ALJDEC - Licensing
25A-035-INS · Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance · 2025-05-16
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of:
Valerie Lucero
Petitioner
No. 25A-035-INS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 2, 2025
APPEARANCES: Petitioner Valerie Lucero appeared on her own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Zachary Howard appeared on behalf of the Arizona Department of Insurance.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Department of Insurance Exhibits 1-6 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On or about January 13, 2025, Valerie Lucero (Petitioner), submitted an application to the Arizona Department of Insurance (Department) for an Arizona insurance producer license through the National Insurance Producer Registry (Application).
In the Application, under the “Background Questions” section, Petitioner responded “No” to Questions 1A and 1B, which asked:
1A: Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, had a judgment withheld or differed, or are you currently charged with committing a misdemeanor? ...
1B: Have you ever been convicted of a felony, had a judgment withheld or differed, or are you currently charged with committing a felony? ...
Petitioner further certified and attested that, under the penalty of perjury, all of the information submitted in the application was true and completes, and that submitting false information was grounds for denial of the license.
The Department then conducted a review of Petitioner’s background check. During the course of the background check, it was discovered that Petitioner, on or about August 7, 2008, pleaded guilty to Theft, a class 6 undesignated felony, and was sentenced to 15 months of probation. Further, on or about May 15, 2009, Petitioner was granted a discharge of probation and the felony was now designated as a misdemeanor.
The Department, through Eulaisha Ellis, sent a letter to Petitioner. The letter stated, in pertinent part:
The Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions (DIFI) (the department) recently received your application for an Arizona insurance license through the National Insurance Producer Registry (NIPR). In the “Background Questions” section of the application, question 1A and/or 1B asks, “(1a) Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, had a judgment withheld or deferred, or are you currently charged with committing a misdemeanor? or (1b) Have you ever been convicted of a felony, had a judgment withheld or deferred, or are you currently charged with committing a felony?” Your answer was, “No”. DIFI has received evidence from your background check that this response is not correct. Based on the possible failure to disclose, DIFI may initiate an administrative action against you for failing to fully disclose all criminal history on the application.
To complete the processing of your application you have the following options:
Withdraw the incorrectly filed application: By sending an email to [email redacted] requesting the incorrectly submitted application be withdrawn. After the incorrect application has been withdrawn, you may resubmit a NEW application and fee with the correct response to question 2 of the “Background Questions”.
Proceed with the current application: You must request that DIFI continue with your current application.
Please note that if you choose to proceed with the current application, you will no longer have the option to withdraw the incorrectly filed application. Review of the current application will proceed and may result in a denial or an administrative action.
. . .
On February 12, 2025, Petitioner sent an email to the Department which indicated that she would like to proceed with becoming licensed.
On February 19, 2025, the Department issued a letter to Petitioner notifying her that her application was denied pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 20-295(A)(1) and (A)(3).
Petitioner field an appeal regarding the denial, and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
The hearing took place on May 2, 2025.
At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Ms. Currie, who testified as to the above timeline of events.
Ms. Currie testified that she reviewed the information provided by Petitioner concerning his prior disciplinary history.
Petitioner testified on her own behalf. She testified that her trainer at Primerica had physically filled out and submitted the application, however, prior to that she disclosed to the trainer of her criminal history and how to properly respond to the questions. Petitioner testified that she was counseled to proceed with this application, and in addition, she did not want to pay a new application fee. Petitioner also testified that she did not review the application prior to the same being sent to the Department.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion. See Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 41-1092.07(G)(1).
The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Arizona Administrative Code § R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary 1373 (10th ed. 2014).
Consequently, the Department’s Director has discretion to deny Petitioner’s application based on A.R.S. §§ 20-295(A)(1) and (3), state in pertinent part:
A. The director may deny, suspend for not more than twelve months, revoke or refuse to renew an insurance producer's license or may impose a civil penalty in accordance with subsection F of this section or any combination of actions for any one or more of the following causes:
1. Providing incorrect, misleading, incomplete or materially untrue information in the license application.
. . .
3. Obtaining or attempting to obtain a license through misrepresentation or fraud.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Petitioner was aware of her felony conviction, and despite informing her trainer of the same, the application was still submitted with false or misleading information.
Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Department’s decision to deny her application should be overturned.
ORDER
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Valerie Lucero’s appeal be dismissed.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, May 16, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Barbara D. Richardson,
Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance
Zachary Howard
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
Valerie Lucero
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff