Laserfiche WebLink
remains in effect because by law, a bond cannot be released until an acceptable <br />replacement bond is submitted. 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.02.4(2)(a). In addition, the <br />surety remains liable for all lands disturbed unless a replacement bond covers the <br />entire liability for lands disturbed prior to replacement. 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule <br />3.02(2)(a) and (b). <br />However, that Frontier's bond remains in effect does not mean it meets <br />regulatory requirements. Frontier has lost two licenses to do business, and the bond <br />does not provide the financial assurance required by regulations. <br />Specifically as to the NOV at issue in this response, 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule <br />3.02.4(2)(b)(v)(C) states that "Upon the incapacity of a surety by reason of <br />bankruptcy, insolvency, or suspension or revocation of its license", the permittee <br />shall be deemed to be without bond coverage (emphasis added). See also § 34-33- <br />113(2), C.R.S., which requires that a bond be executed by the applicant and a <br />corporate surety "licensed to do business in this state." <br />Frontier has not only lost its license to do business with the federal <br />government, but it has lost its license to transact insurance business in this state. By <br />the plain language of the regulation and by Powderhorn's own admission, the Frontier <br />bond no longer meets regulatory requirements. As a consequence, Powderhorn is <br />deemed to be without bond coverage. ~ <br />~ It should be noted that contrary to Powderhorn's inferences, Frontier's entire license to <br />transact insurance business has been suspended. Part of the suspension is that Frontier <br />