses, by avoiding opportunity costs associated with immobilized funds, while obligees benefit from enhanced project viability without bearing direct monitoring burdens. The U.S. Small Business Administration's surety bond guarantee program, for instance, supports contracts up to $9 million for non-federal projects, enabling small firms to compete on equal footing with larger entities by providing federally backed assurances that encourage owner selection. From a risk-management perspective, empirical data indicates bonded projects outperform unbonded ones: defaults occur 2.5 to 10 times less frequently in bonded scenarios due to surety oversight, and upon default, completion costs are 85% lower because sureties deploy specialized resources and expertise to finish work efficiently, often resolving issues in half the time. Additionally, 75% of owners report that surety bonding leads to lower contractor bids, as the payment bond protections enhance confidence and reduce pricing premiums for uncertainty. This indemnity-backed model further curbs , as principals remain primarily liable to the surety, aligning incentives for diligent performance and minimizing systemic risks like project delays or overruns.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Ancient and Civil Law

The concept of suretyship originated in ancient Mesopotamian society, with the earliest known written contract dating to approximately 2750 BCE on a tablet describing a farmer's arrangement for another to guarantee care of his fields during military service. This primitive form involved a third party assuming responsibility for potential defaults, reflecting early risk allocation in agrarian economies. Subsequent evidence from Babylonian records, including a surviving financial guarantee contract from 670 BCE, demonstrates formalized suretyship for commercial and personal obligations. The Code of Hammurabi, enacted around 1750 BCE, further institutionalized suretyship by prescribing penalties for sureties who failed to fulfill guarantees, such as joint liability with the principal debtor in cases of non-performance. Biblical texts also reference suretyship, portraying it as a voluntary pledge of one's assets or to secure another's , often with warnings against excessive to the surety, as in Proverbs 11:15 and 22:26, which date to roughly the 10th-6th centuries BCE. These ancient Near Eastern practices emphasized personal accountability and communal trust, laying groundwork for later legal codifications without compensatory intent. In , suretyship evolved into a structured accessory known as fideiussio, which supplanted earlier verbal forms like sponsio (used in judicial contexts) and fidepromissio (for informal promises) by the classical period (circa 1st-3rd centuries CE). Fideiussio constituted a unilateral between the surety and , binding the surety to pay upon the principal debtor's default without requiring the debtor's involvement, and was gratuitous, rooted in social duties of rather than profit. Roman jurists under Emperor (r. 117-138 CE) refined principles like , allowing sureties recourse against principals after payment, which influenced equitable defenses. By 150 CE, imperial edicts codified surety laws, integrating them into for , , and public duties. These Roman doctrines, preserved in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis (533 CE), formed the basis of suretyship in continental civil law traditions, distinguishing it as an accessory to the principal obligation with subsidiary liability—requiring creditor exhaustion of remedies against the debtor first, unless waived. Modern civil codes, such as France's Napoleonic Code (1804) and Germany's BGB (1900), retained fideiussio's core elements, adapting them for commercial use while preserving creditor protections like no discharge without consent. This continuity underscores suretyship's role in facilitating credit by mitigating enforcement risks in pre-modern economies lacking robust state mechanisms.

Development in Common Law Jurisdictions

The concept of suretyship in originated in Anglo-Saxon , where it functioned primarily as a mechanism for enforcing criminal and social obligations through collective responsibility. Under laws attributed to King Alfred (r. 871–899), kinless individuals relied on gild brethren associations to cover fines for offenses like , reflecting a shift from familial clans to voluntary surety groups. This system mandated a "borh" or surety for every freeman to guarantee compliance with , as formalized in King Edgar's around 960, which imposed the principal's punishment on the surety if the offender fled. By the 12th century, following the and the emergence of royal , suretyship evolved into the system, organizing tithings of ten men mutually bound to present offenders and ensure good behavior, extending liability beyond individuals to communal groups. Common law courts initially treated sureties harshly, akin to hostages subject to physical restraint or seizure for the principal's debt, but by Edward III's reign (1327–1377), formal deeds became standard to bind the surety. Equity courts, developing concurrently, recognized the surety's right to and by the mid-15th century, as in Ford v. Stobridge, laying groundwork for and contribution among co-sureties. The marked a pivotal shift toward contractual recognition in , with courts permitting actions of against principals during Henry VIII's reign (1509–1547), allowing enforcement of oral guaranties where benefit was conferred or deceit implied, thus accommodating informal suretyships in commercial contexts. Sureties gained favored status, entitled to discharge upon material alterations to the principal obligation without consent, as affirmed in Pigot's Case (1614), reflecting judicial caution against overreaching creditors. The (29 Cha. 2 c. 3), enacted in 1677, imposed a writing requirement for suretyship promises to prevent perjured claims, rendering oral agreements unenforceable unless the surety's primary motive was personal economic benefit rather than mere accommodation. This English framework disseminated to other jurisdictions, including the American colonies, where colonial courts adopted precedents like actions while adapting to local needs, such as bonding for public contracts post-independence. Corporate suretyship emerged in around 1720, transitioning from individual to institutional providers and influencing modern bond markets in Britain, the , , and by the , though jurisdictions diverged in statutory overlays like the U.S. Heard Act of 1894 for federal projects.

Modern Statutory and Industry Milestones

The Heard Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress on August 13, 1894, represented the first federal statute mandating surety bonds for all federally funded projects exceeding $2,000 in value, aiming to mitigate risks from contractor defaults amid widespread corruption scandals in the late . This law authorized the use of corporate sureties, shifting from guarantors and spurring the growth of the commercial surety industry by providing a standardized mechanism for risk transfer on government contracts. The Miller Act of August 24, 1935, replaced the Heard Act and established enduring requirements for performance and payment bonds on federal construction, alteration, or repair contracts valued over $100,000 (later adjusted), ensuring the government receives faithful performance while protecting subcontractors and suppliers from nonpayment. In response, nearly all states and many localities adopted analogous "Little Miller Acts" by the mid-20th century, extending bond mandates to sub-federal public projects and creating a framework that now covers billions in annual construction volume. The Miller Act was recodified in 2002 under 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131–3134 without substantive changes to its core bonding provisions. On the industry side, the Surety Association of America—predecessor to the modern Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA)—was founded in 1908 to promote standardized bond forms, ethical practices, and legislative advocacy amid rapid sector expansion. The National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) emerged in 1942 as a trade group for bond producers, focusing on education, support, and policy influence to bolster market capacity during World War II-era demands. These organizations facilitated post-war milestones, including the surety industry's role in financing the U.S. under the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, where bonds guaranteed completion of over 40,000 miles of roads.

