The announcement reflected on Ace’s involvement over the years in various capacities of such construction-related organizations as NASBP, the Associated General Contractors, San Antonio Chapter, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, South Texas Chapter. He also has been active in a variety of civic and professional organizations, such as the Texas Statewide Credit Executives, Oak Hills Rotary Club, National Association of Credit Management, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the San Antonio Local Development Board, to name a few.

In terms of Ace’s contributions as a professional surety bond producer, the announcement commented:

Ace was quoted as saying, “I love our industry, and I am proud to be associated with the folks involved in construction.  They are fine, fine people!”

NASBP congratulates Ace on winning this award!

If you weren’t there…couldn’t make it…or were there and want to relive the memories— Click Here to view the photos and capture the “spirit” of the NASBP Annual Meeting at The Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego.

To insure you’ll be there next year, mark your calendars now for May 6 – 10 when the 2006 Annual Meeting & Expo will take place at the Disney Grand Floridian in Orlando.

Mark Your Calendars NOW for NASBP’s 2005 Regional Meetings!

REGIONS 1, 2, 3*
Vail Marriott Mountain Resort & Spa
Vail, Colorado
(970) 476-4444
September 15 – 17, 2005

REGIONS 4, 5, 6, 7*
Flamingo Las Vegas Hotel
Las Vegas, Nevada
(702) 733-3111
October 13 – 15, 2005

REGIONS 8, 9, 10, 11*
Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel
Baltimore, Maryland
(410) 385-3000
October 2 – 4, 2005

*More details and meeting registration soon will be available at www.nasbp.org

The truth is that conditions may exist in which coverage under a surety bond is limited. Producers can help prevent this from happening through vigilant, up-front efforts as illustrated by the following examples.

In HWH, L.P. v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co., 2004 W.L. 726813 (Tx. App. 2004), the court held that an owner could not recover on the performance bond supplied by an electrical contractor because of restrictive language in the bond. The bond described the project as “electrical installation for a new food facility.” The owner’s claim, however, related to work on a library – work that was added to the project after the delivery of the bond. The court held that the bond, by its terms, only applied to the food facility work and did not apply to subsequent work on the library. The owner could have avoided this result by either using different wording for the original description of the project, or by verifying with the surety that the change would not affect the bond’s coverage. Most likely, the owner never even thought about the bond when it expanded the scope of work.

In Elm Haven Constr. Ltd. P’ship v. Neri Const., LLC 376 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004) a subcontractor and its surety avoided liability to the general contractor obligee because the general contractor did not follow the default procedures set forth in its agreement with the subcontractor. The bond had very specific language in it giving all the steps the obligee had to go through to declare a formal “default,” and the general contractor didn’t go through them.

Although these cases may reinforce the misperceptions that many owners and general contractors have about bonds, in truth, the obligees were at fault for not choosing bond language that would work for them if a default ever occurred. Producers are in a good position to turn these negative perceptions around.

For example, the result may have been different if the bond in the HWH case cited above described the project more generally and was not just limited to the food facility. Keep in mind, though, that “cardinal” changes, which change the entire nature of the bonded job, could still have voided the bond obligation. Had the general contractor in the Elm Haven case used a bond form that wasn’t so complicated, it might not have erred to the point of losing the value of its bond.

Expanding the universe of bond buyers to include general contractors and non-public owners that have the option, but not the obligation, to use bonds is obviously good for producers and sureties. Some bond forms are tougher to make claims on than others. Helping the customer who is looking for the right form for its project may mean showing it more than one form of bond. In that way the customer, its risk managers, and lawyers can decide what language meets their needs.

NASBP’s General Counsel is Susan McGreevy of Husch & Eppenberger LC, Kansas City, MO.

   Briefly Noted

PASSING

Theodore J. “Ted” Adams, 80, of Wheaton, IL, died Saturday, May 14, 2005. Ted was born in Chicago but raised in Lombard, IL, where he graduated from high school. He then enlisted in the Army Air Forces and flew P-47s during WWII.

