Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Bail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor and bail agents push 10% minimum premium on surety bonds to curb predatory practices
Summary
HB 729 would set a 10% minimum premium for surety bail bonds in Montana. Local bail agents, prosecutors and city officials backed the measure as a public safety and consumer protection reform; opponents called it price fixing and raised concerns about market interference.
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Bail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Nellie Nicholl, sponsor of House Bill 729, told the committee the bill establishes a minimum 10% bail premium on surety bonds to promote fairness, protect consumers and prevent undercutting that can undermine judicial intent and public safety.
Multiple Montana bail agents and the Montana Bail Agents Association testified in support, saying out‑of‑state operators and zero‑down arrangements in some jurisdictions create incentives for defendants to skip court and for local law enforcement to shoulder fugitive recovery costs. John Looney (Montana Bail Agents Association), Kelly Reisbeck, John Willoughby and others described the measure as a consistency and accountability reform rather than price fixing.
Shantel Anderson, a Billings deputy city attorney, testified that when defendants are released for minimal or zero down payments, prosecutors and police see higher rates of nonappearance and increased enforcement burdens. Supporters pointed to other states that impose fixed minimums (for example Florida and North Carolina) and to a policy goal of preventing a race to the bottom.
Opponents including Frank Cote (representing the commissioner of securities and insurance) argued the measure would constitute unlawful price‑fixing and that a prior, similar bill was vetoed by the governor. Industry trade groups representing independent agents and insurance advisors urged caution, citing existing interstate licensing reciprocity and competitiveness concerns. Some testified that past case citations may be inaccurate and requested additional legal review.
Sponsor and proponents stressed the public safety rationale and urged the committee to proceed; opponents asked for a more detailed legal assessment and cautioned about interfering with insurance market mechanisms.