Surety Obligations and Liability

In a surety bond, the surety undertakes a contractual to the obligee to answer for the principal's , default, or failure to perform specified duties under an underlying agreement, typically by remedying the default or compensating the obligee up to the bond's penal sum. This arises from a three-party agreement distinct from , as the surety does not insure against loss but guarantees the principal's fulfillment based on an expectation of reimbursement from the principal via a separate agreement. The surety's role emphasizes risk transfer only after the principal's primary responsibility fails, reflecting a credit-based process that evaluates the principal's capacity rather than mere coverage. The surety's liability to the obligee is secondary and conditional, remaining dormant until the principal defaults on the underlying and the obligee satisfies bond-specific conditions , such as issuing a formal declaration of default, providing written to the surety, and terminating the principal's . Liability is , meaning it depends on the validity and enforceability of the principal's to the obligee; defenses like mutual mistake, in the inducement, or complete by the principal that discharge the principal also exonerate the surety. Absent such conditions, courts enforce the surety's liability strictly according to the bond's terms, without implying duties like defense of the principal or proactive intervention prior to default, to avoid interfering with the principal-obligee relationship. Upon triggering liability, the surety's remedies include financing completion by , arranging a replacement performer, assuming and completing the itself, or paying monetary not exceeding the penal sum, with the chosen option often negotiated via a takeover agreement to minimize overall loss. The penal sum caps exposure, serving as rather than a strict penalty, and multiple claims in a single project typically aggregate only up to this limit unless the bond specifies cumulative coverage per year or event. In performance bonds, for instance, the surety must act reasonably to mitigate claims, but liability does not extend to beyond direct losses from nonperformance. This framework incentivizes principals to perform, as sureties pursue full indemnification—including investigation costs, legal fees, and completion expenses—from post-payout, often through collateral or personal guarantees.

Rights of Subrogation and Indemnity

In surety law, the right of arises when the surety fulfills its to the obligee, allowing the surety to assume the obligee's position and enforce any corresponding rights against the principal or third parties to recover its outlays. This equitable doctrine, rooted in principles to prevent , enables the surety to pursue remedies such as claims, liens, or setoffs that the obligee held prior to . For instance, in construction surety bonds, subrogation permits the surety to step into the obligee's (e.g., project owner's) shoes to claim against the principal contractor or subcontractors for or defaults after bond completion. The surety's subrogation rights extend only to the extent necessary for reimbursement and do not arise until actual or by the surety. Subrogation rights can be equitable, deriving from the surety's performance without specific contractual language, or contractual via bond provisions or assignments, often prioritizing the surety over other creditors like secured lenders under doctrines like Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance Co. (1962), where the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a surety's superior claim to funds. However, these rights may conflict with statutory priorities, such as under the , where a bank's perfected can supersede equitable subrogation absent explicit superiority. Subrogation also encompasses the principal's own rights against third parties, broadening recovery avenues beyond the obligee's claims. Distinct from subrogation, the right of indemnity stems from the general indemnity agreement (GIA) executed between the principal, often with indemnitors (e.g., officers or spouses), and the surety as a condition for issuing the bond. This contractual mechanism requires the principal to reimburse the surety for all losses, including claims paid, investigation costs, attorney fees, and consultant expenses, regardless of the principal's liability or fault. Indemnity agreements are typically broad and unconditional, enforceable upon the surety's mere liability or outlay, and courts uphold them strictly, viewing the surety's risk assumption as predicated on the principal's promise to hold the surety harmless. For example, GIAs often include provisions for collateral security and the surety's unilateral settlement authority, shielding it from principal challenges to good-faith payments. Together, and form complementary recovery tools: provides direct recourse against , while targets external assets or claims, minimizing the surety's net loss and incentivizing prudent by aligning economic incentives with performance. Enforcement of these rights occurs through litigation or settlement, with sureties frequently securing judgments via confessions or vouchers in clauses, though defenses like in bond procurement can limit application if proven. In practice, these principles underpin the surety's ability to mitigate , as bears ultimate financial responsibility.

Defenses, Exoneration, and Termination

Sureties possess several defenses against claims on a bond, which can limit or eliminate liability. These include defenses available to the principal, such as the obligee's failure to properly declare a default or withhold payments without cause, as the surety's obligation is conditioned on the principal's breach. Surety-specific defenses encompass material alterations to the underlying contract without the surety's consent, which discharges the surety from further liability under common principles of suretyship; overpayment by the obligee to the principal, reducing the surety's exposure; and "cardinal changes" that fundamentally alter the contract's scope, rendering it a new obligation beyond the bond's coverage. Fraud or material misrepresentation in inducing the bond, whether by the principal or obligee, also provides a defense of exoneration, as the surety's agreement relies on accurate representations of risk. Exoneration occurs when the surety is discharged from , typically upon fulfillment of the bond's condition, such as the principal's completion of performance or satisfaction of claims against the bond. In and judicial bonds, exoneration follows the 's appearance in or satisfaction of forfeiture judgments, relieving the surety of ongoing obligations. The surety also holds a right to seek judicial exoneration by compelling the principal to fulfill the obligation before the surety incurs loss, preserving the secondary nature of suretyship. Compensated sureties may be exonerated by events like surrender or , distinct from uncompensated sureties who face stricter discharge rules. Termination of a surety bond's generally follows fulfillment of the principal's , expiration of the bond's stated term, or proper cancellation. Sureties may terminate coverage by providing written , often requiring 30 to 120 days' advance notice to the principal and obligee, after which liability ceases for future events, though prior claims remain enforceable. In regulatory contexts, such as federal bonds under 27 CFR, termination applies only to liabilities arising after the effective date, with replacement bonds or cessation also effecting discharge. No unconditional release occurs post-termination without obligee , ensuring for unresolved risks.

Categories of Surety Bonds

Contract Surety Bonds

Contract surety bonds constitute a category of surety instruments primarily employed to guarantee the fulfillment of contractual obligations, particularly in and related s. These bonds involve a tripartite agreement among (typically a contractor), the obligee (such as a project owner or government entity), and the surety (an insurer or financial guarantor). Unlike traditional , which indemnifies against losses, surety bonds provide a guarantee: the surety undertakes to complete the or compensate the obligee if the principal defaults, with recourse against the principal for . This mechanism shifts from the obligee to the surety while incentivizing the principal's compliance through financial . The most prevalent subtypes include , , and , each addressing distinct phases of execution. A secures the process by ensuring that the lowest qualified bidder enters into the and provides required bonds upon ; failure to do so exposes the bidder to liability up to the bid amount, protecting the obligee from rebidding costs. bonds guarantee that the principal will execute the in accordance with specifications, including , timeline, and scope; upon default, the surety may arrange completion, often via or subcontracting. bonds ensure to subcontractors, laborers, suppliers, and other claimants, mitigating mechanic's lien risks and preserving cash flow. Additional variants, such as bonds (covering post-completion defects for a period) and supply bonds (ensuring delivery of ), extend coverage to ancillary obligations. In the United States, contract surety bonds are underpinned by statutory mandates, notably the Miller Act of 1935, which requires prime contractors on federal projects exceeding $150,000 to furnish and bonds, each at 100% of the contract price, to safeguard public funds against default. Analogous "Little Miller Acts" in over 40 states impose similar requirements for state and local , fostering uniform risk mitigation. emphasizes the principal's financial capacity, operational history, and management integrity—evaluating the "three Cs" of character, capacity, and capital—rather than mere collateral, with premiums typically ranging from 0.5% to 3% of the bond amount based on risk assessment. The contract segment dominates the U.S. surety market, valued at approximately $20 billion in premiums for 2024, with the guaranteeing over $9.2 billion in bonds that year to enable small contractors' participation. These bonds enhance economic efficiency by enabling obligees to avoid advance payments or retainage as , while rights allow sureties to pursue recovery from defaulting principals, including assets and agreements. Defaults, though rare at under 1% annually, trigger surety intervention, underscoring the bonds' role in stabilizing project delivery amid variables like labor shortages or cost escalations.