After WWII, Ted moved back to Lombard and began his insurance career. He graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology with a B.S. degree. But he never lost his interest in flying. He stayed in the active Army Reserve, was called to duty for the Korean War, and retired in 1973 with the rank of Colonel. In addition, he was a founding member of Lima Lima flight team of Naperville.

Ted’s insurance and surety career began at Fireman’s Fund Insurance and then Royal Globe Insurance. In 1967 he and a partner began Cory & Adams Inc, an agency located in Chicago, which handled commercial property and casualty insurance and specialized in surety bonds. The agency moved to Oak Brook in 1971, and in 1981, Ted assumed sole leadership of the agency and changed its name to T.J. Adams & Associates. He served on NASBP’s Board of Directors and as a vice president of the Association, and in 1993, he received NASBP’s highest honor, the Bruce T. Wallace Award. He also served on the board of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers.

He is survived by his wife of over 60 years, June, his four children including his son John who joined his father in business, twelve grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren. Memorial gifts may be made to the St. Matthew United Church of Christ Memorial Fund; 1420 S. Gables; Wheaton, IL 60187. An online guest book is available at hultgrenfh.com.

PASSING

NASBP regretfully reports that Linda Gibson, office manager of Smith-Manus in Louisville, KY, lost her fight against cancer on April 23, 2005. A 22-year employee of Smith Manus, she is survived by her husband, two sons, mother, brother, sister, and five grandchildren.

POSITIONS

LARGE REGIONAL AGENCY in Baltimore, MD, is looking for a Surety Underwriter/Producer.

·         Responsibitities: Individual will be responsible for prequalification, marketing and servicing of existing contract and commercial surety accounts.   Production responsibilities commensurate with experience.

·         Requirements: Experienced underwriter who is highly motivated, detailed   oriented, and must have excellent interpersonal and communication skills.

·         Contact:  Brian Wilcox, HMS Insurance Associates, at 410-337-9755 or by email at bwilcox@hmsia.com, or fax resume to 410-337-0551. 

CAPITOL INSURANCE COMPANIES is seeking a Commercial Surety Underwriter for its Madison, WI office.

·         Responsibilities:  Ensuring underwriting growth and profitability by underwriting new and renewal surety business as well as managing agency relationships.

·         Requirements:  Bachelor’s Degree, or equivalent, plus 3-5 years surety experience and their Associate in Fidelity & Surety Bonding (AFSB) designation (or working towards it).  Essential skills include:  strong underwriting and marketing skills; excellent interpersonal and communication skills; knowledge of bonds, procedures and rates; and knowledge of specified territory including agency plant, accounts, competition and general business climate.  The abilities to think analytically, problem solve, and utilize word processing and spreadsheet software (Microsoft) are a must.

·         Contact:  Hayley Hellenbrand, Human Resources Specialist at 608/232-5504, e-mail jobs@capitolindemnity.com or fax resume to 608/231-0067.  Visit www.capitolindemnity.com for more company information. EOE 

LIBERTY MUTUAL is seeking a Senior Surety Underwriter for its Dallas, TX office

·         Responsibilities:  Solicits commercial surety account submissions from assigned producer plant; underwrites those accounts in conformance with Company underwriting guidelines to determine if they meet risk acceptability standards and or the strategy of the organization; underwrites and administers commercial surety risks that vary in size and complexity.

·         Requirements:  BA or BS in Business Administration or related field and a minimum of 3 years related surety underwriting experience required. Proven analytical ability to evaluate underwriting risks within limited authority. Demonstrates effective communication and interpersonal skills in dealing with agents, brokers, CPAs, bankers, attorneys, etc.

·         Contact:  To apply for this position please visit: http://www.libertymutual.com/careers, click on the Search Jobs link and enter the following requisition number in the Keyword Field: 15363BR.  

OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY has an opportunity for a Surety Bond Field Underwriter for the Indiana/Kentucky territory.

