ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This insurance and bail bondsman license matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 1-23-600(B); 1-23-310; 38-43-130 and 38-53-160 (Supp. 1997). The South Carolina
Department of Insurance ("DOI") seeks to revoke the resident insurance agent's license and bail
bondsman's license of Respondent David M. Alexis and the insurance agency license of
Respondent A&J Bonding Company for allegedly violating South Carolina's insurance laws and
deceiving or dealing unjustly with the citizens of this State. A contested case hearing was
conducted before the Administrative Law Judge Division on January 12 and 19, 1997. Upon
consideration of the relevant and probative evidence and the applicable law, I find and conclude
Respondents committed the violations charged and hereby revoke the licenses at issue in this
case.
DISCUSSION
The contested case hearing in this matter commenced on January 12, 1998. Respondents
were absent but were represented by counsel. Respondents' counsel stated that Respondent Alexis
had traveled to New York for the weekend prior and was probably trapped by an ice storm there.
Based on this information, Petitioner agreed to a continuance of Respondents' presentation of its
case until January 19, 1998, and then presented its case to the Court. Respondents'
attorney was given ample opportunity to review all evidence submitted and to cross-examine each
of Petitioner's witnesses.
On January 15, 1998, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss with supproting affidavits
establishing that Alexis was not in New York on January 12, 1998, but in Columbia, South Carolina,
and available to appear at the contested case hearing. Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss was heard
when the contested case hearing reconvened on January 19, 1998. Although Alexis was, in fact,
available to testify on January 12, 1988, but chose not to appear at the hearing, the Motion to
Dismiss was denied. Respondent's dilatory tactic, disrespect for the Court, unnecessary delay and
inconveneince, and unfair advantage was not rewarded, however. Because Alexis' absence on
January 12, was the sole ground for recess of the hearing until January 19, Alexis was not allowed
to testify upon his appearance at the January 19, proceeding.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find the following facts:
- The Administrative Law Judge Division has subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this
matter.
- All parties were given timely notice of the date, time, place, and nature of the hearing, and
all parties entered a general appearance at the hearing.
- Respondent Alexis is licensed by the Director of the South Carolina Department of Insurance
as a resident insurance agent for Amwest Surety Insurance Company (Amwest).
- Respondent Alexis is licensed by the Director of the South Carolina Department of Insurance
as a bail bondsman.
- Respondent A&J Bonding is licensed in the State of South Carolina as a resident insurance
agency.
- Respondent Alexis holds a contract with Roche Surety, Inc. which requires him to report and
pay to that company bail bond premiums he writes on behalf of Amwest.
- The contract between Alexis and Roche requires Alexis to deposit with Roche 10% of the
premiums he writes to a separate "build up fund" to cover potential losses for bail bonds
estreated when defendants fail to appear in court.
- Pursuant to the above contract, Roche audited the business of Respondent A&J Bonding on
April 11, 1997.
- The audit revealed that Respondent Alexis had written $84,697.20 in bail bond premium
through his agency without reporting it as required and that Alexis owed Amwest $16,939.36
in premium and owed $8,469.72 to the build up fund to cover those bonds.
- Respondent Alexis attempted to pay these amounts via checks #1990 and #1991 on a
NationsBank account held by Respondent A&J Bonding, but both checks were returned for
non-sufficient funds.
- Gil Rodriguez, Executive Vice President of Roche, repeatedly attempted to resolve the
matter with Respondent Alexis but was unsuccessful. The money remains unpaid.
- On at least three occasions Respondent Alexis employed Reginald Y. Lewis as a runner to
locate and capture defendants that Respondent A&J Bonding had bonded out of jail and who
had failed to appear for court.
- Reginald Y. Lewis is not licensed in any capacity by the South Carolina Department of
Insurance.
- On July 17, 1996, Respondent Alexis received $1,240 from Mrs. Beverly B. Tucker and her
sister-in-law in return for his agreement on behalf of Respondent A&J Bonding to bond Mr.
G. Glen Bethea out of jail.
- The $1,240 received from Mrs. Tucker represented 10% of the $12,408 required for the
bond.
- On July 18, 1996, Tucker delivered a satellite television system as collateral on this bond to
Respondent Alexis at the offices of Respondent A&J Bonding.
- As agreed upon, Respondent A&J Bonding posted bail bonds for $10,000 and $2,288 on
behalf of Bethea on July 20, 1996. In addition to these two bonds, Respondent A&J Bonding
posted a $5,408 bail bond that same day.
- Tucker was never told about any of these bonds or advised of any hearing dates or the actual
status of the matter.
- By repeating his promise that he would get Bethea out of Jail, Respondent Alexis collected
a another $350 from Tucker on July 20, 1996. Tucker was not informed of what the
additional money was for specifically, and he was not informed that it represented the first
payment of a new $1,350 obligation.
- Bethea was never actually released from jail, and Amwest never incurred any risk on any of
the bail bonds written for Bethea.
- Tucker requested that the Respondents return her money and the satellite system she had left
as collateral.
- Respondent Alexis refused to refund any of the money and has not done so to date. He did
return the satellite system, but only after Tucker and her sister-in-law had employed an
attorney to help resolve the matter.
- S. C. Code Ann. § 38-43-130 (Supp. 1997) provides that an insurance agent's license may
be revoked when that agent has violated any of the State's insurance laws or wilfully
deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of this State. Sections 38-43-130(3) and (4)
define "wilfully deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of this State" to include "failing
to transmit promptly or pay all or a portion of the amount of insurance premium" and
"issuing his check covering all or a portion of an insurance premium which is not accepted
by the bank on which it is written when it is initially submitted." S.C. Code Ann.