Commercial and Fidelity Bonds

Commercial surety bonds guarantee the performance of miscellaneous obligations outside of contracts, primarily ensuring compliance with regulatory, licensing, or statutory requirements imposed by entities or private parties. These bonds protect obligees—such as state licensing boards or consumers—from financial losses if (the bonded or ) fails to adhere to specified laws, rules, or terms unrelated to execution. Unlike surety bonds focused on completion, commercial bonds address ongoing operational risks, with premiums typically based on the bond amount, principal's financial strength, and industry-specific hazards. Key subtypes of commercial surety bonds include license and permit bonds, which are mandated for professions requiring government approval, such as auto dealers (ensuring compliance with sales regulations), liquor licensees (guaranteeing tax payments and lawful operations), and insurance agents (verifying ethical practices). Miscellaneous commercial bonds cover niche obligations, like utility deposit bonds (securing payment for services to prevent public fund losses) or bonds (ensuring importers pay duties). bonds, sometimes classified under commercial, protect beneficiaries from mismanagement by trustees, executors, or administrators handling estates or trusts. These bonds are ubiquitous in the U.S., with over 30,000 active forms tracked by industry associations, reflecting their role in public risk mitigation without resembling traditional indemnity. Fidelity bonds, distinct from standard commercial surety despite occasional grouping, provide protection to employers against direct financial losses from employee dishonesty, such as , , or . Structured as a two-party agreement between (employer) and surety, they differ from three-party surety bonds by insuring rather than an external obligee, functioning more akin to crime insurance while maintaining surety's performance guarantee elements. Coverage activates upon proven employee misconduct, with the surety investigating claims and seeking from the dishonest party. Primary types of fidelity bonds encompass blanket bonds, which cover all employees up to a specified limit without naming individuals; scheduled bonds, naming specific positions or employees with tailored limits; and third-party or services bonds, extending protection to clients for on-site employee acts (e.g., janitorial services guarding against during access). ERISA fidelity bonds, required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for pension plan fiduciaries, mandate at least 10% coverage of plan assets (capped at $500,000 minimum for most plans) to safeguard against misuse of retirement funds. These bonds are prevalent in financial sectors, with sureties emphasizing pre-bond of employer controls to minimize .

Judicial, Public Official, and Penal Bonds

Judicial bonds, also termed bonds, are surety instruments mandated by in civil litigation to indemnify parties against financial risks from judicial actions. These bonds secure obligations such as court costs, potential , or compliance with orders, activating if the principal fails to fulfill them post-ruling. Principal examples include supersedeas bonds, which halt enforcement during appeals by guaranteeing if affirmed; attachment bonds, protecting defendants from wrongful pre-judgment ; and receiver bonds, ensuring fiduciaries manage assets without loss. Courts set penal sums based on disputed amounts, often 125% of value, with sureties assessing principals' for issuance. Public official bonds obligate sureties to compensate government entities or the public for losses from elected or appointed officials' failure to execute duties faithfully, including mishandling funds or neglecting statutory responsibilities. Statutes in most U.S. states require these for positions like sheriffs, treasurers, clerks, and notaries, with penal sums varying by jurisdiction and role—e.g., up to $100,000 for county treasurers in some areas. The bonds deter malfeasance by enabling recovery without proving negligence intent, though claims demand evidence of breach. Sureties underwrite based on officials' character and finances, often at low premiums due to public trust in the role. Penal bonds impose a fixed penalty sum on the surety upon the principal's default, rather than liability for actual damages, serving as liquidated damages in formal agreements like government contracts or court orders. This structure, rooted in common law, simplifies enforcement by predetermining maximum exposure, with the penal sum—e.g., 100% of contract value—capping payouts. In penal contexts, such as criminal proceedings, they manifest as bail bonds, where the surety forfeits the sum if the defendant absconds, ensuring court appearance while mitigating jail overcrowding. Premiums for bail penal bonds typically range 10-15% of the sum, reflecting higher risk from flight potential. These bonds differ from judicial civil variants by addressing penal code violations directly, with forfeiture triggering immediate obligee claims.

Surety Industry Dynamics

United States Market Structure

The surety market operates as a specialized segment within the broader property and industry, where bonds are underwritten by licensed insurers to the obligations of principals—typically contractors or businesses—to obligees such as governments or private entities. Unlike traditional , surety underwriting emphasizes the principal's financial strength, experience, and character over actuarial risk pooling, with the surety expecting full from the principal in the event of a claim. This structure minimizes , as bonds are conditional guarantees rather than probabilistic coverage, leading to lower loss ratios historically around 10-15% compared to other insurance lines. Market size reached $19.62 billion in written premiums for 2024, reflecting a 6.8% year-over-year increase driven by infrastructure spending under the and rising private demands, with projections estimating growth to $20.92 billion in 2025 at a of 6.6%. The sector remains stable entering 2025, with premium rate adjustments ranging from flat to +5%, influenced by steady capacity from reinsurers amid economic uncertainties like elevated interest rates and pressures, though public outpaced private growth for the second consecutive year. Primary regulation occurs at the state level through insurance departments, which enforce capitalization requirements, financial reporting, and licensing for surety writers, ensuring via standards like those under the (NAIC) risk-based capital frameworks. Federally, the U.S. Department of the Treasury certifies sureties eligible to bond federal projects under 31 U.S.C. §§ 9304-9308 and 31 CFR Part 223, maintaining a list of approximately 30-40 authorized companies as of August 2025, with recent amendments expanding options and financial scrutiny to enhance program robustness. For , the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, established under 13 CFR Part 115, provides up to 90% loss guarantees on bid, performance, and payment bonds up to $10 million, facilitating access to contracts otherwise barred by lack of private capacity. Key participants include major carriers such as , Zurich North America, Travelers, and CNA Surety, which collectively dominate contract surety for and commercial bonds, often leveraging from global providers like to support large-scale underwriting. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a group founded in 1946, represents over 425 member firms accounting for 98% of U.S. surety and volume, advocating for industry standards, legislative protections like the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134) mandating bonds on federal projects exceeding $150,000, and data-driven policy amid challenges like claims disputes. Market concentration is high among Treasury-certified entities, with the top 10-15 writers handling the bulk of capacity for high-value bonds, while niche players focus on commercial and lines.
Major U.S. Surety Underwriters (Examples from Treasury-Certified List, 2025)Focus Areas
Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyContract, commercial
Zurich American Insurance CompanyConstruction, global capacity
Travelers Casualty and Surety CompanyPerformance, fidelity
CNA Surety (Western Surety Company)Small business, SBA-eligible
Developers Surety and Indemnity CompanyPreferred SBA partner
Reinsurers and excess capacity providers are integral, backstopping primary sureties on mega-projects and enabling , though 2024 saw underwriting profits bolstered by disciplined prequalification, with 84% of firms meeting or exceeding budgets and loss-free performance in 76% of cases. This tripartite structure—principal, surety, obligee—fosters risk transfer efficiency, but relies on robust federal and state frameworks to mitigate defaults amid cyclical demands.