·         Responsibilities:  Market both contract and non-contract surety and fidelity bonds, and underwriter renewals and submissions primarily in the states of Indiana and Kentucky.  Work from home, but travel the territory daily.

·         Requirements:  Several years of experience underwriting and marketing all types of surety bonds, strong analytical and communication skills, and knowledge of the business climate in the area.  Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent highly preferred.  Includes a company car and bonus programs.

·         Contact:  Janell Manson, HR Director at 262/797-2643, e-mail manson@orsurety.com or fax resume to 262/797-8874.  Visit www.orsurety.com for more company information.

On March 31, 2005, U.S. District Judge José Antonio Fusté struck down Puerto Rico’s statute prohibiting non-resident insurance brokers from doing business without the countersignature of a resident agent.

According to an announcement issued by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB), the organization that brought action against the Puerto Rico statute, “The new ruling will not be final for 30 days to allow Puerto Rico to appeal the decision. The Nevada ruling also has not been finalized because of an appeal by the state. The Nevada Independent Insurance Agents is supporting the state’s appeal, while the Risk Insurance Management Society is backing the Council’s efforts to throw out the statute.”

Puerto Rico joins Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia as Council successes in arguing that countersignature statutes are unconstitutional, because they violate both the privilege and immunities and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Lawsuits brought by CIAB against South Dakota and the Virgin Islands are the only ones that remain undecided.

The Department of the Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570) has been updated as follows:

Added to the Listing of Approved Sureties:

• Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Effective 04/01/05
• Endurance Reinsurance Corporation of America, Effective 04/01/05
• First Founders Assurance Company, Effective 03/25/05
• Stonebridge Casualty Insurance Company, Effective 03/25/05

For more information, go to: http://fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html and http://fms.treas.gov/c570/supplements.html.

The Awards for Excellence in Surety Bond Promotion are presented annually by SIO to local surety associations that actively promote the benefits of surety bonds. Five local surety associations received the Gold Award for Excellence in Surety Bond Promotion for conducting at least 10 activities to promote the use and image of contract surety bonds. Recipients include:

• Florida Surety Association
• Surety Association of Kansas City
• Surety Association of Ohio
• Surety Association of St. Louis
• Surety Association of San Diego

Three local surety associations received the Silver Award for Excellence in Surety Bond Promotion for conducting at least five surety promotional activities. Recipients include:

• Alabama Surety Association
• Mid-Atlantic Surety Association
• Surety Association of Nevada

The members of these local surety association went above and beyond the call of duty to educate their local communities on the importance and value of surety bonds. The surety industry was well represented with these volunteer-driven initiatives and outreach to CPAs, bankers, lawyers, students and educators, private and public owners, and contractors.

SIO also inducted Al Hultgren of Payne Financial Group in Billings, MT into the Tiger Trust. The Tiger Trust is an elite honorary society of surety industry professionals who work with private construction project owners or lenders to ensure that contract surety bonds are specified on their projects.

Hultgren convinced the Deaconess Billings Clinic Facility in Billings to bond a $2.5 million segment of its expansion plan. The total expansion project, which is scheduled to take place over the next 10-plus years, will total over $100 million and will be broken into 15 divisions or bid packets.

The Tiger Trust plaque and pin and the Awards for Excellence in Surety Bond Promotion, sponsored by SIO, were presented April 13, 2005 at NASBP’s annual meeting in San Diego, CA and also will be presented at the annual meeting of The Surety Association of America in Chicago, IL on May 12, 2005.

Please join SIO in congratulating the hard work and dedication of the individuals and groups who helped make 2004 such an outstanding year for promoting the industry!

Free copies of the educational CD-ROM are now available from SIO. The new CD functions similarly to the recently released contractor and public construction CDs, and was created with Macromedia Flash software.

The CD presents users with an intuitive interface and navigation, and contains the following audio-narrated presentations:

Contract Surety Bonds: Protecting Your Investment
The presentation provides a comprehensive overview of contract surety bonds for private project owners. Topics include: the basics of surety bonds; the prequalification process; surety claims; and the benefits of bonding.

