How do appeal bonds work to stay enforcement of civil judgments, and what happened with the $92 million bond in the Carroll litigation?
Executive summary
Appeal bonds (also called supersedeas bonds) are surety promises that let a losing civil defendant pause collection of a judgment while an appeal proceeds by guaranteeing payment if the appeal fails . In the Carroll litigation, former President Trump posted a roughly $91.6–$92 million bond underwritten by Chubb to secure an $83.3 million defamation verdict plus accruing interest, and a federal judge approved the bond and stayed enforcement pending his appeal [1] [2] [3].
1. What an appeal bond is and why courts demand it
An appeal bond is a financial guarantee—typically provided by a surety insurer—that the judgment creditor will be paid if the appellant loses on appeal, which allows the court to stay enforcement while the appellate process runs [4]. Courts require either cash payment or such a bond before permitting appeals to proceed in many civil cases because without a bond a successful appellant could indefinitely delay payment and leave the plaintiff with an uncollectible judgment [5].
2. How appeal bonds work in practice: premiums, collateral and interest
A surety company issues the bond in exchange for a premium and, in some deals, collateral or guarantees from the defendant; typical premium rates are reported in the low single digits of the bond amount (often 1–2 percent), and the bond amount usually covers the judgment plus interest that will accrue during the appeal [6]. If the appeal fails, the surety must pay the judgment to the plaintiff and then seeks reimbursement from the defendant per the underwriting terms; if the appeal succeeds, the bond is released and no payment is required [6].
3. The Carroll bond: timeline, amount and court action
Trump filed notice of appeal and posted a $91.63–$91.6 million bond in early March 2024—an amount sized to cover the $83.3 million jury award plus interest—after Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to delay the deadline for posting security [2] [7] [8]. The bond was underwritten by Chubb (via a Chubb subsidiary or Federal Insurance Co.), Carroll’s lawyers negotiated a shortening of certain payment timelines in the bond (reducing a proposed 60-day payment window to 30 days), and Judge Kaplan approved the bond and stayed enforcement of the judgment pending resolution of the appeal in the Second Circuit [3] [9] [10].
4. What the bond actually does—and what it does not—do for each side
The bond prevents Carroll from immediately collecting the $83.3 million judgment while appeals proceed, providing her assurance she will be paid if the verdict survives appeal because the surety guarantees payment [2] [5]. The bond, however, secures only the current appeal amount—court orders and reporting indicate Chubb’s bond was limited to covering the $83.3 million judgment plus interest and does not automatically secure future or separate appeals or liabilities [1] [3]. Posting the bond also imposes financial cost on the appellant in premiums and potential collateral obligations to the insurer [6].
5. Practical and political context surrounding the $92 million bond
The nearly $92 million bond came as part of broader litigation pressures facing Trump, including a separate $454 million civil fraud judgment in New York that would require a much larger bond to stay while appealed and has already provoked disputes over bond size and feasibility [7] [3]. The Chubb CEO publicly defended underwriting the Carroll appeal bond as a routine surety activity, while critics emphasized the optics of an insurer backing a politically prominent defendant—arguments reflected in reporting but outside the narrow legal mechanics of the bond itself [6] [3].
6. Bottom line: legal effect and remaining uncertainties
Legally, the $91.6–$92 million bond achieved its immediate purpose: it stayed enforcement of the Carroll judgment while securing the plaintiff’s right to payment if the appeal fails, and Judge Kaplan approved those terms after a brief negotiation over payment timing [9] [10]. What remains unresolved are the outcomes of Trump’s pending appellate challenges and any separate judgments or future appeals that the Chubb bond does not cover, and reporting does not establish what collateral or indemnities Trump provided to Chubb beyond routine premium and underwriting practices [3] [6] [2].