Global Practices and Variations

Surety practices differ significantly across jurisdictions, influenced by legal traditions, regulatory frameworks, and market maturity. In systems like the , surety bonds are predominantly issued by insurers as a form of financial guarantee backed by indemnity agreements, with bonds often covering up to 100% of contract values for performance and payment obligations, particularly in public under statutes such as the Miller Act. Globally, the surety market was valued at approximately USD 20 billion as of recent estimates, with and accounting for over 75% of the share, though penetration varies widely due to preferences for alternatives like bank guarantees in civil law countries. In , surety markets are narrower and more limited to statutory requirements, such as customs or tax bonds, with use often supplanted by guarantees or letters of that provide on-demand payment rather than conditional . Bond penalties typically range from 5-10% or 15-20% of values, reflecting a guarantee-like structure rather than full-value coverage, and markets are mixed between insurers and banks—for instance, in , surety premiums constitute 48% of the sector, split roughly 50:50 with banking institutions under regulations. Germany's surety segment represents about 1.7% of total premiums, emphasizing market-driven pricing without broad mandates for construction projects. These practices stem from civil law traditions where surety (cautionnement) is accessory to the principal obligation, limiting rights compared to U.S. models. Asia-Pacific exhibits rapid growth in surety adoption, particularly in infrastructure-heavy economies, but with regional variations favoring lower-penalty bonds or bank alternatives in civil law jurisdictions. and maintain sizable insurer-led markets similar to the U.S., while China's expanding sector integrates surety into public procurement alongside guarantees. In and other emerging markets, surety is increasingly used for performance bonds in large projects, driven by a projected USD 1.7 trillion annual need, though on-demand bank guarantees remain prevalent for their simplicity in . Regulatory frameworks, such as Mexico's Federal Act of Bonds blending insurance and surety elements, allow for up to 100% coverage in some cases, contrasting with broader Asian preferences for conditional bonds limited to partial recovery. Latin American markets, including (USD 603 million in premiums as of 2013 data), Brazil (USD 508 million), and (USD 473 million), feature hybrid systems where surety coexists with bank guarantees, often regulated by specific laws like Brazil's Federal Law 8.883 permitting full-value performance bonds with high growth rates (CAGR of 28% from 2003-2013). In these civil law environments, bonds are typically conditional and insurer-issued for statutory needs, but international projects may require localized to address jurisdictional risks, with recent infrastructure and booms increasing demand amid stable capacities. Overall, global variations highlight a shift toward insurer-provided surety in mature markets for its lower capital tie-up compared to bank guarantees, though civil law preferences for on-demand instruments persist to minimize litigation over principal defaults.

Major Underwriters and Capacity Providers

The U.S. surety market is dominated by a select group of insurers that the majority of bonds and provide extensive capacity for surety, particularly in and projects. These firms leverage strong balance sheets, support, and specialized teams to handle risks ranging from small commercial obligations to multi-billion-dollar programs. Leading underwriters include Travelers Indemnity Company, Insurance Group, and CNA Surety Group, which together wrote approximately 40-50% of total direct surety premiums in recent years. Travelers holds a top position, with direct premiums exceeding $867 million in one recent ranking and offering among the highest single-project and aggregate bonding capacities, often supporting limits over $1 billion for qualified principals through its program facilities. follows closely, reporting over $751 million in premiums in comparable data, with a focus on large-scale bonds backed by its global arrangements. CNA Surety Group, a consistent third, specializes in middle-market and specialty surety, contributing to market stability through disciplined that has kept industry loss ratios low, at around 24.5% for top writers as of late 2024. Other significant players include and Financial Services Group, which provide capacity in niche areas like fidelity and judicial bonds while participating in excess-of-loss to extend limits for mega-projects. These underwriters, many affiliated with the Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA)—whose over 425 members write 98% of U.S. surety bonds—rely on facultative and treaty from global providers to amplify capacity without diluting primary risk selection. This structure ensures availability for federal and state-backed obligations, as certified by the U.S. Treasury's list of approved sureties.
CompanyApproximate Direct Premiums Written (Recent Ranking, USD millions)Key Capacity Focus
Travelers Indemnity867+High-limit construction programs
751+Large contract and commercial
CNA Surety Group300-400 (estimated from top-3 share)Middle-market and specialty
Varies by segmentFidelity and international
Data derived from quarterly SFAA and AM Best rankings; exact figures fluctuate annually based on economic conditions and project pipelines. Capacity provision increasingly involves collaborative facilities among these firms to cover infrastructure initiatives under laws like the , maintaining market resilience amid rising demand.

Innovations and Recent Developments

Transition to Electronic Surety Bonds

The transition to electronic surety bonds commenced in 2016, marking a shift from traditional paper-based instruments to digital formats that enable instantaneous issuance and transmission via secure online platforms. This evolution was initially propelled by the National Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), which replaced its inaugural paper surety bond with an electronic surety bond (ESB) in September 2016 to streamline licensing processes for and industries. By February 2018, NMLS had enabled electronic transmission in 26 states and , facilitating faster application reviews and bond activations. Adoption in the United States progressed unevenly, with 43 states accepting electronic surety bonds by early 2022, leaving holdouts including , , , , , New York, and . Despite this, North American market penetration remained limited at under 2% as of 2024, contrasting sharply with rapid uptake in and , where large portions of the market embraced e-bonds within seven years of their inception. Early implementations often relied on scanned PDF versions of paper bonds as an interim step, particularly for federal contracts under regulations like the Miller Act, before full digital natives gained traction. Key benefits include expedited processing times—often under 24 hours—through digital portals, electronic signatures via tools like DocuSign, and automated credit checks, reducing administrative overhead and errors associated with manual handling. Electronic formats also lower costs by eliminating paper, storage, printing, and courier expenses, while enhancing security against fraud through authentication and instant claims verification. These advantages support broader efficiency in sectors like and licensing, where bonds underpin performance and compliance. Challenges persist due to the surety market's fragmentation, encompassing over 25,000 unique bond forms across jurisdictions, which hinders standardization and interoperability. Public owners and federal entities require explicit consent for electronic receipt under statutes like the (UETA), slowing adoption in where traditional wet signatures and powers of attorney remain entrenched. Variable state regulations and perceived risks of digital vulnerabilities further temper enthusiasm, though emerging solutions like open-source platforms aim to address these. Recent regulatory mandates signal accelerating momentum into 2025 and beyond, with states like requiring ESBs for certain licenses from September 1, 2025, and full conversion of existing bonds by January 31, 2026, alongside imposing similar rules for mortgage servicers effective January 1, 2026. NMLS continues to drive infrastructure and training, positioning electronic bonds as a standard for reducing default risks and operational delays in an increasingly digitized .

