Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Two Jinn, Inc., A California Corporation Duly Qualified To Do Business v. Idaho Department of Insurance

January 11, 2013

TWO JINN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DULY QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN IDAHO AND DOING BUSINESS AS ALADDIN BAIL BONDS AND ANYTIME BAIL BONDS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,
RESPONDENT.



Appeal from the district court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Kathryn A. Sticklen, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: W. Jones, Justice

2013 Opinion No. 3

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

The decision of the district court is reversed and this case is remanded for action consistent with the Opinion. Costs on appeal are awarded to Appellant.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

A bail bond company challenges the district court's decision affirming an order of the Director of the Idaho Department of Insurance. That order, which was based on I.C. § 41-1042, prohibits a bail bond company from contemporaneously writing a bail bond and contracting with a client to indemnify the company for the cost of apprehending a bail jumper. It also prohibits a bail bond company from later requiring a client to agree to such indemnification as a condition of the bond's continuing validity.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Two Jinn, Inc. ("Two Jinn"), which also does business as Aladdin Bail Bonds and Anytime Bail Bonds, is a licensed bail agent. Two Jinn sells bail bonds for Danielson National Insurance Company, an authorized surety insurer. Paragraph Three of Two Jinn's standard bail contract, titled "Indemnity Agreement for Surety Bail Bond" (hereinafter "the Contract")

requires its clients--who may be criminal defendants or their friends, relatives, or other guarantors--to indemnify Two Jinn for the cost of apprehending defendants who jump bail. In 2009, the Idaho Department of Insurance (the "Department") sent a letter to Two Jinn asking it to remove this provision from the Contract. Two Jinn responded by requesting that the Department issue an order declaring that Paragraph Three was legal.

Ultimately, the Director of the Idaho Department of Insurance (the "Director") issued a Final Order declaring that I.C. § 41-1042 prohibits a bail bond company from contemporaneously writing a bail bond and contracting with a client to indemnify the company for the cost of apprehending a defendant who jumps bail. The Director also concluded that a bail bond company may not later require a client to agree to such indemnification as a condition of a bond's continuing validity. Two Jinn sought judicial review from the district court, which affirmed the Final Order in a memorandum decision. While the proceedings before the district court were pending, the Director promulgated I.D.A.P.A. 18.01.04.016.02, which by rule expressed the Final Order.*fn1 Two Jinn now seeks judicial review of the Final Order by this Court.

III. ISSUES ON APPEAL

A. Did the Director reasonably conclude that I.C. § 41-1042 prohibits a bail bond company from contemporaneously writing a bail bond and contracting with a client to indemnify the company for the cost of apprehending a defendant who jumps bail?

B. Did the Director's interpretation of I.C. ยง 41-1042 prejudice Two ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.