§ 38-43-30 (Supp. 1997) makes it clear that these provisions apply to insurance agencies as
well.
- S.C. Code Ann. § 38-53-150 (Supp. 1997) provides a list of offenses for which a bail
bondsman's license may be revoked. That list includes violation of any laws of this State
relating to bail in the course of dealings under the license issued him by the director or his
designee; misappropriation, conversion, or unlawful withholding of monies belonging to
insurers or others and received in the conduct of business under the license; fraudulent or
dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license; failure to comply with or
violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any order of the director or his designee or
regulation of the department; conducted his affairs under the license in a way that
demonstrates incompetency or untrustworthiness.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law.
- Section 1-23-600(B) grants the Administrative Law Judge Division general jurisdiction over
all hearings of contested cases as defined by § 1-23-310 where such hearings involve an
executive branch department and where a single officer is authorized or permitted by law or
regulation to hear and decide such cases.
- The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to hear contested cases involving
insurance agent and bail bondsman licensing issues. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-43-130 and 38-53-160 (Supp. 1997). Section 38-43-130 provides that an insurance agent's license may be
revoked when that agent has violated any of the State's insurance laws or wilfully deceived
or dealt unjustly with the citizens of this State. Sections 38-53-160(3) and (4 ) "wilfully
deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of this State" to include "failing to transmit
promptly or pay all or a portion of the amount of insurance premium" and "issuing his check
covering all or a portion of an insurance premium which is not accepted by the bank on
which it is written when it is initially submitted." Section 38-43-30 makes clear that these
provisions apply to insurance agencies as well.
- Unless otherwise provided by law, the proper standard of proof to be applied in a contested
case conducted pursuant to the APA is a preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, Op. No. 24754 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed January 26,
1998) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 5); National Health Corp. v. South Carolina Dep't. of Health and
Envtl Control, 298 S.C. 373, 380 S.E.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1989); 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
61-72 § 702 (Supp. 1997).
- Findings of fact based upon a "preponderance" of the evidence are those supported by the
greatest "weight, amount, credibility or truth" as reflected by the whole of the evidence
before the court, or "evidence which convinces as to its truth." Frazier v. Frazier, 228 S.C.
149, 89 S.E.2d 225, 235 (1955); Nettles v. Nettles, 138 S.C. 318, 136 S.E. 297 (1927).
- The trier of fact must weigh and pass upon the credibility of evidence presented. See S.C.
Cable Television Ass'n v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586
(1992). The trial judge is in the best position to weigh witnesses' demeanor and veracity and
to evaluate their testimony. See McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322
(1982); Peay v. Peay, 260 S.C. 108, 194 S.E.2d 392 (1973); Mann v. Walker, 285 S.C. 194,
328 S.E.2d (Ct. App. 1985); Marshall v. Marshall, 282 S.C. 534, 320 S.E.2d 44 (Ct. App.
1984).
- Section 38-53-150 provides a list of offenses for which a bail bondsman's license may be
revoked. That list includes violation of any laws of this State relating to bail in the course of
dealings under the license issued him by the director or his designee; misappropriation,
conversion, or unlawful withholding of monies belonging to insurers or others and received
in the conduct of business under the license; fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct
of business under the license; failure to comply with or violation of the provisions of this
chapter or of any order of the director or his designee or regulation of the department;
conducted his affairs under the license in a way that demonstrates incompetency or
untrustworthiness.
- The Respondents wilfully deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of South Carolina by
failing to remit $16,939.36 in premium to Amwest as required by the contract with Roche.
This conduct violates S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-43-130(3); 38-43-240, and 38-53-150(4) (Supp.
1997).
- The Respondents wilfully deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of South Carolina by
issuing a check covering the above-referenced premium which was refused by the bank on
which it was written when it was initially submitted. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-43-130(4) (Supp.
1997).
- The Respondents wilfully deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of South Carolina by
their continued failure to pay the premium due to Amwest in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §
38-53-150(4) (Supp. 1997).
- The Respondents wilfully deceived or dealt unjustly with the citizens of South Carolina by
failing to promptly return Tucker's collateral when it became clear that there would be no
liability on the bonds issued for Bethea. This conduct violates S.C. Code Ann.
§§ 38-53-150(4) and 38-53-170(e) (Supp. 1997).
- The Respondents employed Reginald Y. Lewis as a "runner" as that term is defined in S.C.
Code Ann. § 38-53-10(9) (1989). Doing so without having Lewis being licensed by the
South Carolina Department of Insurance is a violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 38-53-80 and
38-53-150(7) (Supp. 1997).
- Respondents' failure to report the significant amount of premium written to Amwest, failure
to pay premiums and other funds due that insurer, use of an unlicensed runner, and
mishandling of Mrs. Tucker's account constitute dishonest practices which violate S.C. Code
Ann. § 38-53-150(5) (Supp. 1997) and demonstrate the Respondents' untrustworthiness in
the conduct of business. S.C. Code Ann. § 38-53-150(8) (Supp. 1997).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT THEREFORE ORDERED that the license of David M. Alexis to act as a resident
insurance agent within the State of South Carolina is hereby revoked and that no license issued
through the South Carolina Department of Insurance shall be issued to him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of David M. Alexis to act as a bail bondsman
within the State of South Carolina is revoked and that no license issued through the South Carolina
Department of Insurance shall be issued to him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of A&J Bonding Company to transact
business as a resident insurance agency within the State of South Carolina is hereby revoked.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Final Order and Decision shall be
transmitted to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners for distribution to its current
member states and to each insurer for which Respondent Alexis is currently licensed, through the
South Carolina Department of Insurance, as a resident insurance agent within the State of South
Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
STEPHEN P. BATES
Administrative Law Judge
March 9, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |