Back to Federal guidance
Insurer sale of both a benefit policy and a required bond
Summary A requester asked whether the insurer funding a benefit plan could also sell the required ERISA bond. DOL said selling a group policy to the employer alone did not make the insurer a plan party in interest, so the cited prohibited-transaction rule would not bar the bond sale on those facts. It could not decide a separate bonding restriction without more facts about a director shared by the insurer and policyholder.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Document number
P/OPINION 76-36
Date issued
January 15, 1976
Status
Unknown
EBSA's index does not mark withdrawn or superseded opinions; still posted on dol.gov as of 2026-10-26.
Status last verified October 26, 2026
Apply this to your situation
This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
P/OPINION 76-36
406
412
January 15, 1976
Dear :
This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1975, to in which you inquire whether an insurance company which sells a group insurance policy to a company to fund one of the company's employee benefit plans also can sell to the company the bond required by section 412(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act).
Section 406(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits, among other things, the direct or indirect sale of any property, including a bond required by section 412(a) of the Act, between a plan and a party in interest. However, the sale by an insurance company of a group insurance policy to an employer to fund an employee benefit plan would not alone cause the insurance company to become a party in interest to the plan. Therefore, in the absence of any indication that the insurance company is a party in interest--for example, that the insurance company provides services to the plan in addition to the sale of the insurance policy--the prohibitions of section 406 would not apply to the sale of a bond in the circumstances you describe.
You also inquire as to the applicability of section 412(c) of the Act to the sale by an insurance company of a bond required by section 412(a) to a policyholder, where a director of the insurance company is also a director of the policyholder.
As you are aware, section 412(c) makes it unlawful to procure any bond required by section 412(a) “from any... company... in whose business operations such plan or any party in interest in such plan has any control or significant financial interest, direct or indirect.” Whether the requisite control or interest is present in this case is a factual question and your letter does not provide sufficient information with respect to the relationship between the two companies for that determination to be made.
Since a temporary regulation under section 412(e) of the Act, 29 CFR §2550.412-1 (40 FR 2003, January 10, 1975), incorporates by reference the substance of the regulations adopted under section 13 of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, (WPPDA), you may find the WPPDA regulations helpful in interpreting section 412(c), particularly 29 CFR 485.4(b) and (c) and example (2) therein. Copies of the above regulations are enclosed for your information.
Sincerely,
What does federal law require in your situation?
Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace