Click here for the entire post.

Please note Hideaway has updated their insurance so it now shows current as of 10/2/26.

Summary:

Texas law requires licensed private-security companies to maintain the required insurance documentation with DPS. While reviewing Hideaway’s private-security licensing information, I found that the license for Hide-A-Way Lake Club, Inc. (license B02065) was listed by the Texas Department of Public Safety with the status of “Insurance Suspension.” See entire post below for the screenshot.

The record showed an insurance expiration date of September 17, 2026, while the company license itself had a later expiration date. An insurance suspension does not automatically prove that Hideaway had no insurance at all. There could have been continuous coverage with a documentation problem, a rejected certificate, a delay in filing, or an actual lapse in coverage. At this time, I do not know what caused the suspension.

What makes the issue more important is that Hideaway security appeared to continue operating. The DPS status concerns the company license, not necessarily each individual guard’s registration, but Texas law also addresses guard services performed while a company license is suspended. That raises questions about what duties guards continued performing, whether those duties required an active company license, and what insurance protection existed during that period.

Another unanswered question is why Fair Oil remains connected to Hideaway’s security licensing information. I am not claiming that the listing is improper, but members deserve to know whether Fair Oil currently has any relationship involving insurance, licensing, management, contracting, ownership, or another part of the security operation.

This matters because Hideaway security does more than allow people through the gates – they patrol and protect our property.

I do not know the answers at this time, but members deserve to know.

If these questions matter to you too, ask the Board directly. Ask them at meetings, send them in writing, and keep asking until clear, documented answers are provided. The more members who demand transparency on the same questions, the harder it becomes for those questions to be ignored. 

---

Entire Post:

Hideaway Security License Shows an “Insurance Suspension” — So What Does That Mean?

While continuing to review Hideaway’s security operation, I found something in the Texas Department of Public Safety licensing system that I believe members deserve an explanation about.

The Texas Online Private Security system showed Hide-A-Way Lake Club, Inc., license B02065, with the status “Insurance Suspension.”

The license was not simply expired. The state system was specifically showing an insurance-related suspension.

At the same time, Hideaway security personnel appeared to continue performing security and gate-related duties.

That raises a basic question:

What happened with Hideaway’s security insurance, and what was the Association allowed to continue doing while the company license was under suspension?

Texas Requires Private-Security Companies to Maintain Insurance

Texas regulates private-security companies under Chapter 1702 of the Texas Occupations Code.

Section 1702.123 says a company license holder must maintain the required bond and certificate of insurance on file with DPS at all times. It also says the state must immediately suspend the company license when that requirement is not satisfied. Texas Department of Public Safety

The same statute allows the suspension to be rescinded if the company proves the insurance coverage was actually still in effect. If reinstatement is required, DPS can also consider whether the company performed regulated services during the suspension. Texas Department of Public Safety

DPS’s administrative rules similarly state that failure to maintain evidence of current insurance results in immediate suspension and that a suspension may be rescinded if the company proves there was no lapse in coverage. Texas Department of Public Safety

So an Insurance Suspension is more than an ordinary renewal reminder.

Does This Mean Hideaway Has No Insurance?

Not necessarily.

This is an important distinction.

DPS explains that insurance documentation can be rejected for reasons such as:

• the insured business name or address not matching DPS records;
• missing insurance-license information;
• a missing signature;
• or incorrect or missing coverage limits. Texas Department of Public Safety

DPS also specifically provides a process for a company whose license is under an insurance suspension to submit proof of insurance and pay a reinstatement fee. Texas Department of Public Safety

So I do not think it would be accurate at this point to simply say: “Hideaway has no insurance.”

The state record alone does not prove that. There could have been an actual lapse in coverage.

There could also have been continuous coverage but a problem getting acceptable proof of that coverage on file with DPS.

Those are very different situations.

That is exactly why Hideaway should explain what happened – in my opinion.

Security Appeared to Keep Operating

What makes the situation more concerning to me is that Hideaway’s security operation did not appear to simply stop.

Security personnel appeared to continue working at the gates and carrying out security-related functions.

I want to make another important distinction here.

The status I found concerns the company license for Hide-A-Way Lake Club’s security operation. It does not automatically establish that every individual guard’s personal registration was suspended.

But DPS has publicly addressed the broader issue of companies performing regulated services while suspended.

During a Texas Private Security Advisory Committee discussion about insurance suspensions, a DPS official stated that companies under suspension are technically not supposed to perform regulated services while suspended and must comply with the law. Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas law also says DPS may deny reinstatement if, during the suspension, the applicant performs a practice for which a company license is required. Texas Department of Public Safety

That makes the next question pretty straightforward:

What activities did Hideaway security continue performing while the company license was under an Insurance Suspension?

