Ok i just caught up but here is what i was thinking about the bonds thing, i used to work in an insurance company doing professional liabilty policy work and every job the customers would contract for had to be added to the policy. I wonder if bailbondsmen have the same sort of obligation in their coverages. if so the florida bondsman may have found out that he was going to have to pay a rather large premium in order to get the coverage, and thus is having second thoughts about being the middleman.
I'm WAY behind here, sorry if this is OT...
But, that is how I understand it. My heads spinning, and I could be wrong but, I theorize the following...
First they were going to get Texas, through Tony, to cover the bond, and they then became aware of the need to use a local Bondsman to work through...Now, the Florida Bondsmans Insurance provider wants 50,000, as well. So, they are now arguing that "interstate commerce" laws are being violated by not letting the Texas Insurer do it alone, forget the Florida guy.
Leonard was giving 50,000 to Texas, but the Florida Bondsmans Insurance ALSO wanted 50,000, in case she did get away, because the Florida Insurer for the Florida Bondsman, whose name they are using, doesn't want to be held accountable.
So, in my eyes, from my limited understanding :crazy:...it's either, come up w/ another 50,000 or win the Insurance appeal.
Am I close?? This is crazy...