ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
19A-048-INS · Department of Insurance · 2020-01-06
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matters of:
WILLIAMS, KOREASA MARIA
fka KOREASA WRIGHT
(National Producer No. 8430816)
and
GLAM INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC
dba WILLIAMS AND ASSOCIATES
(National Producer No. 17893137)
Respondents
No. 19A-048-INS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 23, 2019, followed by post-hearing submissions and memorandum, with record closed on December 17, 2019.
APPEARANCES: Bruce R. Heurlin, Esq., represented Respondent Koresa Maria Williams fka Koresa Wright (Williams) and Respondent Glam Insurance Services, LLC dba Williams and Associates (Glam).
Assistant Attorney General Deian Ousounov, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Arizona Department of Insurance (Department).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Williams is currently licensed as an Arizona resident insurance producer with lines of authority in life and accident and health or sickness insurance, National Producer Number 8430816. First licensed in Arizona as a non-resident licensee, with a home state of Indiana, her current Arizona license expires on September 30, 2020.
As of January 2019, William’s addresses of record with the Department were as follows: Business, 7301 E. 22nd Street, #10-E, Tucson, AZ 85710; Business e-mail, [email redacted]; and, Mailing/Residence, 10981 E. Sisken Place, Tucson, AZ 85748.
Glam is currently licensed as an Arizona resident business entity insurance producer with lines of authority in life and accident and health or sickness insurance, National Producer Number 17893137. First licensed in Arizona on March 25, 2016, the license expires on March 31, 2020. Glam has not registered the assumed business name of "Williams and Associates" with the Department.
Glam's business and mailing address of record with the Department is 7301 E. 22nd Street, Suite 10W, Tucson, AZ 85710.
Williams is the sole member and Designated Responsible Licensed Producer for Glam.
2006 Application for a Non-Resident License
On or about July 29, 2006, Williams submitted an application for a non-resident insurance producer's license under her maiden name, Koreasa Wright ("2006 Non-resident Application”).
In that Application, Williams answered "No" to the following background question:
Have you ever been convicted of, or are you currently charged with, committing a crime, whether or not adjudication was withheld?
In that Application, Williams signed the Section VIII Authorization and Release section, which includes an attestation statement that reads as follows:
I hereby attest that I have read and that I understand the foregoing. I certify, under penalty of denial, suspension or revocation of the license or under any other penalties that may apply, that the answers, statements and information furnished in connection with this license application are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2009 Application for an individual Resident Insurance License
On or about June 23, 2009, Williams submitted an application to the Department for a resident producer's license as an accident health and life insurance producer ("2009 Resident Application").
In that application, Williams answered "No" to the following question in Section V: Additional Information:
C. Have you EVER been found guilty of, have you had a judgment made against you for, or have you admitted to, any of the following: ... 4. Withholding, misappropriating, converting or stealing money or property?
Williams signed Section VII: Authorization and Release of the 2009 Resident Application, which includes an attestation statement that reads as follows:
You attest that you have read and that you understand the foregoing. You certify, under penalty of denial, suspension or revocation of the license or under any other penalties that may apply, that the answers, statements and information furnished in connection with this license application are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2009 Indiana Administrative Action
On or about July 10, 2009, the Indiana Department of Insurance ("IDOI")
entered an administrative order ("Indiana Order") in Cause Number 5330-AG09-0701-160. The Indiana Order specifically noticed Williams that her then-inactive Indiana producer’s license (inactive as of March 31, 2009, based on her failure to renew) would not be renewed based on the failure to notify the IDOI of a 2005 conviction for Conversion, a misdemeanor.
2012 Renewal Application
11. On or about August 28, 2012, Williams submitted a license renewal application with the Department ("2012 Renewal Application"). Williams answered "No" to the following Background Questions of the 2012 Renewal Application:
Block A: Have you had any professional, vocational, business license or certification refused, denied, suspended, revoked or restricted, or a fine imposed by any public authority that has not been previously disclosed in a written format by you to this agency?
Block C: Have you been convicted or found guilty of, have you had a judgment made against you for, or have you admitted to any of the following that has not been previously disclosed in a written format by you to this agency? ... 4. Withholding, misappropriating, converting or stealing money or property?
In that Application, on July 20, 2012, Williams signed the Applicant Certification section of the 2012 Renewal Application, certifying that all information in and attached to the application was “true and correct to the best of my knowledge.”
2014 Criminal Conviction
12. On or about August 19, 2014, the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County found Williams guilty of Criminal Impersonation, a class 6 undesignated offense in case No. CR20141770-001. The Court sentenced Williams to one year of probation.
13. The Department has no record of Williams disclosing the Criminal Impersonation conviction to the Department as was required within 30 days pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-301(B).
