My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31467
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31467
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:54:36 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:01:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981031
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/14/2005
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings of Compliance for SL1
From
Termination of Jurisdiction
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
of a conversation between Brian Munson, Division staff member, and staff at the <br />Union Indemnity office. Therefore,, a letter dated August 15, 1985 was sent Federal <br />Express to Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York (Union). The <br />Division and the Attorney General indicated in the letter that the "cancellation <br />requirements of paragraph 3, page 2, of the bond have not been met in any respect <br />and the bond remains valid and subject to collection. " However, four days later, on <br />August 26, 1985, the Division received a letter from the Superintendent of Insurance <br />for the State of New York indicating that Union Indemnity Insurance Company of <br />New York was placed in liquidation by Order of the Supreme Court of New York on <br />July 16, 1985. Furthermore, the letter a stated that "all in force bonds and liability <br />terminate as of August 17, 1985. " <br />On September 26, 1985, the Board again suspended the permit for an additional 60 <br />days (Boazd's Findings of Fact, October 4, 1985). The Board continued to hear the <br />matter on November 25, 1985. At that time, the operator informed the Board that <br />they were attempting to get their collateral released from the failed insurance <br />company so that a new bond could be obtained. The Board continued the suspension <br />of the permit for an additiona190 days (Boazd's Findings of Fact, January 17, 1986). <br />The issue was again in front of the Board on February 26, 1986. American Fuels, <br />Inc. informed the Boazd that they had filed for bankruptcy and financing for the <br />operation was unlikely. As a result of this hearing, the Board determined that <br />three patterns of violations occurred and American Fuels, Inc had failed to show <br />good cause why their permit should not be revoked. Therefore, in accordance <br />with C.R.S. Sections 34-33-123(7), 34-33-124(4) and Rules 5.03.3 and 5.03.5(3), <br />the Mined Land Reclamation Board permanently revoked mining permit #C-81- <br />031 effective Mazch 20, 1986. However, the Boazd had received no bond money, <br />from Union, regardless of previous bond forfeiture orders. <br />Efforts to Obtain Bond Money <br />In an attempt to gain receipt of the bond money from the liquidated insurance <br />company, Union, in 1994 the Division inquired with the State of New York <br />regarding Bond B97278 for the New Pryor Mine. In October 1994, the Division <br />received a response from the State of New York Insurance Division (NYID). <br />NYID asked the Division for a copy of the Boazd Order regarding the Union bond <br />forfeiture and revocation of the New Pryor permit. The Division sent the Board <br />Order, along with a number of supporting documents, to the NYID. No <br />communication occurred until 1998, when NYID sent us a letter saying "we(the <br />Division) came up on Diary for review ". NYID indicated that the Division had <br />not proven a "reasonable and actual cost in remedying the default ". The NYID <br />asked for documentation showing an "actual expenditure" so that they could <br />"conclude their review and evaluation ". Shortly after receiving this letter, the <br />Division sent 4 different sets of documents proving our claim. On May 20, 1998, <br />the Division received a letter stating "To date, a determination has not been made <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.