ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

19A-104-INS · Department of Insurance · 2020-01-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

DAMRON, BONITA JEAN

aka BONITA OBERSTER,

National Producer No. 1160727,

Respondent.

No. 19A-104-INS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 9, 2020.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Deian Ousounov represented the Arizona Department of Insurance (Department). Bonita Jean Damron aka Bonita Oberster (Respondent) failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed by the Department as an Arizona resident insurance provider with line of authority in person lines insurance, under National Producer Number 1160727. See Exhibit 1. Respondent’s license was issued in March of 2015; the current licensing was set to expire on February 28, 2019.

Respondent’s addresses with the Department are as follows: 18275 North 59th Avenue, Suite 160, Glendale, Arizona 85308-1253 (Business); 5020 West Peoria Avenue, #267, Glendale, Arizona 85302-1716 (Mailing); [email redacted] (Email).

Respondent had been employed with Canyon Lands Insurance (Canyon).

On December 12, 2018, she executed a resignation letter. See Exhibit 4.

On January 25, 2019, David Coast, the agency principal for Canyon, filed a complaint regarding Respondent with the Department, stating “[s]he diverted money, and pretended to issue a policy.” See Exhibit 2.

Mr. Coast was unaware of any diversion until a customer, Julie Z., came to the office for a meeting on December 13, 2019 with Respondent and Respondent was not there. Ms. Z. informed Mr. Coast that she had been receiving premium non-payment notices and Mr. Coast was able to determine that Respondent had not been applying premium payments to Ms. Z.’s policy.

Mr. Coast discovered Respondent’s resignation letter when he was looking for a file containing Ms. Z’s policy.

Mr. Coast later discovered that another customer, Robin S., had also been bringing in premium payments in cash; Respondent had written receipts to Ms. Z and to Ms. S. in an approximate total amount of $700.00. See Exhibits 5 and 6.

The Department’s letter dated May 25, 2019 to Respondent was sent to Respondent at her business address and at an address provided by Mr. Coast, and by email. The certified mail was returned by the postal service to the Department. See Exhibits 7 and 8.

The Department’s subpoena dated June 13, 2019 for Respondent to provide records at a meeting on June 25, 2019 was sent to Respondent at her business address and at her mailing address, and by email. The certified mail was returned by the postal service to the Department. See Exhibits 9 and 10.

On June 18, 2019, Respondent emailed the Department indicating she was unable to come to the meeting, as she lacked transportation and the resources to travel to Phoenix. See Exhibit 11. Respondent asked about “other options.” Respondent also noted:

Please understand, I had no intentions of renewing my license and because of this intent, I did not update my address with the Department upon its expiration.

Respondent failed to appear on June 25, 2019 and failed to produce any documents that had been subpoenaed.

The Department replied to Respondent’s email and offered a Consent Agreement to Respondent. Although Respondent had informed the Department that she would sign it and send it back, the Department has not received an executed Consent Agreement from Respondent.

The Department noticed an administrative hearing in this matter, and Respondent failed to appear at the date and time of the noticed hearing.

At the hearing, the Department requested that Respondent’s license be revoked based on Respondent’s failure to respond to the Department’s subpoena, indicating that such failure is an indication that she cannot be regulated. The Department specified that, due to Respondent’s noncooperation with the investigation, it was unable to conduct a full investigation. The Department argued that the lack of contact, lack of response to the subpoenas, and returned mail demonstrated that Respondent could not be regulated to protect the public.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction.

The Department bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s bail bond agent’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The Department established that Respondent’s conduct, as described above, constituted violations of the applicable statues and rules, and orders and subpoenas of the Director, within the meaning of A.R.S. § 20-295(A)(2).

The Department established that Respondent’s conduct, as described above, most demonstrates failure to inform the Department of any change in residential, mailing, business, and e-mail addresses.

Respondent’s conduct, as described above, provides grounds for the Director of the Department to suspend or revoke the license and to impose a civil penalty and/or order restitution, pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-295(A) and (F).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Director revoke Respondent Bonita Jean Damron’s National Producer License No. 1160727.

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 days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, January 29, 2020.

/s/ Kay Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Keith A. Schraad, Director

Arizona Department of Insurance