X hits on this document

10 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 6

policies at issue here indicated that they were personally entered by Respondent. (Exs. 3, 45, 46; test. of Johnson.)

(11) On May 4, 2001, Kenneth W. Martin, ASCI Regional Services Manager, notified the department that Respondent’s agent agreement was terminated for cause on April 17, 2001 for intentional misconduct pursuant to ORS 744.175(2)(d). Mr. Martin stated that Respondent had knowingly violated company underwriting rules and rates by applying discounts on insureds that did not meet the eligibility requirements for the discount. (Exs. 2, 3.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

(1) Respondent violated ORS 744.013(2)(g) in six instances from December 3, 1999 to November 13, 2000 by misrepresenting to ASIC that an insured under an auto insurance policy issued by ASIC was insured under a homeowner policy also issued by ASIC, and therefore, entitled to a 20 percent discount in the premium on the auto policy.

(2) The department has proven these violations and revocation of Respondent’s Oregon insurance agent license is warranted.

OPINION

The issues to be resolved in this agent sanction case are whether Respondent violated ORS 744.013(2)(g) in six instances and whether these violations warrant revocation of Respondent’s Oregon insurance agent license. In this regard, the department has the burden of proving the allegations and the propriety of the sanction by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 183.450(2) and (5); Harris v. SAIF, 292 Or 683, 690 (1982) (general rule regarding allocation of burden of proof is that the burden is on the proponent of the fact or position.); Cook v. Employment Div., 47 Or App 437 (1980) (in the absence of legislation adopting a different standard, the standard in administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence). Proof by a preponderance of evidence means that the fact finder is persuaded that the facts asserted are more likely true than false. Riley Hill General Contractors v. Tandy Corp., 303 Or 390 (1989).

Violations

The department alleges that Respondent violated ORS 744.013(2)(g) (1999) in six instances. ORS 744.013(2)(g) (1999) provides in relevant part:

(2) The director may take any disciplinary action under subsection (1)3 of this section on one or more of the following grounds:

3Subsection 1 of ORS 744.013 states:

.

(1) If the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services finds with respect to an applicant or licensee that one or more of the grounds set forth in subsection (2) of this section exist, the director may take the following disciplinary actions:

Michael C. Eaton (Case No: INS 02-10-016) Page 4 of 6

Document info
Document views10
Page views10
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 19:55:19 UTC 2016
Pages6
Paragraphs63
Words2435

Comments