Technological Integrations and FinTech

The integration of (FinTech) into the surety bond industry has accelerated since 2023, driven by the need for faster , reduced manual processes, and enhanced amid a global market valued at $18.19 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $27 billion by 2030. Insurtech platforms have emerged to automate bond issuance, with companies like Bonds partnering with underwriters such as Skyward Specialty Insurance Group to provide white-labeled online portals that streamline applications for transactional surety bonds, enabling instant quoting and issuance without traditional paperwork. These tools leverage integrations to connect brokers, principals, and obligees, cutting processing times from days to minutes and expanding access for small businesses previously underserved by legacy systems. Artificial intelligence (AI) and (ML) are transforming surety by analyzing vast datasets for , including financial histories, project performance, and behavioral indicators, often outperforming manual reviews in predictive accuracy. For instance, AI algorithms detect anomalies in bond applications to flag potential , integrating with for immutable transaction logs that verify compliance and reduce disputes. Underwriters like Merchants Bonding Company have adopted AI-driven platforms such as Hub Express for automated evaluations, which incorporate real-time data feeds to assess principal creditworthiness and collateral, though human oversight remains essential to mitigate algorithmic biases in complex construction or commercial bonds. Blockchain technology enables smart contracts that automate bond fulfillment upon predefined conditions, such as project milestones, minimizing by enforcing penalties or releases without intermediaries. Pilots in the U.S. surety sector, including those explored by Scott Insurance in 2024, have tested non-fungible tokens (NFTs) for digital bond certificates, ensuring tamper-proof records and facilitating trading of surety obligations. This integration addresses longstanding inefficiencies in claims handling, where technology provides verifiable audit trails, though adoption lags due to regulatory hurdles and challenges across jurisdictions. In emerging markets like , platforms such as Surety Seven have issued over INR 3,600 crores in bonds via -enabled systems since 2023, demonstrating for high-volume commercial surety. Despite these advances, integrations face skepticism from traditional sureties wary of over-reliance on unproven models; for example, AI's detection efficacy depends on quality training data, which can inherit biases from historical patterns favoring larger principals. Industry reports emphasize hybrid approaches, combining tech with broker expertise to preserve the relational trust central to surety's three-party structure. By 2025, underwriters prioritizing scalable platforms like those from Tinubu are positioning for growth in infrastructure-driven demand, where real-time data analytics from IoT sensors on sites further refines bond pricing and monitoring. The U.S. surety market in 2025 remains stable amid ample capacity, with premium rate changes ranging from flat to an increase of 5%, influenced by persistent high interest rates, political uncertainty following the 2024 elections, and global economic volatility. Demand for surety bonds continues to rise, driven by federal infrastructure spending under the (IIJA), which has allocated over $1 trillion for projects through 2026, alongside construction and non-construction applications such as initiatives. However, reinsurers are elevating attachment points for larger risks, potentially tightening availability for mega-projects exceeding $500 million in bond capacity, as primary underwriters seek to manage exposure amid elevated loss ratios from prior years. Challenges from inflationary pressures, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions have led to heightened claims activity, with project delays and cost overruns accounting for a significant portion of defaults in 2024, trends expected to persist into 2025 unless rate cuts materialize beyond the anticipated 25-50 basis points. The market's growth trajectory projects a (CAGR) of approximately 5% globally, fueled by small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) expansion into bonded work and legislative mandates for public contracts, though a hardening segment emerges for higher-risk accounts due to unpriced volatility in trade policies, including proposed tariffs under the incoming administration. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria are increasingly integrated into , prioritizing sustainable projects while scrutinizing carbon-intensive developments for higher reserves. Technological integrations, including AI-driven and for bond issuance, are mitigating some operational frictions, enabling faster approvals and reducing in a market projected to exceed $23 billion in U.S. premiums by year-end. Yet, executives anticipate tougher for principals with thin , as and commercial bonds face scrutiny from rising cyber threats and subcontractor insolvencies, with renewals in Q1 2025 likely to impose stricter terms absent improved loss experience. Overall, while capacity providers like Travelers and CNA maintain robust lines, the sector's resilience hinges on navigating fiscal deficits and geopolitical tensions without eroding the three-party structure's core principles.

Challenges and Criticisms

Claims Handling and Denial Disputes

In surety bonds, claims handling begins when an obligee notifies the surety of an alleged default by , typically providing such as contracts, notices of default, and of non-performance or non-payment. The surety then conducts a thorough investigation, which may include requesting additional records from and obligee, site inspections, interviews with involved parties, and to assess validity under the bond's specific terms. Unlike traditional claims, where payment is often presumptive, sureties emphasize resolution by first, potentially financing completion or negotiating cures before intervening, as the bond functions as a rather than . Denials occur when the surety determines no exists, such as to meet bond preconditions (e.g., proper of default), ongoing good-faith disputes between obligee and principal, or claims exceeding the bond's scope, like unproven damages or disputes over contract interpretation. Upon denial, the surety issues a formal letter outlining reasons, triggering potential obligee recourse. This process mitigates by requiring evidentiary substantiation, but it can extend timelines, with investigations often lasting weeks to months depending on complexity. Disputes over denials frequently escalate to , , or litigation, where obligees challenge the surety's assessment in , alleging breach of the bond or bad faith handling. U.S. federal filings for surety bond disputes peaked around 2012 but declined steadily, reaching 409 cases in 2021, reflecting fewer claims amid improved or , though construction-related and bonds dominate. Courts enforce strict bond language, often upholding denials absent clear default, but award attorney fees to obligees in prevailing cases, as in a 2017 Oregon ruling granting nearly $15 million against defaulting contractors' sureties. Criticisms of claims handling center on perceived delays and conservative denials by sureties, with some obligees and contractors arguing that rigorous investigations prioritize cost avoidance over prompt resolution, potentially constituting if settlements are lowballed or suits compelled to extract higher recoveries. Industry sources counter that such scrutiny prevents frivolous claims and preserves the principal-surety indemnity relationship, where sureties seek post-payment; empirical data shows low claim frequencies (under 1% of bonds annually in surety), underscoring the system's efficacy in deterring defaults via pre-qualification. However, claimant advocates, including firms, highlight instances of aggressive defenses exploiting procedural technicalities, leading to payments in multi-claim scenarios when bond limits are insufficient. Regulatory variations, such as state-mandated good-faith duties, influence outcomes, but no comprehensive federal statistics track denial rates, with disputes often resolved pre-trial via settlement to avoid complications.

