Newton County commissioners table $353,930 insurance renewal after questions about insurer finances, missing equipment list

Newton County Commissioners Court voted on May 20, 2025, to table consideration of a proposed $353,930 property-insurance renewal after several commissioners said the insurance packet lacked key financial documentation and a readable schedule of insured equipment. The motion to table was made by Commissioner Hopson and approved by voice vote.

Commissioners and staff reviewed proposals submitted under RFP 2025-202601. County staff said the property premium in the recommended proposal is $353,930, down from $442,467 last year, while auto-liability costs rose to about $110,000 this year from roughly $88,000 last year — an increase of approximately $22,000. A nonprofit-owned county building's premium was cited as having risen by about 75 percent.

The court's central concerns were twofold: first, the packet did not include a clear "net disposition" or bank/surplus documentation that one commissioner said would demonstrate the insurer's liquidity to pay large-scale claims; second, commissioners said the packet did not include a legible schedule listing county equipment (the schedule in the packet was difficult to read). One commissioner said, "I'm going to move that we table the property insurance until the next meeting in between that time that each commissioner gets a list of the equipment to look through and make sure it's in there and that the packet is updated to reflect changes." Commissioner Hopson made the formal motion to table and the court approved it by voice vote.

An insurance representative explained that the property proposal used surplus-line (non-admitted) carriers in Texas and walked through market and rating considerations. The representative said the proposal used carriers with strong financial ratings and referred to surplus levels; commissioners noted that the packet did not include the supporting surplus/liquidity figures and asked the representative and staff to provide them. In the hearing the representative described the contract as "with an insurer not licensed to transact insurance in the state [and] issued and delivered as surplus line coverage under Texas insurance statutes." The court asked staff to secure clearer financial documentation for the county's review.

Commissioners also discussed procurement options if the current pool (TAC or a similar pooled carrier) did not submit a satisfactory, timely offer. Some members asked staff to prepare to seek additional competitive proposals so the county would not be forced into an unfavorable sole-source decision.

Separately, staff proposed adding crime coverage to the package (employee theft, forgery, money and securities coverage) at about $1,696; commissioners characterized that addition as inexpensive and useful. Staff also presented optional flood-coverage quotes for higher-risk locations; commissioners said many county buildings appeared low-risk and questioned paying high flood premiums for those sites (one quoted flood premium shown in the packet was about $4,669 for a single location).

The item will return to the court at the next regular session (the county discussed May 27 as the next relevant court date). Staff were directed to circulate an updated packet that includes a readable schedule of scheduled equipment, corrected total-insured-value figures, and the insurer's financial/surplus documentation before the court considers the renewal again.

The court completed remaining business and adjourned after a motion by Marshall White, seconded by Commissioner Benson.