Laserfiche WebLink
Snell & Wilmer <br />L.L.P. <br />Mr. Mike Long <br />May 4, 2001 <br />Page 7 <br />situation created by decertification of the surety, bankruptcy of the operator, the fact that no <br />surface disturbance is occurring and there is no threat to public safety, human health or [he <br />environment, Frontier requests the Division to extend the period of abatement through May 31, <br />2001, the abatement period provided for NOV 2000-O10. <br />V. <br />THE BOARD SHOULD DISMISS NOV # CV-2001-005 AS BEING <br />DUPLICATIVE OF NOV # CV-2000-O10 <br />The Division has issued two NOVs [o Powderhorn for no wrong it has committed. Both <br />NOVs allege the same wrong (adequacy of the surety) and request the same relief. There is no <br />difference in statutory or regulatory citation to which the Division would point as the basis for <br />the alleged violation. Both NOVs involve the ability of Frontier to conduct surety business in <br />Colorado and demand that Powderhorn acquire replacement financial assurance. <br />As is discussed supra, Powderhorn purchased a bond from Frontier while i[ was <br />authorized to conduct surety business in Colorado and under federal law. The fact that Frontier <br />was first delisted by the Department of the Treasury (NOV 2000-010) and its Certificate of <br />Authority was subsequently suspended by the Colorado Commissioner of Insurance (NOV 2001- <br />005) is an insufficient basis upon which to "pile-on" NOVs. This is further evidenced by the fact <br />that the remedy requested in both NOVs is identical, that is, Powderhorn has been ordered to <br />provide an alternative form of financial assurance pursuant to state law. <br />The essence of the alleged violation is whether, despite the regulatory status of Frontier, <br />the Bond is in full force and effect; [he remedy requested by the state for each NOV is identical- <br />- when you cure one NOV you cure both. As a result, NOV 2001-005 is fully included within <br />NOV 2000-010, and should be rescinded. The proper approach would be for the Division to <br />amend NOV 2000-010 and incorporate the action of the Colorado Insurance Commissioner as a <br />factual predicate for that NOV. <br />i oan. i <br />