Moral Hazard and Principal Incentives

In the context of surety bonds, refers to the risk that —typically a contractor or obligated to perform under a —may engage in suboptimal behavior, such as underinvesting in performance, taking excessive project risks, or mismanaging resources, because the surety's guarantee shifts potential losses to the guarantor and obligee. This concern parallels agency problems in principal-agent relationships, where the principal's actions are not fully observable by the surety post-issuance. However, unlike traditional , where often leads to higher claims due to lack of obligations, surety structures incorporate mechanisms to realign the principal's incentives with loss avoidance. Central to mitigating is the general indemnity agreement (GAI), a standard requiring —and often spouses, subsidiaries, or related parties—to fully reimburse the surety for any payments, legal fees, or investigation costs arising from a claim. This creates a direct financial for to fulfill obligations, as default exposes personal and business assets to by the surety, which holds broad rights to collateral, books, and even project takeover. Courts consistently enforce GAIs, as seen in cases where sureties recover losses exceeding bond penalties through claims, underscoring 's "skin in the game." Empirical evidence from defaults shows that principals with strong indemnity exposure are less likely to shirk, as the threat of personal liability deters . Sureties further counter moral hazard through rigorous pre-bond , evaluating the principal's character, capacity, and capital—the three C's—to predict performance reliability. Character assessment, including criminal background checks, reference verification, and reputation analysis, identifies principals prone to dishonest or risky actions that could exacerbate . Capacity reviews work history and project scale to ensure the principal avoids overextension, while capital scrutiny demands showing to self-fund potential shortfalls. These evaluations, shared across the industry via databases like the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, impose reputational costs: a default typically bars future bonding, limiting the principal's and amplifying incentives for compliance. Despite these safeguards, critics argue that high surety guarantee percentages—such as government-backed programs covering 90-100% of bonds—can inadvertently foster among subcontractors or smaller principals, who may reduce diligence assuming full coverage. For instance, in projects, over-reliance on bonds without proportional principal equity has correlated with higher default rates in undercapitalized firms, as evidenced by analyses of U.S. federal failures where weak internal controls led to claims. Sureties address this via ongoing monitoring, such as site visits and financial audits, but persistent issues highlight that indemnity enforcement alone may not fully deter principals facing pressures. Overall, the surety model's emphasis on principal has proven effective, with industry loss ratios historically low—around 10-15% of premiums in commercial lines—compared to sectors plagued by .

Regulatory Burdens and Ethical Issues

The surety industry operates under a fragmented regulatory framework , with oversight divided between state insurance departments and federal authorities, creating substantial compliance burdens. Surety companies must secure in each state of operation, meeting state-specific requirements for financial , , and operational standards enforced by insurance commissioners. This state-by-state variability necessitates tailored applications, ongoing filings, and examinations, which escalate administrative costs and delay market entry, particularly for smaller or newer entrants. Regulatory predictability signals stability in this normative evolution environment, allowing insurers and brokers to adjust strategies in advance; it is essential for developing sophisticated products and expanding risk assumption capacity in large projects, reinforces market maturity, and stimulates long-term investments. Non-compliance risks or fines, compounding operational challenges amid differing margins and reporting protocols. Federal regulations add further layers for sureties engaging in government contracts. Under 31 CFR Part 223, the U.S. Department mandates minimum excess , approvals, and limitations tied to a company's statutory , with annual certifications required via 's Circular 570 list. The SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program imposes additional scrutiny, guaranteeing up to 90% of losses on bonds for small businesses but requiring rigorous principal evaluations and program-specific reporting, with contract limits at $9-14 million as of 2025. Recent SBA rulemaking in November 2024 seeks to modernize these by reducing documentation burdens, yet persistent constraints in high-risk jurisdictions continue to limit capacity. Ethical concerns in surety primarily stem from underwriting integrity and potential conflicts of interest. Underwriters must detect moral turpitude, such as dishonesty or fraud in principal financials, to avoid issuing bonds that enable misrepresentation, which can expose sureties to liability for indirect false claims submissions under laws like the False Claims Act. Joint legal representation of sureties and principals raises loyalty conflicts, as counsel cannot advocate against one client in related matters without consent, potentially compromising impartial risk assessment or claims defense. Indemnity agreements, while standard, can ethically pressure principals to withhold performance issues, fostering moral hazard if underwriters prioritize premium volume over rigorous collateral or capacity scrutiny. These issues underscore the need for transparent evaluations, as lapses in due diligence—such as overlooking unapproved change orders signaling profit erosion—can undermine the three-party guarantee's fidelity.