Why Do Contractors Fail? 
The reasons a contractor may default on a project and warning signs of a contractor in trouble are explained. The presentation also looks at the prequalification process that is used to verify a contractor’s ability to perform a contract, and includes data on business failure rates and contractor-failure factors.

Managing the Surety Claims Process
The presentation explains what preventative measures project owners can take to lessen the impact of a default. Also, owners can find out what role they play in a default situation and the responsibilities of the surety.

Case in Point: Surety’s Involvement Saves Projects
The presentation shows how surety bonds protect projects with a real-world example. This brief case study shows how a surety’s involvement protected an owner from financial loss and brought four important projects to completion on time.

In addition, users can access links to the most up-to-date versions of SIO’s numerous brochures and pamphlets for the private construction audience.

Order copies of Surety Bonds: A Guide for Private Owners to distribute to private project owners, bankers, or any other party involved in the administration of private works projects. To order complimentary copies, contact SIO by phone at 202-686-7463, or send an e-mail at sio@sio.org. Please indicate the quantity you would like to receive and your mailing address. 

· Arkansas is one of the few states that actually enacted legislation that deals with broker-producer disclosure. Although the term “disclose” is not defined, S. 233, Act 1697, “requires all producers to disclose prior to the placement of business whether they represent the customer or the insurer, and the sources of their compensation for the placement. Producers who represent the insurer must disclose that they provide services to the customer on behalf of the insurer, and producers who receive compensation from the customer for a placement or who acts as a broker must disclose certain specific actions. The new Act’s effective date is 90 days after the legislative adjournment date of 05/13/2005 (AIA Producer Compensation—Legislative Developments, 5/26/05).

· A bill (S 555) that would have reduced the amount of retainage from 10% to 5% was withdrawn by the author.

Arizona: The Grand Canyon state has revised its state statutes over the past five years regarding alternatives to the design bid-build method of project delivery. Its latest new law that was enacted earlier this year makes changes to many of these provisions in the statutes.

· H 2579, as enacted, requires provisions relating to bid, performance, and payment bonds, and contract retention to apply to the DOT CM-At-Risk contracts. For job-order contracting, performance bonds may be a single bond for the full term of the contract, a separate bond for each year of a multi-year contract, or a separate bond for each job order.

Georgia: Georgia enacted an omnibus insurance bill, which included disclosure requirements, and a bill related to design-build projects conducted by the GA Department of Transportation (DOT).

· H 407/Act 108, as enacted, which becomes effective on July 1, 2005, requires, among other things, that “disclosure requirements pertain to all insurance producers licensed as ‘counselors’ who receive compensation from, or charge a fee to, a customer.” Under the current GA insurance law, “counselors who receive a fee, commission, or other compensation for their services are prohibited from receiving any compensation for any other source on or relating to the same transaction” (AIA Producer Compensation—Legislative Developments, 5/26/05).

· H 530/Act 317 changes the criteria and requirements for using design-build for DOT projects to include negotiation and “lowest qualified bidder” rather than “most responsive bidder,” among others. The new law also limits the DOT to using D-B for “no more than 15% of the total amount of construction projects awarded in the previous fiscal year. Extensive rulemaking by the DOT is to follow.

Idaho: Idaho stepped into the e-bonding arena with the enactment of legislation pertaining to bidding on state department of transportation projects.

· S 1081/Chapter 125, as enacted, amends the Idaho code with a requirement that, “If the contracting agency allows electronically submitted bid documents, then a bid bond in electronic form with valid electronic signatures shall accompany the submittal of the electronic bid documents.” This legislation is the only one of its kind enacted in the states this year.

Indiana: Indiana enacted design-build legislation, which had been introduced and contested in the Legislature since 2000.

