ALJDEC - Licensing

25A-098-INS · Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance · 2026-03-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

Adriana Berry,

aka Adrina Berry

(National Producer No. 21129992)

Respondent.

No. 25A-098-INS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 15, 2025, October 31, 2025, and February 17, 2026.

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Raya Gardner, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions (“Department”) with Aqueelah Currie as a witness. Adriana Berry (“Respondent”) appeared on her own behalf.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The August 26, 20205, Notice of Hearing and Complaint (“Notice of Hearing”), Department Exhibits 1-8, October 15, 2025, and October 31, 2025, hearing records, and Continued and/or Further Hearing Orders issued October 21, 2025, November 04, 2025, November 24, 2025, December 02, 2025, December 10, 2025, January 09, 2026, and January 28, 2026, were admitted into the evidentiary record.

_____________________________________________________________________

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the Director of the Department.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

On June 19, 1998, before the Johnson County District Court in the State of Kansas, Santa Respondent was convicted Respondent of Giving a Worthless Check, a misdemeanor, in violation of K.S.A. §§ 21-3707 and 21-4502(1)(a), a Class A misdemeanor, for writing a $323.34 check to a retailer knowing the related account did not possess sufficient funds to cover the amount.

On May 10, 1999, Respondent was sentenced, pursuant to a guilty plea, to twelve (12) months of probation and assessed $50.00 in fines and fees.

On March 02, 2000, Respondent was granted early termination of probation.

On July 29, 2024, Respondent submitted an application for a Non-Resident Insurance Producer license through the National Insurance Producer Registry to the Department.

Respondent answered “No” to Questions #1A of the Background Questions section of the application, which asked:

1A) Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, had a judgement withheld or deferred, or are you currently charged with committing a misdemeanor?

Responded also swore to the following Attestation at the end of the application, in pertinent part:

I hereby certify 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 application is ground for license revocation or denial of the license and may subject me to civil or criminal penalties.

On July 29, 2024, the Department issued Respondent a Non-Resident Insurance Producer license.

On October 31, 2024, Respondent contacted the Department and provided information regarding her criminal history. Specifically, Respondent provided the Department with an Entry of Judgment Order of Probation/Parole and Order for Early Termination of Probation, and the following statement:

In June of 1998, I was charged with writing a bad check in Johnson County, Kansas. This incident occurred over 20 years ago, and due to the time, that has passed, I do not recall the specific details of the situation. I was recently made aware of this charge when I applied for government security clearance six months ago.

On November 06, 2024, the Department issued a Proposed Consent Order to Respondent.

On or about November 22, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of License Application Denial to Respondent.

On December 09, 2024, the parties participated in an Informal Settlement Conference.

On December 10, 2024, the Department provided Respondent with notice that it intended to move forward with the Proposed Consent Order unless Respondent desired to have an administrative hearing instead.

On December 11, 2024, Respondent notified the Department that she wished to proceed with a hearing.

On January 07, 2025, the Department initiated formal administrative action against Respondent’s license by issuing a Notice of Hearing and Complaint in 24A-098-INS that alleged Respondent’s nondisclosure violated Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 20-295(A)(1), which established grounds for the Department to impose a civil penalty against Respondent in accordance with Ariz. Rev. Stat.” § 20-295(F). As such, the Department demanded that Respondent tender $150.00 as a civil money penalty in 24A-098-INS. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing before Administrative Law Judge A. Stone on February 11, 2025. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On February 26, 2025, Judge Stone issued a Recommended Administrative Law Judge Decision (“ALJ Decision”) that held because Respondent recalled her misdemeanor conviction as late as April 2024 she had no reason for her failure to disclose the record to the Department in her application for licensure. Judge Stone also noted his concern that because Respondent failed to appear for the hearing or request a continuance in advance thereof, that her absence from the proceeding called into question her ability to be regulated by the agency. As such, Judge Stone concluded that the proposed civil penalty was appropriate and affirmed in favor of the Department, ordering Respondent to pay a $200.00 civil money penalty in 24A-098-INS.

On March 17, 2025, the Department issued an Order in 24A-098-INS that adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order from the ALJ Decision. The following advisement was provided at the end of the Order:

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.09, Respondent may request rehearing or review with respect to this Order by filing a written motion with the Department within 30 days after the date of this Order, setting forth the basis for relief under Arizona Administrative Code (“Ariz. Admin. Code”) R20-6-114(B). Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.09, it is not necessary to request a rehearing before filing an appeal to the Superior Court.

Respondent may appeal the final decision of the Department to the Superior Court of Maricopa County for judicial review, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-166. A party filing an appeal must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the appeal within ten days after filing the complaint commencing the appeal, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-904(B).

(Emphasis added.)

Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

On April 01, 2025, the Department emailed Respondent to advise that payment for her civil money penalty was due. Later that same date, Respondent replied, overall, in her defense regarding the Department’s action to impose discipline and asked for “leniency and waiver of prosecution.” Respondent did not address the issue of her pending civil money penalty. Instead, she justified her absence from “the second hearing” because she felt her prior explanations “had not been properly submitted into evidence,” and argued that omission was a mistake that warranted exception. The Department replied to Respondent shortly thereafter that the Order was final, and that further appeal required filing with the Arizona Superior Court. Respondent replied immediately that she would file an appeal with the court. Respondent did not appeal the Order by April 16, 2025.