2016 Application for Business-Entity Insurance License
14. On or about March 25, 2016, Williams, as the sole member/owner of Glam, filed an application for a business-entity insurance license ("2016 Business Entity Application"). Williams answered "No" to all questions under Section V of the 2016 Business Entity Application which asks questions regarding prior actions and convictions. On that application, question C-6 asks whether the applicant, or any individual designated as a principal who may exercise the powers conferred by the license, has “ever” been convicted, found guilty, had a judgment against for, or admitted to “[u]sing fraudulent, coercive or dishonest business practices including forgery with intent to defraud.” Williams attested to the truth, accuracy and correctness of all information provided on the application by signing the 2016 Renewal Application
2016 Application for Resident License Renewal
15. On or about August 23, 2016, Williams submitted an online license renewal application to the Department ("2016 Renewal Application"). Williams answered "No" to the following Background Questions:
1A. Have you been convicted of a misdemeanor, had a judgment withheld or deferred, or are you currently charged with committing a misdemeanor, which has not been previously reported to this insurance department? ...
1B. Have you been convicted of a felony, had a judgment withheld or deferred, or are you currently charged with committing a felony, which has not been previously reported to this insurance department? ...
2. Have you been named or involved as a party in an administrative proceeding, including a FINRA sanction or arbitration proceeding regarding any professional or occupational license or registration, which has not been previously reported to this insurance department? "Involved" means having a license censured, suspended, revoked, canceled, terminated; or, being assessed a fine, placed on probation, sanctioned or surrendering a license to resolve and administrative action. "Involved" also means being named as a party to an administrative or arbitration proceeding, which is related to a professional or occupational license, or registration. "Involved" also means having a license, or registration, application denied or the act of withdrawing an application to avoid a denial. INCLUDE any business so named because of your actions in our capacity as an owner, partner, officer or director, or member or manager of a Limited Liability Company. You may exclude terminations due solely to noncompliance with continuing education requirements or failure to pay a renewal fee. ...
In that online Application, Williams answered "Yes" to the Attestation section of the 2016 Renewal, which included a provision stating:
I hereby certify that, under penalty of perjury, all of the information submitted in this application and attachments is true and complete. I am aware that submitting false information or omitting pertinent or material information in connection with this is grounds for license revocation or denial of the license and may subject me to civil or criminal penalties.
16. On or about April 1, 2019, the Department issued its Notice of Hearing setting forth allegations on which the Department proposed to take disciplinary action regarding the licenses of Williams and Glam. The Notice indicated that the Respondents were required to file a written response within 20 days.
17. On or about April 19, 2019, through counsel, Respondents filed their Answer both admitting and denying certain of the allegations, arguing that the allegations did not adversely reflect on insurance business or insurance services, arguing that the mistakes were “innocent,” and that revocation would be an inappropriate sanction for such “innocent” mistakes. Glam further indicated that it would take action to correct the failure to notify the Department of the “DBA.”
18. In 2004, Williams was an employee at a pharmacy, and it was her responsibility to take daily deposits to the bank. As a single parent of a 4-year old, when she was short on funds, she would write a check to the pharmacy and take out cash, but not deposit the check in the bank until pay day. At some point in 2005, based on an audit of the pharmacy, she was contacted about the actions, and she pled guilty “to take care of” the matter. She argued that this was a misdemeanor and that she was not charged until after she no longer worked for the pharmacy. She received a sentence of six months of probation and had to pay court fees. She argued that the matter was discharged prior to her moving to Arizona. At hearing, she argued that she understood this to be “check-kiting,” or floating a loan, and was not they withholding, misappropriating, converting or stealing [of] money.” She argued that she had correctly answered the questions on the 2006 Non-resident and 2009 Resident applications.
19. At hearing, Williams argued that she had never applied to renew her Indiana license as she had moved to Arizona and had no intent to return to Indiana. In 2009, when she applied for the Arizona “resident” licensure, she had done so in lieu of applying to change her non-resident status to resident status with the Department, an action for which would have resulted in paying fees.
20. At hearing, Williams indicated that she did not find out about the Indiana Order until she applied to work for Americo in 2016 and, therefore, her answers (regarding any other administrative action) on the 2012 and 2016 applications were “correct.”
21. As to the 2014 Pima County judgment of “Criminal Impersonation,” Williams explained that she was helping her daughter ship a dog (via air) and, on Sunday night, she discovered that she needed to have a veterinarian’s certificate that the dog had its shots but she could not obtain one so early in the morning for a 6 AM flight in November of 2013 and, therefore, she simply printed out the certificate and signed the doctor‘s name. At hearing, Williams argued that her answers on Glam 2016 application were correct because she had no intent to defraud the buyer of the dog.
22. Regarding notification to the Department, Williams testified that her public defender had printed out the paperwork and helped her fill it out. Williams stated that she had driven to Phoenix (because there was no longer a Tucson office) to submit it to the Department “within 30 days,” and had handed it in at the “desk” at the Department, not obtaining a date stamp on her own copy. See Respondent’s Exhibit 11.
23. The “paperwork” allegedly submitted was accompanied by an application dated May 14, 2014 for the Department to give “consent” for Williams to engage in insurance business despite being “convicted” of a felony involving dishonesty or breach of trust that had not been disclosed on an application. While that application itself calls for submittal of specific information about the court process and the result, the May 14, 2014 cover letter was dated three months before the outcome and contains only minimal information; the “copy” of the submittal provided to the hearing record does not contains the allegedly-attached court documents.
24. The Department has no record of receiving such documents.
25. On August 15, 2014, the Pima County Superior Court issued its Minute Entry finding Williams guilty of Criminal Impersonation, a Class Six undesignated offense and sentencing Williams to one year of probation, 20 hours of community restitution, and specific court fees.
26. At hearing, the Department argued that the alleged actions, as found and admitted to by Williams were grounds for the Director to revoke the Respondents’ licenses. The Department argued that, once she found out about the Indiana Order, Williams, to this day, she had not notified the Department.
27. At hearing, it was noted that the first page of the Department’s Exhibit 7 was missing; the Department’s witness indicated that the page one was a page of instructions from the online application. Post-hearing, the Department was unable to provide page one because it was a document provided by an outside vendor, and the Department had hoped to find the document in its archives but was unable to do so.
28. Subsequently, Respondents moved to dismiss the allegations, arguing that the Department cannot meet its burden to demonstrate that Williams had not followed application instructions on the 2006 and 2009 applications regarding the Indiana Order. Further, Respondents argued that being unable to locate page one of the online application was proof that the Department misfiled or lost Williams’ submission – Exhibit 1’1 - in support of Williams’ proof that she had filed the document with the Department, which should result in dismissal of all the allegations in favor of Respondent Williams.
29. Finally, the Department noted that whether or not page one of the instructions were available, the fact was that Williams had not truthfully answered the specific questions on those applications. Further, the Department argued that whether a page of instructions was no longer available on the data base in 2019 provided no support for the alleged filing of May 2014 documents with the Department.
30. Respondents argued that the Department should not revoke but should consider a lesser discipline, as was demonstrated that the Department often did through various recent and past “Consent Orders” the Department had created with other licensees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter is a disciplinary proceeding wherein the Department must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents violated the State’s Insurance Laws. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
Respondent Williams’ conduct, as alleged and described above, constituted violation of A.R.S. § 20-295(A)(3) in obtaining a license through misrepresentation, in that Williams failed to disclose on her 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2016 applications, the 2005 felony theft conviction. Additionally, in that Williams failed to disclose on her own and Glam’s 2016 applications the 2014 conviction.
Respondent Williams’ conduct, as alleged and described above, constituted violation of A.R.S. § 20-295(A)(6) in having been convicted of a felony.
Respondent Williams’ conduct, as alleged and described above, constituted violation of A.R.S. § 20-301(A) in that Williams failed to report and notify the Director, within 30 days of the final disposition of the Indiana Order, the administrative action taken against her in that jurisdiction. Even if there were support for interpreting the statute as being applicable to 30 days from when the action is “discovered,” which there is not, the hearing record demonstrated that, to this day, Williams has never so notified the Department.
Respondent Williams’ conduct, as alleged and described above, constituted violation of A.R.S. § 20-295(A)(9) in that her insurance license in Indiana was, essentially, denied and/or revoked, i.e., “shall not be renewed”, for failure to notify that jurisdiction of the 2005 felony theft conviction.
Respondent Williams’ conduct, as alleged and described above, constituted violation of A.R.S. § 20-301(B) in that Williams failed to report and notify the Director of the August 15, 2014 “conviction” in Pima County Superior Court. Williams would have the Tribunal believe that she provided notice to the Department of the court action, i.e., the “charges” in May 2014 through Exhibit 11. However, the hearing record fails to substantiate the claim of such a notification in May 2014 as the documents contained in Exhibit 11 are neither date-stamped nor complete.
Respondent Williams’ conduct, as alleged and described above, in conducting Glam’s business under a name not the legal name of the producer, and failing to have so notified and properly reported such to the Department before using the assumed name, constituted a violation of A.R.S. § 20-297(A).
Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-295(A), multiple grounds exist for the Director of the Department to revoke Respondents’ Licenses, Williams’ National Producer No. 8430816 and Glam’s National Producer No. 17893137.
Respondents’ argument that a lesser discipline should be considered fails to acknowledge the serious circumstances herein of Respondent Williams’ long-time continued failure, and seemingly non-recognition of the 2005 felony theft “conviction.” Additionally, her stated confusion on what to report and where seems to be the basis for the argument that these inaccuracies were “innocent mistakes.” However, such an argument belies the fact that Williams, in a pinch, simply plunged ahead and intentionally forged a signature on a document that was to have been “certified” by a veterinarian. Additionally, she stated that she did not understand the clear language on the Glam business application, as the individual designated as principal with authority to exercise the powers of the Glam license, that she needed to report personal convictions, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department’s serious concerns are warranted regarding Williams and Glam.
Based on the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department’s action to revoke the stated licenses should be upheld.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Director’s action to revoke Williams’ National Producer No. 8430816 and Glam’s National Producer No. 17893137 shall be upheld and Respondents’ appeals shall be denied.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be five (5) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, January 6, 2020.
/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Keith A. Schraad, Director
Arizona Department of Insurance