· S 244/Chapter 74 creates a new article in the Indiana code permitting the use of design-build for public works and establishing procedures for its use, such as the appointment of a technical review committee to qualify potential design-builders among others. Potential design-builders must submit a statement verifying their capacity to obtain all required payment and performance bonding, liability insurance, and errors and omissions insurance as well as both a qualitative proposal and a price proposal. The new law also requires the design-builder that is awarded the project to furnish performance and payment bonds for that portion of the project that does not include design services. The law concludes with an anti-directed surety prohibition that “the public agency may not require an offeror for a design-build project to obtain any of the surety bonds…that are specific in connection with a design-build contract or specified by any law from any particular insurance or surety company, agent or broker.”

Kansas: Kansas enacted legislation entitled, “The Kansas Fairness in Private Construction Contract Act,” and increased the number of days in which a DOT contract must be signed and the required bonds must be provided.

· Among the provisions in S 33, which regulates private construction contracts are the following requirements: (1) The owner must provide payment of all amounts due a contractor, except retainage, 30 days after the owner receives a timely request for payment; (2) A contractor must pay subcontractors any amounts due them within seven business of receipt of payment from the owner, including payment of retainage if it is released by the owner, and if the subcontractor has provided a timely request for payment to the contractor; (3) An owner, contractor, or subcontractor may withhold no more than 10% retainage from the amount of any undisputed payment due. The new act does not apply to single family or multifamily residential housing of four units or less.

· S 94/Chapter 2005-81, as enacted, amends Kansas statutes related to county roads and highways by increasing the time from 10 to 21 days in which an awarded county contract must be signed and bonds submitted.

Kentucky: The state’s 577-page budget bill was enacted with provisions relating to the state’s bonding threshold and the reverse auction process.

· S 49/Act 85 increases the bonding threshold for public construction from contracts of $25,000 or more to those $40,000 or more. This change in the law applies to bid bonds as well as performance and payment bonds. Another provision states that “The reverse auction process shall not be used to procure architectural, engineering, or engineering-related services…underwriter, bond counsel, or financial advisors… or contracts for construction that are required to be bonded or those projects that would require the preparation of stamped drawings.”

Maryland: The Maryland General Assembly considered several bills involving surety, including one of the most contentious surety bills considered by state legislatures this session.

· S 324 as introduced would have required subcontractors on public works projects to provide their own performance bonds, payment bonds, or other form of security, or to obtain such performance and payment security through the contractor with the approval of the contractor and its surety. The author then amended her bill by striking the original wording and substituting in its place language to raise the bond threshold from its current amount of $100,000 for all public works to $400,000. NASBP members and surety companies also wrote in opposition to this increase, and a representative from a local jurisdiction testified against the bill. A compromise amount of $200,000 for only state projects was offered later and accepted by both chambers of the General Assembly. Throughout the course of the bill, a coalition comprised of NASBP, SAA, AIA, and subcontractor associations lobbied hard against the bill and its modifications, and were gratified when Gov. Robert Ehrlich vetoed the bill because of the negative affect it would have on subcontractors and suppliers if contractors were exempted from obtaining performance and payment bonds or other form of security.

as introduced would have required subcontractors on public works projects to provide their own performance bonds, payment bonds, or other form of security, or to obtain such performance and payment security through the contractor with the approval of the contractor and its surety. The author then amended her bill by striking the original wording and substituting in its place language to raise the bond threshold from its current amount of $100,000 for all public works to $400,000. NASBP members and surety companies also wrote in opposition to this increase, and a representative from a local jurisdiction testified against the bill. A compromise amount of $200,000 for only state projects was offered later and accepted by both chambers of the General Assembly. Throughout the course of the bill, a coalition comprised of NASBP, SAA, AIA, and subcontractor associations lobbied hard against the bill and its modifications, and were gratified when Gov. Robert Ehrlich vetoed the bill because of the negative affect it would have on subcontractors and suppliers if contractors were exempted from obtaining performance and payment bonds or other form of security.· H 1531, as enacted, increases the amount of reserves to be held in the state’s Bituminous Coal Open-Pit Mining Reclamation Fund from $300,000 to $750,000 to help cover bond forfeitures that may occur.

