By Matthew Sellers
California court deals United States Fire Insurance a $1 million blow in a bail bond dispute – find out why this matters for surety insurers
California’s appellate court has upheld a $1 million bail bond forfeiture against United States Fire Insurance Company, spotlighting critical procedures for surety insurers.
The dispute arose after United States Fire Insurance Company posted a $1 million bond for Noe Perez Gonzalez, who was charged with murder in Riverside County. Following his arraignment, the court set bail at $1 million, and United posted the bond to secure Gonzalez’s release. Gonzalez appeared at several hearings, then executed a written waiver under California Penal Code section 977, authorizing his attorney to appear on his behalf at future proceedings – a standard practice in California criminal cases.
The situation became more complex when Gonzalez was arrested on a separate domestic violence charge. On March 15, 2022, his attorney appeared in court, explaining Gonzalez’s absence due to being in custody on the new matter. The court set an intervening date of April 26, 2022, for arraignment on the new case and a trial readiness conference on the murder charge. On April 26, Gonzalez’s attorney appeared under the section 977 waiver, but Gonzalez did not appear personally. The court continued the matter, ordering Gonzalez to be personally present at the next hearing.
At the May 18, 2022 hearing, Gonzalez again did not appear, with his attorney reporting that Gonzalez had tested positive for COVID-19. The court accepted this explanation, set another hearing for June 2, 2022, and again ordered Gonzalez to appear and provide a doctor’s note. When Gonzalez failed to appear on June 2, the court vacated the trial date, forfeited the bond, and sent notice to United States Fire Insurance Company.
United moved to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, arguing that the court was required to forfeit the bond at the first missed appearance on April 26, 2022, and that by not doing so, the court lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond at a later date. The trial court denied United’s motions, and United appealed.
On October 1, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court found that the record did not support United’s claim that Gonzalez was required to personally appear on April 26, 2022. The court concluded that the order for Gonzalez to “return on any and all future hearing dates” did not mandate his personal attendance at every hearing, and that Penal Code section 977 allowed a defendant’s attorney to appear on their behalf at certain proceedings unless the court specifically ordered otherwise.
The appellate court also rejected United’s argument that the California Rules of Court required Gonzalez’s personal appearance at the trial readiness conference. The court cited prior case law confirming that a section 977 waiver is effective for such hearings unless the court expressly requires the defendant’s presence.
The outcome confirms that, unless a court explicitly requires a defendant’s personal appearance, an attorney’s appearance under a valid waiver is sufficient to satisfy court requirements. For insurance professionals, especially those involved in bail bond surety, the case highlights the importance of closely following court orders and understanding the nuances of appearance waivers. With the decision now final, United States Fire Insurance Company is required to pay the $1 million bond and associated costs.