References

  1. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba-cms-dotorg/products/inv/book/411453539/chap1-5190564.pdf
  2. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/surety.asp
  3. https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/surety-bonds-explained
  4. https://kaseinsurance.com/news/surety-bond-vs-insurance/
  5. https://surety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Contract-Surety-Bonds.pdf
  6. https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/surety-bonds
  7. https://www.nasbp.org/about/about-surety/
  8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/surety_bond
  9. https://www.travelers.com/resources/business-topics/surety-bond/parties-in-surety-contract
  10. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-28
  11. https://www.njcourts.gov/glossary/surety-bond
  12. https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/difference-between-a-guaranty-and-a-surety/
  13. https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1486&context=tennesseelawreview
  14. https://bernsteinlaw.com/guaranty-or-surety/
  15. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2701&context=facpubs
  16. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5618&context=wvlr
  17. https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_BE/news/latest-news/bndg-what-is-the-difference-between-a-guaranty-and-a-surety.html
  18. https://commercialsurety.com/surety-bond-vs-insurance-policy-whats-the-difference/
  19. https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/learn-surety/insurance-versus-surety-bonds
  20. https://www.wcslaw.com/accolades/the-distinction-between-suretyship-and-insurance/
  21. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/four-key-differences-between-surety-bonds-insurance
  22. https://surety.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EY-SFAA-Report-on-economic-value-of-surety-bonding-ES-2022-FINAL-1.pdf
  23. https://www.nasbp.org/about/about-surety/benefits-of-surety/
  24. https://www.nnasuretybonds.com/resources/how-much-does-a-surety-bond-cost
  25. https://www.suretybonds.com/edu/history
  26. https://epbb.com/history-of-bonding/
  27. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=clr
  28. https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/168850
  29. https://academic.oup.com/book/36387/chapter/319982850
  30. https://www.tulanelawreview.org/pub/volume52/issue1/roman-law-bases-of-suretyship-in-some-modern-civil-codes
  31. https://www.mwl-law.com/helpful-resources/defending-subrogation/
  32. https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Suretyship_%28Ius_Commune%29
  33. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7652&context=penn_law_review
  34. https://www.lawble.co.uk/statute-of-frauds-1677/
  35. https://surety1.com/history-of-surety-bonds-for-public-works-projects-in-the-usa/
  36. https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/miller_brochure.pdf
  37. https://www.agc.org/miller-act
  38. https://www.nasbp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/NASBP_9_things_final.pdf
  39. https://www.nasbp.org/post/surety-industry-unites-on-capitol-hill-to-advocate-for-key-legislative-priorities/
  40. https://surety1.com/a-short-history-of-surety-bonds/
  41. https://surety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/AGC_Surety_Claims_Guide.pdf
  42. https://pressbooks.lib.vt.edu/constructioncontracting/chapter/surety-bonds/
  43. https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/comply-or-else-additional-obligees-must-comply-with-conditions-precedent-in-performance-bonds.html
  44. https://suretybondauthority.com/understanding-terms-conditions-surety-bond/
  45. https://www.consensusdocs.org/news/performance-bonds-avoiding-common-mistakes-and-unnecessary-risks/
  46. https://blog.tsibinc.com/what-is-a-suretys-right-to-subrogation
  47. https://subrogation.uslegal.com/subrogation-in-sureties-and-guarantees/
  48. https://learn.nasbp.org/products/equitable-subrogation-as-the-foundation-of-surety-law
  49. https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Squezzing-The-Turnip-Fidelity-and-Surety-Bond-Subro.pdf
  50. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/08/context-matters-in-surety-subrogation
  51. https://www.wcslaw.com/accolades/the-suretys-equitable-subrogation-rights-and-the-ucc/
  52. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2440&context=uclrev
  53. https://www.suretybonds.com/edu/surety-indemnity-agreements
  54. https://suretylearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/1Articles/14What_YouShldKnow_Gen_Agrmt_ofIndem_2017.pdf
  55. https://www.thompsoncoe.com/resources/publications/indemnifying-your-surety-what-have-you-done/
  56. https://www.performancesuretybonds.com/blog/what-is-an-indemnity-agreement-for-surety-bonds/
  57. https://www.foagency.com/understanding-surety-bonds-and-indemnification
  58. https://alphasurety.com/surety-bond-info/what-is-a-surety-bond-indemnity-agreement/
  59. https://pjtagency.com/a-quick-and-simple-explanation-of-surety-bond-indemnity/
  60. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/talk-surety-to-me/defending-your-surety-credit-seven-common-principal-defenses
  61. https://ortizdoyle.com/performance-bonds-12-defenses-to-a-claim-against-the-surety/
  62. https://constructionexec.com/article/surety-defenses-overpayment-of-contract-funds-and-cardinal-change-to-contract
  63. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/resources/committee-articles/suretys-defenses-unfavorable-provisions-bonded-contract/
  64. https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/exoneration-based-on-fraud-in-the-inducement-as-a-surety-defense
  65. https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-16/article-4/part-1/section-16-4-110/
  66. https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-16-criminal-proceedings/co-rev-st-sect-16-4-110/
  67. https://www.insuranceopedia.com/definition/4443/suretys-right-to-exoneration
  68. https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-16/code-of-criminal-procedure/article-4/part-1/section-16-4-114/
  69. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/25.102
  70. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3332-1-13
  71. https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/025/chapter287/s287.321.html&d=reduce
  72. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/19.170
  73. https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/1083/Lesson_4_Terminating_Bond_POL_Script_061919.pdf
  74. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/understanding-4-types-of-surety-bonds
  75. https://www.nfp.com/property-and-casualty/coverage-expertise/commercial-and-contract-surety/surety/bonds-types/
  76. https://www.performancesuretybonds.com/surety-bond/surety-bond-types/
  77. https://suretynow.com/post/bid-bond-vs-performance-bond-vs-payment-bond
  78. https://www.prosuregroup.com/surety-bonds/the-miller-act/
  79. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/surety-market-size-anticipated-grow-124900909.html
  80. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R42037/R42037.57.pdf
  81. https://www.risk-strategies.com/state-of-the-insurance-market-2025-outlook-surety
  82. https://surety.org/surety-fidelity/what-is-surety/
  83. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/talk-surety-to-me/commercial-surety-bonds-what-you-need-to-know
  84. https://www.travelers.com/surety-bond/commercial-surety
  85. https://surety.site-ym.com/Page/ViewBondFormSamples
  86. https://surety.org/surety-fidelity/what-is-fidelity/
  87. https://kaseinsurance.com/news/fidelity-bond-vs-surety-bond/
  88. https://www.lancesuretybonds.com/blog/fidelity-bond-vs-surety-bond
  89. https://bondingsolutions.com/understanding-the-different-types-of-fidelity-bonds/
  90. https://www.dwc401k.com/knowledge-center/fidelity-bonds-faq
  91. https://msainsurance.com/business/surety-bonds
  92. https://www.nnasuretybonds.com/resources/court-bonds-explained
  93. https://www.brunswickcompanies.com/surety-bonds/court-bond/judicial-bonds/
  94. https://www.performancesuretybonds.com/surety-bond/court-judicial/
  95. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/surety-bonds/commercial-surety-bonds/surety-bond-types/court-bonds
  96. https://www.foagency.com/specialized-bonding-services/california-court-bonds-judicial-bonds
  97. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/surety-bonds/commercial-surety-bonds/surety-bond-types/public-official-bonds
  98. https://www.nfp.com/property-and-casualty/coverage-expertise/commercial-and-contract-surety/surety/bonds-types/public-official-bond/