· Gov. Ehrlich also signed into law H 674, which allows the MD Small Business Development Financing Authority to increase certain guarantees from the Contract Financing fund. Effective July 1, 2005, loan guarantees will increase from $500,000 to $1,000,000, as will the amount to which the Authority may guarantee a surety for its losses on bonds for a public works project; the new amount guaranteed will be the lesser of 90% or $1,340,000, an increase of $440,000.

· Maryland’s Insurance Code was amended via the enactment of H 788, an anti-trust measure that makes certain acts illegal, such as bid-rigging, coercion, intimidation, and boycotting unless regulated by the insurance commissioner or expressly permitted by law. The new law takes effect October 1, 2005.

· H 188, which would have set a maximum level of retainage to no more than 5% of the payment, passed both the House and Senate, but the House was unable to concur on a Senate amendment when the General Assembly adjourned.

Stay tuned for Part II of this article to be contained in the next issue of Pipeline.

In a letter to the Conference Committee, U.S Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta warned that President Bush would veto any bill providing investment levels in excess of the $284 billion called for by the Administration. The Administration issued a similar statement prior to Senate passage of a reauthorization measure that would invest $295 billion in highway and transit improvements through FY 2009.

Mineta’s letter also threatened veto action if other key provisions of the bill were passed such as:

§ Establishing a mechanism to allow bond financing of transportation improvement projects;

§ A “re-opener” provision that would allow Congress to revisit the measure’s investment levels during the life of the bill;

§ Opposition to a provision in the Senate bill requiring states to set aside 2% of federal Surface Transportation Program funds for storm water mitigation activities;

§ Support for the 90-day statute of limitations on lawsuits against transportation projects contained in the House bill;

§ Support for provisions in the Senate bill that would delegate environmental review responsibilities to states;

§ Support for strengthening the historic preservation reforms proposed by the House and Senate;

§ Opposition to a House proposal to provide a 12-month grace period for areas that fall out of compliance with federal Clean Air Act standards;

§ Opposition to new transportation planning requirements; and

§ Criticism of the House and Senate bills for imposing restrictions on the ability of states to utilize toll financing for highway and bridge projects.

The clock is ticking to pass a final version of this bill for the President’s signature. The temporary measure the House of Representatives passed May 25 to keep federal highway and transit funds flowing to the states is set to expire June 30, 2005.

As reported in last month’s issue of Pipeline, this issue is very fluid. More information will be forthcoming as it becomes available. Stay tuned.

   Briefly Noted  

POSITIONS

OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY has an opportunity for a Surety Bond Manager for its Milwaukee, WI office servicing Wisconsin and Michigan.

·         Responsibitities: Ensure profitability and growth of the Milwaukee Branch through effective and efficient management of personnel and other resources; market and underwrite acceptable bonds throughout Wisconsin and Michigan. 

·         Requirements: Well-seasoned in the fidelity and surety business; has solid contract bond underwriting experience, strong underwriting skills, and proven sales and production successes; ability to direct a wide variety of functions; and ability to travel with occasional overnight stays. Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent highly preferred.  Includes a company car and bonus programs.

·         Contact: Janell Manson, HR Director at 262/797-2643, e-mail manson@orsurety.com or fax resume to 262/797-8874. Visit  www.orsurety.com for more company information.

According to USA Today, tax collections rose to a record $600 billion in the states last year, up 7.2% over 2003, which is the biggest increase since 2000. This year, many states report that the money is rolling in even faster with many states reporting double-digit revenue increases through April. This reversal of fortune ends what the National Governors Association had called the states’ worst economic situation in 60 years.

Arturo Perez, a budget analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) says, “Nearly every state is at or above what they expected to get in revenues.”  Perez goes on to say that states were stunned by an “April surprise” of unexpectedly large tax collections.  California, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, and Vermont are among many states enjoying unanticipated windfalls.