Were They Still Performing Regulated Security Services?

That is the part I want clarified.

• Were guards simply present?
• Were they checking vehicles at the gates?
• Were they verifying visitors?
• Were they patrolling?
• Were they responding to calls?
• Were they stopping vehicles?
• Were they issuing violations?
• Were commissioned officers carrying firearms while working under the suspended company license?
• Which of those activities required the active company license?

I am not going to pretend I can answer all of those questions from the TOPS screen alone.

But the Association should know exactly what instructions were given to security personnel once the suspension occurred.

And DPS should be able to clarify which regulated services could legally continue.

What Insurance Protection Existed During That Period?

This may be one of the most important questions for members.

Texas law requires the private-security company’s general liability insurance to cover damages the license holder becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury, property damage, or personal injury arising from licensed activities involving its officers, agents, or employees. Texas Department of Public Safety

DPS’s current guidance says licensed businesses must maintain valid proof of insurance on file and describes the minimum required liability limits. Texas Department of Public Safety

So if a security-related incident had occurred during the suspension period, members deserve to know:

What policy would have responded?

• Who insured Hideaway’s security operation during this period?
• Is the insurance covering Hideaway Security separate from the Club’s general liability insurance, or is security covered under the same policy and if so who is insuring us?
• Was the previous security-related insurance policy still active when TOPS showed the “Insurance Suspension” status?
• Had replacement coverage already taken effect before the prior policy expired?
• Was there any gap in insurance coverage between the old and new policies?
• Was there actually continuous insurance coverage, with the TOPS status caused only by a paperwork, reporting, or administrative issue with DPS?
• Were Hideaway’s security employees continuously insured while they were working during this period?
• If a security-related incident had occurred while TOPS showed “Insurance Suspension,” which policy would have been responsible for responding to the claim?
• Did the insurer know security operations were continuing during our suspension period reflected by the TOPS website?

Those answers matter.

Who Knew About the Suspension?

There is also the management side of this.

Hide-A-Way Lake Club is the entity shown in the DPS licensing system.

So I believe members should know:

• When did Hideaway know the insurance was approaching expiration?
• Who was responsible for maintaining the required coverage?
• Who was responsible for submitting proof of insurance to DPS?
• When did Hideaway first learn that its company license had been suspended?
• Was General Manager Del Polikretis notified?
• Was Security Chief Brian South notified?
• Was the Board notified?
• Were security employees told?
• Were their duties changed?
• Did Hideaway seek legal advice about whether operations could continue?
• When was replacement or renewed insurance obtained?
• And when was the licensing problem corrected?

DPS says TOPS company-license status information is updated in real time. It also says that when a company’s insurance is expired and TOPS displays an insurance suspension, a company renewal will not be processed until current insurance is reflected in the DPS database. Texas Department of Public Safety

So this is a status that management could verify.

Why Is Fair Oil Still Connected to the License?

There is another part of the licensing information that I do not understand.

Fair Oil remains listed in connection with Hideaway’s security license.

That raises another set of questions.

If Fair Oil no longer has any relationship with Hideaway’s security operation, why does it remain connected to the licensing record?

If there is still a relationship, what is it?

Does Fair Oil have a role involving:

• insurance;
• ownership;
• management;
• licensing;
• contracting;
• financial responsibility;
• or some other connection to Hideaway security?

I am not claiming that Fair Oil’s appearance on the record is improper.

But members should be able to understand why an outside company remains connected to Hideaway’s private-security licensing information and whether that information is current.

I would also like to know whether Fair Oil has any connection at all to the insurance issue that resulted in the suspension.

Why This Matters More Because of Hideaway’s Security Activities

This would be important even if Hideaway security did nothing more than sit inside the gatehouse.

But that is not the only activity we have been questioning.

Our family’s concerns about Hideaway security began after an Uber Eats driver delivering food to our home was stopped for allegedly traveling 48 mph in a 25 mph zone.

The driver was issued a citation, and six days later a $500 charge was placed on our account.

I documented that incident here: $500 Delivery Driver Fine Charged to Us Despite Bylaw Protections

That experience caused us to start examining what Hideaway security actually does, what authority it has, how guards are trained, what information they collect, and what rules govern the program.

The insurance suspension creates an entirely separate concern.

Even before deciding whether a particular security practice is authorized, the Association should be able to show that the company performing those regulated services was properly licensed and insured.

What I Would Like Hideaway to Provide

I believe this could be cleared up fairly quickly if Hideaway simply provided the relevant records.