  99. https://www.palmettosurety.com/2024/04/public-official-bonds/
  100. https://www.bondexchange.com/michigan-public-official-bond/
  101. https://suretybonds.uslegal.com/penal-bonds/
  102. https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/p/penal-bond
  103. https://dgmoorelaw.com/blog/what-is-a-surety-bond-in-jail/
  104. https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/self-help/types-bonds
  105. https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/23_Reinsurance_C-2.pdf
  106. https://surety.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/surety_protects_2022_report.pdf
  107. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/6024506/surety-market-report
  108. https://www.gi.insure/articles/key-trends-facing-the-surety-market-in-2025
  109. https://www.wtwco.com/en-ca/insights/2024/10/insurance-marketplace-realities-2025-surety
  110. https://news.ambest.com/NewsContent.aspx?refnum=264125
  111. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/laws-regs.html
  112. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-223
  113. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/10/2024-12491/surety-companies-doing-business-with-the-united-states
  114. https://constructioncoverage.com/surety-bonds
  115. https://www.zurichna.com/insurance/surety
  116. https://www.munichre.com/en/insights/business-risks/what-is-top-of-mind-for-surety-executives-going-into-2025.html
  117. https://surety.org/
  118. https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-surety-&-fidelity-association-of-america
  119. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html
  120. https://www.sba.gov/partners/surety-bond-partners-agents/list-surety-bond-partners
  121. https://www.suretybondquarterly.org/2025/07/01/strong-performances-providing-confidence-to-navigate-uncertainties/
  122. https://www.nasbp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Facilitating-International-Commercial-Surety-Spring2016.pdf
  123. https://www.spjimr.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/surety-bond-white-paper.pdf
  124. https://icisa.org/surety/
  125. https://assets.aon.com/-/media/files/aon/reports/2025/2025-global-construction-insurance-and-surety-market-report.pdf
  126. https://surety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Top-100-Quarterly-Results-Surety-Website-Final.pdf
  127. https://bestsreview.ambest.com/displaychart.aspx?Record_Code=316741&src=43
  128. https://www.jwsuretybonds.com/bonding-company/
  129. https://www.ekmcconkey.com/blog/2025-surety-outlook/
  130. https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/surety-market/185094/
  131. https://acceladvantage.com/blog/2024-surety-market/
  132. https://www.performancesuretybonds.com/blog/a-guide-to-the-electronic-filing-of-surety-bonds/
  133. https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_global/news-insights/expert-voices/e-bonds-in-north-american-surety.html
  134. https://www.suretybonds.com/edu/nmls-electronic-surety-bonds-faq
  135. https://suretybonds.co/electronic-surety-bonds/
  136. https://www.scottins.com/blog/digital-future-surety-bonds/
  137. https://constructionexec.com/article/electronic-signatures-for-surety-bonds-widespread-adoption-needed
  138. https://www.maine.gov/pfr/consumercredit/industry/licensing/nmls/bonds.html
  139. https://www.sml.texas.gov/news/announcement-required-use-of-electronic-surety-bonds-7-tex-admin-code-%25C2%25A758-107/
  140. https://onegroup.com/2025/03/24/the-evolving-landscape-of-surety-bonding-in-2025/
  141. https://skywardinsurance.com/press-releases/skyward-specialty-enters-partnership-with-tech-enabled-propeller-bonds-to-accelerate-transactional-surety-expansion/
  142. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/tech-tools/api
  143. https://www.boldpenguin.com/news/surety-bonds
  144. https://www.risk-strategies.com/blog/ai-and-surety-bonds-guide-for-business-leaders
  145. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/talk-surety-to-me/how-technology-is-transforming-surety-bonds
  146. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/talk-surety-to-me/fear-ai-relationships-relationships-relationships
  147. https://jurisco.com/the-future-of-surety-bonds-trends-and-innovations/
  148. https://www.insurancethoughtleadership.com/blockchain/blockchains-future-surety-industry
  149. https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/surety-bonds---the-next-big-opportunity-in-the-indian-fintech-space-302354226.html
  150. https://www.suretybondquarterly.org/2024/07/03/the-future-of-surety-today/
  151. https://www.tinubu.com/blog/building-surety-tech-platform
  152. https://www.suretyez.com/blog/market-growth-and-technological-advancements-in-the-surety-bond-industry/
  153. https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2024/10/insurance-marketplace-realities-2025-surety
  154. https://haylor.com/2025-market-forecast-alera-group-surety/
  155. https://www.suretybondquarterly.org/2025/07/01/reinsurance-trends-and-their-impact-on-the-surety-industry/
  156. https://www.aon.com/en/insights/reports/global-construction-insurance-and-surety-market-report
  157. https://www.merchantsbonding.com/talk-surety-to-me/understanding-the-surety-claims-process-in-construction
  158. https://www.ufginsurance.com/about-ufg/ufg-insurance-blog/ufg-insurance-blog/ufg-insurance-blog/2019/12/31/the-surety-claim-process-what-you-need-to-know
  159. https://ctconstructionlaw.com/payment-bond-claimants-should-consider-additional-causes-of-action/
  160. https://www.orsurety.com/blog/the-ins-and-outs-of-bond-claims
  161. https://www.assuredpartners.com/news-insights/blogs/surety/2025/what-to-expect-if-a-surety-bond-claim-is-made/
  162. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/pressroom/b/news/posts/lex-machina-releases-2022-surety-bond-litigation-report
  163. https://www.schwabe.com/publication/enforcing-public-contracts-against-a-surety/
  164. https://www.wcslaw.com/Surety_Today/Episode-Notes-Bad-Faith-September-13-2021.pdf
  165. https://www.hornwright.com/commercial-litigation/construction-litigation-contract-disputes/fighting-back-against-bond-claim-denials/
  166. https://distinguished.com/blog/comprehensive-overview-of-surety-bonds/
  167. https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/licensing/document-preparation-services/bond-requirements/making-a-claim-against-a-bond
  168. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp
  169. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:783674/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  170. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347652495_Surety_Bonds_and_Moral_Hazard_in_Banking
  171. https://www.sgrlaw.com/understanding-your-suretys-indemnity-agreement/
  172. https://www.bryantsuretybonds.com/surety-bond-indemnity-agreement
  173. https://colby-group.com/blog/summary-of-surety-priciples/
  174. https://www.bondexchange.com/why-surety-companies-examine-moral-character/
  175. https://www.bondexchange.com/why-surety-companies-require-financial-statements/
  176. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9162
  177. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.4447
  178. https://www.lamesafundcontrol.com/7-critical-reasons-surety-bonds-fail-and-how-to-protect-your-construction-project/
  179. https://www.unepfi.org/psi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SURETY-BONDS.pdf
  180. https://swiftbonds.com/surety-bond/are-there-any-government-regulations-or-oversight-for-the-surety-bond-industry/
  181. https://le.utah.gov/interim/2025/pdf/00004347.pdf
  182. https://agentsync.io/blog/compliance/challenges-of-state-by-state-insurance-licensing-requirements
  183. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/authorized-reinsurer-bonds.html
  184. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/19/2024-26831/surety-bond-guarantee-program-streamlining-and-modernizing
  185. https://suretyone.com/blog/challenges-facing-surety-companies/
  186. https://constructionexec.com/article/2021-executive-insights-surety-bonding--insurance
  187. https://www.dinsmore.com/content/uploads/2021/03/The-Final-Diagnosis-Taking-a-Deeper-Look-at-Ethical-Issues.pdf
  188. https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2012/successfully-serving-two-masters-the-ethical-risks
  189. https://blog.tsibinc.com/10-surety-underwriting-concerns
  190. https://swiftbonds.com/surety-bond/what-are-the-risks-associated-with-underwriting-surety-bonds/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.