Despite the increase in revenues, many governors and legislatures are reacting cautiously to rising revenues by approving mostly small new spending proposals and tax cuts. One sign that the tough budget times are over is that states borrowed 23% less in the first four months of 2005 than a year earlier according to The Bond Buyer, a newspaper tracking government finances. In recent years, states borrowed record amounts to balance their budgets.

According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), there is justification for governors and legislatures to remain cautious. In its article, dated June 14, 2005, the WSJ states that the rise in revenues stems partly from factors that may be short lived, such as an unusual surge in bonuses or the huge Microsoft dividend payout. Also, most states still face budgetary pressures. According to NCSL, as of February 2005, 31 states reported spending overruns for some portion of the budget during the current fiscal year compared with 23 states reporting overruns in November.

For now, however, the windfall has loosened purse strings and boosted spending plans for roads in Florida, teachers in New York, and public transportation in California.

According to Stateline, an electronic news service about state developments, which is funded exclusively by The Pew Charitable Trusts, 64% of all voting age U.S. citizens voted in the 2004 general election—up from 60% who voted in the 2002 election. Among citizens registered to vote, 89% reported going to the polls compared to 86% four years ago. Every jurisdiction in the nation with the exception of Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, and Washington, DC had increased turnouts.

Who were these voters and where did they live? According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, the majority of voters tended to be women, older, more educated, and white. Citizens in Minnesota had the highest voting rate (79%) followed by Wisconsin, Oregon, Maine, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.  Hawaii, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, and West Virginia checked in with the lowest turnouts.

Why should you care?  Although not a general election, another election will take place in 2006. Candidates will be chosen for many state offices and legislative seats as well as for seats in the U.S. House of Representative and Senate. Two states, New Jersey and Virginia, will be holding state elections this year. Regardless, it’s not too soon to encourage your friends and colleagues to register to vote and take advantage of one of the greatest liberties U.S. citizens have—the right to vote.

The world’s leading credit insurance and surety insurers and their reinsurers met in Barcelona June 8-12 2005, under the banner of the International Credit Insurance & Surety Association (ICISA), to discuss the main issues that affected the industry following the economic, regulatory and political developments of the past 12 months. The meeting took place while the sector experienced a return to profit, amid concern about a fragile global recovery, threatened by high oil prices, pension liabilities, and imbalances in trade.

At the annual meeting, the credit insurance and surety industry focused on regulatory matters, in particular capital allocation, Solvency II and Basle II. Recent recognition of the particulars of our sector by the International Accounting Standards Board in proposals set forth by them also was shared. The emergence of markets such as China and countries in Central Europe have required the sector to prepare for an anticipated strong demand in credit management tools for companies selling goods, performing contracts, or supplying services in these areas. Large insolvencies involving fraud have had a considerable impact on the industry and its customers requiring a further review of these cases.

Hosted by CESCE, Coface Iberica, Crédito y Caución, and Mapfre, 95 participants and invited guests from approximately 25 countries, including representatives from the Berne Union, the International Surety Association, the Pan-American Surety Association, and the Surety Association of America, attended the association’s 63^rd annual general meeting.

About ICISA

Credit insurers and surety underwriters have been working together for over 75 years under the banner of the International Credit Insurance & Surety Association (ICISA). Credit insurance covers the manufacturing, trading and service industry against the risk of loss due to non-payment by their customers (for more information visit www.getpaid4trade.com).

ICISA members represent approximately round 95% of the global credit insurance industry and insure risks in practically every country in the world. ICISA was established as ICIA (International Credit Insurance Association) in Paris in 1928.

For more information visit www.icisa.org, e-mail secretariat@icisa.org, or contact Robert Nijhout, Executive Director, ICISA; Herengracht 473; 1017 BS Amsterdam; The Netherlands; Telephone: +31 (0)20 625 4115 and Fax: +31 (0)20 528 5176