ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

21A-063-INS · Department of Real Estate · 2021-11-17

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

GIESE, PHILIP M.

(National Producer No. 6723490)

Respondent.

No. 21A-063-INS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 28, 2021

APPEARANCES: Respondent Philip M. Giese did not appear. Assistant Attorney General Holly Wan appeared on behalf of the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent Philip M. Giese held National Producer license No. 6723490 issued by the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions (Department).

2. Dan Curtis is the owner of an automotive shop.

3. From February 11, 2019 through February 20, 2020, Mr. Curtis and

Mr. Giese exchanged e-mail messages regarding insurance quotes for Mr. Curtis’s business.

4. On February 11, 2019, Mr. Giese sent insurance quotes to Mr. Curtis.

Mr. Giese explained that Liberty Mutual Insurance (Liberty Mutual) would be less expensive for Mr. Curtis’s business policy. See Exhibit 3. Mr. Giese thanked Mr. Curtis for allowing him to provide an insurance quote. See id.

5. On February 12, 2020, Mr. Curtis inquired with Mr. Giese about a policy for the current year. See Exhibit 3.

6. On February 14, 2020, Mr. Giese notified Mr. Curtis that policies could begin that afternoon. See Exhibit 3. Mr. Giese notified Mr. Curtis that he would send new quotes with premiums and would be in touch in the afternoon. See id.

7. From April 6, 2020 to April 24, 2020, a series of e-mail messages were sent from Liberty Mutual to Mr. Giese regarding the insurance quote for Mr. Curtis.

8. On April 6, 2020, Sharon Irvin, a Senior Underwriting Assistant at Liberty Mutual Insurance, informed Mr. Giese that the new business quote was not issued for Mr. Curtis. See Exhibit 8. Ms. Irvin requested that Mr. Giese access and complete the billing screens if he intended to issue the quote. See id.

9. On April 23, 2020, Jennifer Melton, an Underwriting Specialist-Express at Liberty Mutual, notified Mr. Giese that the payment was received but had not been submitted for issuance. See Exhibit 8. Ms. Melton requested that Mr. Giese issue the policy for Mr. Curtis. See id.

9. On April 23, 2020, Jolene Pudenz, an Agency Consultant at Agents Alliance Services, asked Mr. Giese whether he would bind the policy. See Exhibit 8.

10. On April 24, 2020, Ms. Melton sent the following e-mail message to

Ms. Pudenz:

“...This still has not be sent over to issue. It has an effective date of 4/4/2020. If the policy is not issued by Tuesday, April 28; I will tell our billing department to return the money and do not consider this account bound...”

11. On March 14, 2021, Mr. Curtis sent an email to Mr. Giese that provided, “We are getting near the end of our insurance term. Please confirm that we are good for 2021 and advise on the premium for the upcoming term.” See Exhibit 3.

12. On April 28, 2020, Ms. Melton notified Ms. Pudenz she would return the premium to the insured because the account was not submitted for issuance.

See Exhibit 8.

13. Mr. Giese believed that he had obtained insurance with Liberty Mutual for the timeframe of April 2020 to April 2021. Mr. Giese made three credit card payments to Liberty Mutual for the policy. See Exhibit 4. However, Liberty Mutual refunded the payments in full to Mr. Giese in September of 2020. See id.

14. Deborah Waller is Mr. Curtis’s spouse.

15. On April 7, 2021, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions received a complaint from Deborah Waller, Mr. Curtis’s spouse, that she and Mr. Curtis had been unable to reach Mr. Giese. Ms. Waller notified the Department that Mr. Curtis believed that he had an insurance for his automotive shop and had not heard back from Mr. Giese regarding a renewal.

16. Department Investigator Jeff Eavenson investigated the complaint.

17. On April 21, 2021, Investigator Eavenson sent an e-mail message to

Mr. Giese at his address of record: [email redacted]. See Exhibit 5. Investigator Eavenson notified Mr. Giese that the investigation was originally opened because

Mr. Curtis was attempting to contact Mr. Giese. However, because Mr. Curtis complained that he was left uninsured, Investigator Eavenson requested that Mr. Giese provide a written statement regarding the incident and address the concerns in the complaint. Investigator Eavenson notified Mr. Giese of the following:

Curtis states that he paid either you or Liberty Mutual the premium to fund this policy. Curtis states that in September 2020, Liberty Mutual returned his premium and later learned that no policy existed.

18. On May 14, 2020, Mr. Giese sent an e-mail message to the Department. Mr. Giese alleged that after Mr. Curtis requested a quote from Nationwide Insurance,

Mr. Giese subsequently discovered that the scope of work under Mr. Curtis’s business was outside of the scope of Nationwide. See Exhibit 6. Mr. Giese alleged that he notified Mr. Curtis that Nationwide declined to write the policy and that Nationwide notified

Mr. Curtis of the decline. Mr. Giese also alleged that he communicated to Mr. Curtis through a phone call that Nationwide declined to write the policy. Mr. Giese alleged that Mr. Curtis informed him that he pursued other insurance options and no longer desired the quote. Mr. Giese also alleged that Mr. Curtis inquired about a renewal the following year and that he told Mr. Curtis that the policy was not written because Mr. Curtis stated that he had secured a policy elsewhere. See id.

19. On June 3, 2021, Janice Kelleher Townsend, a Senior Paralegal Litigation Specialist at Liberty Mutual, notified Investigator Eavenson that policies for Mr. Curtis were never bound and the premiums were returned because Mr. Giese failed to respond to critical information to bind the policies. See Exhibit 7. Ms. Townsend provided Investigator Eavenson with documents related to Liberty Mutual’s investigation.

20. On June 21, 2021, Investigator Eavenson sent an email to Mr. Giese requesting a statement from Mr. Giese regarding why he failed to place the Liberty Mutual Policy for Mr. Giese and why he did not address the Liberty Mutual matter in his initial response to the Department. See Exhibit 9. The message was sent to the e-mail address: [email redacted]. Investigator Eavenson also requested that Mr. Giese update his current email and mailing address of record with the Department. See id.

21. On July 7, 2021, Investigator Eavenson notified Mr. Giese by e-mail that he would submit the case to the Arizona Attorney General’s office and that the Department would see a revocation of Mr. Giese’s insurance producer’s license. See Exhibit 10.

22. Mr. Giese did not respond to Investigator Eavenson’s June 21, 2021 and July 7, 2021 e-mails.

23. The Department mailed the Notice of Hearing to Mr. Giese at his business and mailing addresses of record.

24. Although the beginning of the duly noticed hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes, Mr. Giese did not appear personally or through a duly authorized representative, contact the Office of Administrative Hearings to request a continuance or that the time for the hearing be further delayed, or present any evidence at the hearing to defend his license.

25. The Department appeared through its attorney and presented the testimony of its Investigations Supervisor Wendy Greenwood.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction.

2. The Notice of Hearing that the Department mailed to Respondent at her

address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

3. This matter is a disciplinary proceeding wherein the Department must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the State’s Insurance Laws.

4. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 20-295(A)(2) and (8); A.R.S.§20-157(A) and A.R.S. § 20-286(C)(1).

5. Grounds exist for the Director of the Department to suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew Respondent’s License pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-295(A).

ORDER

Based upon the above, Respondent’s License shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.

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, November 17, 2021.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Louis Dettorre, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate