AB 226 lets the California FAIR Plan Association, with the insurance commissioner’s prior approval, issue bonds, enter loan and line-of-credit agreements (including with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank), and secure those obligations by pledging association assets as collateral. The statute expressly allows the association to pledge premiums, revenues, receivables, assessments, and other assets and creates a continuous statutory lien in favor of bond trustees and lenders that is enforceable without filing or notice.
The bill requires the FAIR Plan to assess its member insurers to fully and timely repay any outstanding bonds, loans, or lines of credit if the association cannot meet repayment obligations itself; it also locks in approved repayment terms against later amendments to the plan of operation and shields outstanding agreements from state actions that would be adverse to creditors. Practically, AB 226 expands the FAIR Plan’s financing toolbox while reallocating repayment risk and creating priority rules that lenders and market participants will need to factor into underwriting, ratings, and governance decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the FAIR Plan, after commissioner approval, to issue bonds, enter loans and lines of credit (including with the CA Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank), and secure those obligations by pledging the association’s assets. It creates a continuous statutory lien in favor of creditors and requires the association to assess members to timely repay these obligations if necessary.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include the California FAIR Plan Association, its member insurers (who can be assessed for repayment), bondholders and lenders (who gain a statutory lien and enhanced enforcement tools), and the Department of Insurance through an expanded approval role.
Why It Matters
This statute converts the FAIR Plan into a more active borrower with market access and collateral-backed credit, which can materially change liquidity management for a residual-market insurer and alter credit and regulatory dynamics for member insurers and potential creditors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 226 gives the FAIR Plan formal authority to use market financing tools to fund claims and shore up liquidity, but only after the insurance commissioner signs off. Specifically, the association can ask the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to issue bonds on its behalf, enter into loans with that bank, and negotiate lines of credit with third parties.
The authorization is broad enough to include ancillary agreements the association needs to execute and deliver the financing instruments.
To make those financings credible to lenders, the bill allows the FAIR Plan to secure the obligations with a pledge of association assets — explicitly listing premiums, revenues, receivables, assessments, and other assets — and makes that pledge subject to the Commercial Code’s Division 9 rules on secured transactions. At the same time, the statute creates a separate, continuous statutory lien in favor of bond trustees and lenders that becomes effective from the first bond or first line of credit and is enforceable without the typical acts (notice, filing, or delivery) usually required to perfect a security interest.If the association obtains the commissioner’s approval for bonds, loans, or lines of credit and later cannot timely and fully meet repayment obligations, the bill requires the FAIR Plan to assess its member insurers in the amounts and at the times necessary to pay in full.
The FAIR Plan cannot use subdivision (b) to assess members without prior review and approval by the commissioner. Furthermore, once repayment terms are approved, the plan of operation cannot be amended to change those terms in a way that would impair timely payment, and the state may not alter this section in a manner adverse to creditors while obligations remain outstanding (subject to prospective-only changes).Finally, the statute exempts the association from specified statutory articles (Article 14 and Article 14.3 of the cited chapter) for as long as any bond, loan, or line of credit remains outstanding.
Taken together, these provisions create a package intended to make FAIR Plan debt more bankable while putting contractual and statutory protections in place for creditors — and explicitly tying member insurers to repayment if the association cannot perform.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the FAIR Plan to obtain the insurance commissioner’s prior approval before issuing bonds, entering loans, or executing lines of credit.
Collateral for financings may include premiums, revenues, receivables, assessments, and any other association assets, and the pledge is subject to Commercial Code Division 9.
If the association cannot timely and fully meet repayment obligations on approved financings, it must assess member insurers in amounts and at times necessary to pay those obligations in full.
AB 226 creates a continuous statutory lien in favor of bond trustees and lenders that is effective from the first bond issuance or line-of-credit execution and is valid and enforceable without notice, filing, or physical delivery.
Once repayment terms are approved, they cannot be altered by later amendments to the FAIR Plan’s plan of operation, and the state may not retroactively change this section to the detriment of existing creditors while obligations remain outstanding.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Authorization to finance claims and increase liquidity
Subsection (a) enumerates the FAIR Plan’s new financing options: requesting CIEDB bond issuance, entering loan agreements with CIEDB, entering lines of credit with third parties, and taking other incidental actions necessary to execute financings. Practically, this converts the FAIR Plan from a pure residual-market writer relying only on premiums and assessments into an entity that can tap external credit markets, subject to the commissioner’s prior approval.
Collateral and ancillary agreements
These clauses let the FAIR Plan secure financings by pledging a broad set of assets — including premiums, revenues, receivables, and assessments — and confirm the association may enter additional agreements needed to deliver the financings. The text ties the pledge to the Commercial Code’s Division 9 framework, which frames how security interests are created and enforced, while still preserving the statutory lien regime introduced elsewhere in the section.
Member assessments to satisfy repayment shortfalls
Subdivision (b) requires the FAIR Plan to levy assessments on its member insurers sufficient and timely to meet repayment obligations for approved bonds, loans, and lines of credit if the association itself cannot. It also conditions any action under this subsection on the commissioner’s prior review and approval, giving the regulator a gatekeeping role before assessments are imposed under this authority.
Irrevocability of approved repayment terms and creditor protections
Once repayment terms have the commissioner’s approval, subdivision (c) bars later amendments to the plan of operation from changing those terms in ways that would impede timely payment. It also prevents the state from retroactively altering this section to the detriment of bondholders or lenders while obligations remain outstanding, although the state may adopt changes that apply only to future financings.
Statutory lien mechanics and statutory exemptions
Subdivision (d) creates a continuous statutory lien on all designated collateral in favor of bond trustees and lenders, effective from the first financing event and enforceable without the typical perfection steps (notice, filing, or delivery). Subdivision (e) removes the association from two specified statutory articles for as long as a bond, loan, or line of credit remains outstanding. The practical effect is to give creditors a high-priority, self-executing security interest and to limit certain statutory constraints on the FAIR Plan while debt remains unpaid.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- FAIR Plan policyholders: By expanding the FAIR Plan’s ability to raise funds, the bill increases the association’s capacity to pay claims after large loss events, which can reduce the risk of delayed claim payments.
- Bondholders and lenders: Creditors gain a statutory, continuous lien and explicit state-protections that improve repayment prospects and reduce legal uncertainty about priority and enforcement.
- California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (CIEDB): The bank gains a potential new borrower/partner role facilitating bond issuance for the FAIR Plan under existing statutory authority.
- Credit-rating and capital markets participants: The combination of collateral pledges and statutory lien language may make FAIR Plan securities more investable and clearer to rate, which could lower financing costs relative to unsecured alternatives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Member insurers of the FAIR Plan: The association may assess members to repay outstanding financings, so member companies are directly exposed to additional, potentially large assessments tied to debt service.
- Small insurers and specialty writers participating in the FAIR Plan: These firms may face disproportionate financial strain from sudden or large assessments, affecting their solvency or pricing.
- Department of Insurance and the commissioner’s office: The commissioner must review and approve financings and assessments, increasing regulatory workload and the need for technical oversight.
- Other creditors of member insurers or the association: The statutory, self-perfected lien regime could complicate existing priority arrangements and expose other creditors to higher risk or litigation over collateral priority.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strengthening the FAIR Plan’s ability to pay claims quickly by enabling secured, market-based financing and protecting insurers, existing creditors, and transparency norms: the bill improves creditor security and market access but shifts repayment obligation onto member insurers and creates a self-executing lien regime that undermines ordinary notice and filing systems.
AB 226 packs operational power and creditor protections into a relatively compact statutory framework, but it leaves several implementation details unresolved. The statute mandates commissioner approval but does not specify the standards, timing, or procedural safeguards for that approval — for example, what financial tests, notice to members, or hearings the commissioner must conduct before allowing debt issuance or member assessments.
That gap will matter in practice because the timing and transparency of approvals determine how quickly the association can access markets after a catastrophe.
The statutory lien language is potent: making a lien "valid, effective, prior, perfected, binding, and enforceable" without notice or filing raises classic priority and notice issues. Other secured creditors and servicers will need clarity about how the statutory lien interacts with UCC-9 filings, bankruptcy stay issues, and the rights of lienholders who relied on public filings.
The bill ties the pledge to Division 9 but simultaneously creates an independent statutory perfection rule, which could invite litigation or require administrative guidance to reconcile competing regimes.
Finally, the assessment mechanism reallocates repayment risk onto member insurers but leaves open how assessments will be calculated, apportioned, and timed in extreme scenarios. That uncertainty affects members’ liquidity planning and could influence market behavior: insurers might alter participation decisions, change pricing, or seek contractual protections.
The exemption from identified statutory articles while debt is outstanding also raises governance questions about which statutory constraints are being avoided and why — clarity here will matter to regulators and stakeholders assessing long-term risk transfer.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.