I would like to see:

• the insurance policy in effect before September 17, 2026;
• any renewal or replacement policy;
• the certificate of insurance submitted to DPS;
• any notice that the policy expired, lapsed, or was not renewed;
• any DPS notice concerning the insurance suspension;
• any notice explaining why insurance documentation was rejected;
• communications with the insurance carrier or broker;
• communications with DPS concerning reinstatement;
• the date Hideaway first learned of the suspension;
• records showing when the General Manager, Security Chief, and Board were informed;
• instructions given to security employees after the suspension;
• records showing what security functions continued;
• any legal advice obtained about continuing operations;
• the date the license was reinstated, if it has been reinstated;
• and records explaining why Fair Oil remains connected to the license.

If there was continuous coverage and this was simply a paperwork problem, those documents should show that.

If there was an actual lapse, members should be told that too.

This Is Another Example of Why Records Matter

This is exactly why I keep coming back to documentation.

Without the records, people are left to speculate.

Maybe this was a simple administrative problem that was quickly corrected.
Maybe replacement insurance existed the entire time.
Maybe there was an actual lapse.
Maybe the security operation was immediately restricted while the issue was being resolved.
Maybe it was not.

I do not know the answer at this time, but members deserve to know. I do not want to fill in the gaps with assumptions.

Since our HOA has repeatedly declined to answer questions coming from me, perhaps members asking the same questions themselves will finally get the answers we have been trying to obtain.

Records replace speculation with facts.

That is why the Association should explain what happened.

What I Am Not Claiming

I want to be clear about the limits of what we currently know.

I am not claiming Hideaway had absolutely no insurance coverage.
I am not claiming every individual security officer lost his or her registration.
I am not claiming every security activity performed during the suspension was unlawful.
I am not claiming that an incident during the suspension would automatically have been uninsured.
I am not claiming Fair Oil’s presence on the licensing record is improper.

What I am saying is that the Texas DPS licensing system showed Hide-A-Way Lake Club’s company license under an Insurance Suspension, while Hideaway security appeared to continue operating.

Texas law requires the company to maintain the required insurance documentation.

Texas law provides for suspension when that requirement is not satisfied.

And Texas law specifically addresses regulated practices performed during the suspension. Texas Department of Public Safety

Those facts deserve an explanation.

Members Should Not Have to Discover This Themselves

Members pay for Hideaway security.

Members, their families, guests, contractors, delivery drivers, and others interact with Hideaway security every day.

If the company license covering that security operation becomes suspended because of an insurance issue, I believe members deserve to know.

They should not have to discover it by searching a state licensing database.

The Association should be able to answer:

• Why was the security company license placed under an Insurance Suspension?
• Was there an actual insurance lapse, or was there continuous coverage with a documentation problem?
• When did Hideaway learn about the suspension?
• What security activities continued during the suspension?
• What insurance protected the Association, its employees, members, and visitors during that period?
• When was the problem corrected?
• And why is Fair Oil still connected to Hideaway’s security license?

Those are not accusations. These are questions that the records should answer.


Since our HOA has repeatedly ignored our questions in the past, perhaps members asking the same questions themselves will finally get the answers we have been trying to obtain.

Sources and Supporting Documents

Texas Department of Public Safety — Texas Online Private Security (TOPS) — The state licensing system used to check company and individual private-security licensing information.

Texas Online Private Security — TOPS

Texas Department of Public Safety — Insurance Questions — DPS explains the insurance-document requirements, possible reasons insurance documentation can be rejected, and the reinstatement procedure when a business license is under an insurance suspension. Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas DPS — Private Security Insurance Questions

Texas Department of Public Safety — Company Questions — DPS explains that TOPS licensing information is updated in real time and that a renewal is not processed while a company remains under insurance suspension until current insurance is reflected in the database. Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas DPS — Private Security Company Questions

Texas Private Security Statutes and Rules — Texas Occupations Code §1702.123 requires a company license holder to maintain required insurance documentation, provides for immediate suspension, allows rescission when continuous coverage is proven, and addresses regulated practices performed during suspension. Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas DPS — Private Security Statutes and Rules

Texas DPS — Submitting Insurance Documents Through TOPS — DPS states that licensed private-security businesses must maintain valid proof of insurance on file and describes the required minimum liability coverage. Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas DPS — Submitting Insurance Documents Through TOPS

Texas Private Security Advisory Committee — October 12, 2022 — During a discussion about insurance suspensions, DPS officials stated that companies under suspension technically should not be performing regulated services while suspended. Texas Department of Public Safety

Voices of Hideaway — $500 Delivery Driver Fine Charged to Us Despite Bylaw Protections — Background on the Uber Eats incident that originally caused us to begin examining Hideaway’s security practices.