ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before this tribunal pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600(B) and
38-43-130 (Supp. 2003) upon Respondent’s request for a contested case hearing regarding
Petitioner’s decision to revoke Respondent’s resident insurance agent’s license. The South
Carolina Department of Insurance seeks revocation of Respondent’s license for allegedly
violating South Carolina’s insurance laws because of his guilty plea to drug possession in
General Sessions Court of Florence County in 2003. A contested case hearing was held
September 15, 2004 at the Administrative Law Court. The parties and counsel were present as
indicated.
Petitioner acknowledged that under the terms of the statute, the Department has little
discretion concerning the revocation of a license following a conviction or guilty plea. Petitioner
also acknowledged, however, that the Department would entertain the Respondent’s request to
be reinstated. Thus, because of the Respondent’s remorse, demeanor, and support of his family
and employer for rehabilitation, Petitioner’s request that Respondent’s license be revoked is
denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the
hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I
make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1.Respondent was employed with Safe Auto Insurance Company (Safe Auto) as an
agent in 2003.
2.On April 21, 2003, Respondent pled guilty in Florence County Court of General
Sessions to Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. He was sentenced to
two years in jail and a two thousand five hundred dollar fine, which was suspended to
two years probation and a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars, plus costs.
3.The Respondent has served his probationary period and has not had any further
trouble with the law. He has the support of his family and his employer to return to
work.
4.I find the Respondent and his mother very credible and understanding of the necessity
to work hard to put this situation behind him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
South Carolina Code Ann. Section 38-43-130 (A) (Supp. 2003) states that “[t]he director
or his designee may place on probation, revoke, or suspend a producer’s license . . . when it
appears that a producer has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, has violated
this title or any regulation promulgated by the department, or has willfully deceived or dealt
unjustly with the citizens of this State.” Subsection (B) of the same section incorporates guilty
pleas into “convicted.” This case comes to the ALC as a contested case with a de novo
review of the matter. See e.g. Brown v. SC DHEC, 348 S.C. 507, 512 560 S.E.2d 410, 413
(2002). As such, the ALC is not bound by the findings of the Department. Id. I find the
Respondent a very credible and sincere witness, and believe that he should be reinstated as an
insurance agent.
ORDER
Based on the evidence before me, including the statement of Safe Auto that they would
be willing to employ Respondent again should he be reinstated, the request of the Respondent
and his mother that the Respondent be given a second chance, and the statement by counsel for
the Petitioner that they would entertain a request to reinstate the Respondent, I find that
Petitioner’s request that Respondent’s insurance agent’s license be revoked for violating S.C.
Code Ann. § 38-43-130(A) is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
February 21, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
