ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to the denial by the South Carolina Department of
Insurance ("Department") of Petitioner's application for an insurance agent's license. The
Department denied the Petitioner's application pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. §§ 38-7-140, 38-43-50,
and 38-43-100 (Supp. 1997) for providing false information on her application. A hearing was held
before the Administrative Law Judge Division on October 20, 1998.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, I make the
following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing agents under the
insurance laws.
2. The Petitioner submitted a State of South Carolina Application for Individual
Insurance Agent's License on May 26, 1998. She was sponsored by Pre-Paid Legal Casualty, Inc.,
a licensed insurance carrier.
3. On the application, Petitioner responded "No" to question #4 which asked if she had
ever been convicted, pled guilty, or pled no contest in a criminal proceeding. Respondent then
signed a statement affirming that "all information and answers contained in this application are true
and complete."
4. A criminal background investigation by SLED revealed that Petitioner had been
convicted on one count of forgery on August 9, 1991.
5. The Department notified the Petitioner and the Petitioner's sponsor on June 10, 1998,
that her license had been denied for failure to disclose the prior criminal conviction on her
application. In addition, the Department also asserted that denial of the license was authorized
because the Petitioner had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
6. Petitioner wrote to the Department on June 14, 1998, stating that she answered "No"
to question #4 because it was her understanding that she did not have to disclose the conviction for
forgery because it had nothing to do with insurance fraud.
7. The Petitioner did not complete her agent application truthfully and therefore should
not be granted an insurance agent's license. In addition, the Petitioner was convicted of a crime of
moral turpitude, which is a statutory ground for revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew an
agent's license. Therefore, the decision to deny the Petitioner's application for a resident agent's
license was proper.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. Jurisdiction is vested in the Division pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B)
(Supp. 1997).
2. "No person may act as agent for an insurer or for a fraternal benefit association unless
an agent's license has been issued to him by the director or his designee." S. C. Code Ann. § 38-43-20 (Supp. 1997).
3. An applicant has the burden of demonstrating he has met the required conditions
before the benefit sought can be granted. 73A C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 128
(1983).
4. "Before being issued a license to do business as an agent in this State for an insurer,
each applicant shall make written application for the license upon forms to be furnished by the
department, and all information on the forms required by the director or his designee must be
subscribed to by the applicant under oath . . . [T]he license may not be issued until the director or
his designee has determined that the applicant is qualified as an insurance agent . . . " S.C. Code
Ann. § 38-43-100 (Supp. 1997).
5. To obtain a license as an agent, an individual must be trustworthy. S.C. Code Regs.
69-23(g).
6. The Director of Insurance has the discretion to deny an insurance agent's license to
an applicant who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. See S.C. Code Ann. §
38-43-130 (Supp. 1997) and 25A S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 69-23 (1989).
7. Forgery is a crime of moral turpitude in South Carolina. State v. Johnson, 271 S.C.
485, S.E. 2d 313 (1978).
8. Petitioner does not meet the requirements for an insurance agent's license and is
therefore not entitled to a State of South Carolina resident insurance agent's license.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that application of Pearl M. Heyward is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
January 7, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina |
