Bail bond surety insurers have agreed to pay roughly $69 million to settle claims that they conspired to hold California bail premiums at about 10 percent of the bond amount for two decades. Around 2 million people who paid part or all of a California bail premium could be covered. There is no claim form, no deadline, and no per-person figure yet, because the largest settlements still need a judge’s approval.
Reporting on the proposed settlements says participating insurers would have to notify licensed bail agents that premiums are negotiable.
What the California Bail Bond Settlement Is About
A surety insurer is the company that backs the bond a bail agent sells you. The agent runs the storefront, and the surety underwrites the risk and, according to the complaint, controls the price.
The lawsuit alleges those sureties agreed to submit uniform 10 percent premium rates to the California Department of Insurance and then worked to suppress rebating, including by suggesting on their websites that rebates were wrong, unavailable, or illegal. On a $40,000 bond, a 10 percent premium is $4,000, and the money is not returned when the case ends.
Rebating is legal in California and has been since voters passed Proposition 103 in 1988. The California Department of Insurance says so directly on its own bail bonds page: a bail agent may choose to negotiate a lower fee by rebating, as allowed by Proposition 103. That is true today, whatever happens to this settlement.
The defendants deny the allegations. No court has found that any of them violated the law, and settling is not an admission of wrongdoing.
Who Is Covered
The proposed settlements would cover people who paid part or all of the premium on a commercial bail bond connected to a California state criminal proceeding, with the class period reaching back to 2004.
That includes the parent, partner, or friend who paid rather than the person who was arrested. Both are inside the proposed class.
Reporting on the June filing estimates roughly 2 million class members. The exact definition will be set out in the court-approved notice, which does not exist yet.
How Much Money Is Involved
Court reporting on the June 2026 filing itemizes the four largest of the new settlements:
| Insurer | Amount |
|---|---|
| Companies affiliated with Crum & Forster | $18.8 million |
| American Surety Company | $15.2 million |
| Accredited Surety & Casualty Company | $9.4 million |
| American Contractors Indemnity Company | $9.4 million |
Nine sureties settled in June, reported at $66.3 million combined, so the five not itemized above account for the remaining balance. An earlier settlement with Lexon Insurance and Danielson National Insurance, $1 million and $2 million respectively, reached final approval in June 2025 and brings the running total to roughly $69 million.
That earlier money has not gone out. Class counsel said at the time that the fund would be distributed when the lawsuit concludes or when the court orders it, with notice about a claims process to come later. How everything gets divided will be decided by a court-approved allocation plan that has not been filed.
What You Should Do Now
Two things are worth doing. Find whatever records you have of the premium you paid: the bail agency agreement, receipts, payment plan statements, or just the agency name and rough dates. Nobody knows yet whether the claim process will ask for documentation.
Then watch for the official settlement website. The case has used CABailBondAntitrust.com, and the court-approved notice will name the site carrying the deadlines and the claim form once they exist.
What Happens Next
The case is In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717-JST, before Judge Jon S. Tigar in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland. It was filed in February 2019 by named plaintiffs Shonetta Crain and Kira Monterrey against a group of bail industry defendants that included surety companies, two bail agencies, and trade associations.
The judge has to grant preliminary approval before anything else happens. That approval triggers notice to the class and sets the claim, exclusion, and objection deadlines, followed by a final approval hearing. None of those dates exist for the June 2026 settlements.
The case can continue against defendants that have not settled.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a claim form yet?
No, and that absence makes this case a target for fraud. A notice program did run for the earlier Lexon and Danielson settlement, but no claims process was ever opened, and class counsel said notice about one would come later. Any site collecting your information for a bail bond settlement payout today is not the court-approved route.
What if I paid a bail bond in another state?
This case covers bonds posted in connection with California state criminal proceedings. A premium paid on a bond in another state is outside the proposed class, even if you live in California.
Why does the class period start in 2004?
The complaint traces the alleged conspiracy to Pacific Bonding Corp. v. Garamendi, a February 2004 San Diego County Superior Court decision confirming that California bail agents could legally rebate part of the premium. The complaint alleges the sureties agreed among themselves not to compete on price shortly afterward.
Are the bail agencies defendants too, or only the insurers?
Both. The case names surety companies that underwrite the bonds, along with two bail agencies and trade associations. The June 2026 settlements are with sureties, so a settling insurer leaving the case does not resolve the claims against everyone else.
Can I still sue on my own instead?
Class members who do not opt out give up the right to sue over the claims a settlement resolves. The opt-out deadline does not exist yet, so nobody has had to make that decision. It will be set when the court approves a notice.
About This Page
RecallRefunds.com is a consumer information site. We are not a claims administrator, a law firm, a government agency, or any party to this case. This page summarizes a proposed class action settlement and is general information, not legal advice.
Official Sources
- In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:19-cv-00717 (N.D. Cal.), CourtListener docket
- California Department of Insurance, bail bonds consumer page on rebating and Proposition 103
- Order denying motion to dismiss, describing the alleged conspiracy and its 2004 origin (PDF)
- Class counsel notice of the Lexon and Danielson settlements
- Bloomberg Law, final approval of the Lexon and Danielson settlement