The bill passed on a 12-2 vote with one abstention, but some council members objected to the latter provision. They argued “insurance” is a misleading term for this type of security deposit alternative, which is typically offered via a surety bond. In such an arrangement, a tenant often pays a nonrefundable premium that is lower than a typical lump-sum deposit. In exchange, the bond company pays damage claims made by the landlord. Then, the company bills the tenant for the costs.