Laserfiche WebLink
Powderhom attempts to argue that any deficiency in the Frontier bond has <br />somehow been cured by the existence of an agreement between Frontier and National <br />Indemnity Company ("National"). Nothing could be further from the truth. As stated <br />above, the Frontier bond is out of regulatory compliance because, among other <br />reasons, the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance has suspended Frontier's license to <br />transact insurance business. This is a violation of the plain language of the <br />regulation. Powderhom's attempt to azgue that only insolvency -the inability to pay <br />one's debts -can establish a violation is not supported by the language of the <br />regulation and if accepted, would render the rest of the grounds for violation (e.g., <br />bankruptcy, suspension or revocation of its license) without meaning. Accordingly, <br />Powderhorn's argument must be rejected. <br />Powderhorn's reference to the agreement between Frontier and National goes <br />hand in hand with its argument that only insolvency can be the basis for a violation <br />since Powderhom appeazs to azgue that the agreement cures Frontier's azguable <br />inability to meet its f nancial obligations. However, because suspension of Frontier's <br />insurance license is in itself a violation, the agreement between Frontier and National <br />is irrelevant. <br />Assuming for the sake of argument that insolvency was the only basis for <br />violation, Frontier's agreement with National does not "provide full protection to the <br />cannot solicit or issue new or renewal insurance business. This result is not changed by the <br />fact, that, for the sake of the public, the Commissioner stated that Frontier must honor its <br />