On August 26, 2025, the Department commenced further administrative action against Respondent’s license by issuing a Notice of Hearing and Complaint in the above-captioned matter that alleged Respondent’s failure to tender payment for her civil money penalty, $150.00 as originally requested by the Department or $200.00 as ordered March 17, 2025, violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-295(A)(2), which established grounds for the Department to suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew National Producer Number 21129992. The matter was referred back to OAH for an evidentiary hearing before Administrative Law Judge K. Abramsohn on October 15, 2025. Correspondence was not returned as undeliverable to Respondent.

Hearing Evidence

Due to a number of continuances, the matter was heard on October 15, 2025, October 31, 2025, and February 17, 2026. Respondent testified on her own behalf. Aqueelah Currie, Licensing Supervisor, testified on behalf of the Department. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:

Providing protection to consumers and businesses in the statewide insurance marketplace is paramount to the Department.

Part of the processing for applications for a Resident Insurance Producer license include forwarding an applicant’s fingerprints to the Arizona Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for a background check. Three months after her application for license had been approved, however, Respondent provided notice to the Department of her prior criminal conviction.

Respondent’s license has been renewed through March 31, 2028.

Respondent testified that she failed to disclose her 1998 conviction because she was unaware it had remained on her record, as it occurred “nearly 30 years ago.”

Respondent admitted that she did not appeal the Order by April 16, 2025, but did not provide a reason.

In emails exchanged between the Attorney General’s Office and Respondent between January 09, 2025, and January 14, 2025, Respondent stated that she no longer wished to maintain her insurance producer license in Arizona, and that she had no intention of contesting any action on behalf of the Department regarding its revocation or termination. That same date, Counsel informed Respondent that the Department only sought a $150.00 civil penalty at the scheduled hearing, and was not seeking further discipline of the license at that time. Respondent replied that she did not wish to pay the $150.00 civil penalty, and reiterated her belief that she had done nothing wrong to merit the assessment.

Additional Evidence

Closing Arguments

In closing, Respondent argued that she had be tangled into a money civil penalty due to her misunderstanding as a first-time applicant, and denied willfully attempting to deceive or mislead the Department. Respondent argued that she volitionally corrected her mistake regarding the omission of her conviction, and asked the Tribunal to consider her “clean record” as a factor in mitigation. Respondent opined that because neither “prosecution” nor discipline on her license was necessary, as her conduct was di minimis, no violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-295(A)(2) should be found.

In closing, the Department argued that that it had sustained its burden of proof. Specifically, the Department argued that the record reflected Respondent had been offered a Consent Agreement for failing to disclose a criminal conviction, which she refused, and subsequently refused to pay a related civil penalty as a result of her omission. The Department argued that but for Respondent’s application avowals she would not have been issued a license by the agency. To that end, the Department noted that while Respondent’s omission was likely unintentional, her refusal to pay the related civil money penalty was not. Rather, it was an abject refusal to submit to the regulatory authority of the Department, which was unacceptable. Thusly, the Department argued that sufficient grounds to take disciplinary action against National Producer License No. 21129992 had been established.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies with the Department’s jurisdiction and was properly brought before OAH for adjudication.

The Department bears the burden of proof to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s National Producer License. Respondent bears the burden of persuasion on all mitigating evidence by the same evidentiary standard. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence means proof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-285(B)(2) provides that “[b]efore the director approves the application of the individual, the director shall find that the individual has not committed any act that is a ground for denial, suspension or revocation prescribed in section 20-295.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-285(E)(1) provides that “[b]efore the director grants a license, the director may require the applicant to provide any document that is reasonably necessary to verify the information that is contained in an application and other information including prior criminal records.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-295(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that the director may impose a civil penalty in accordance with subsection F for “[p]roviding incorrect, misleading, incomplete or materially untrue information in the license application.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-295(A)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that the director may impose a civil penalty in accordance with subsection F for “[v]iolating any provision of this title or any rules, subpoena or order of the director.”

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 20-295(F) provides that the director may “Impose a civil penalty of not more than two hundred fifty dollars for each unintentional failure or violation.”

Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”

Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”

The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.

In the case at bar, Respondent admitted to omitting her misdemeanor conviction from 1998 on her 2024 Resident Insurance Producer license application and further admitted to refusing to pay a civil money penalty as Ordered because she “did nothing wrong.” Thus, the Department has sustained its burden of proof as to whether grounds exist to assess a civil money penalty against Respondent.

The sole remaining issue is whether grounds exist for the Department to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s license based on her failure to remit payment for her civil money penalty.

Based on the credible evidence of record, and weighing the Department’s legitimate police powers and authority to discipline National Producer License No. 21129992 against Respondent’s statutory violation(s), noting a lack of mitigating evidence in her favor, the Tribunal holds that discipline is both warranted and supported by law.

Respondent’s refusal to pay the civil money penalty required by the Department’s Order evinces her abject refusal to submit to the agency’s regulatory authority. There is no mitigating evidence in the record to establish insolvency or any attempt by or on behalf of Respondent to set up a payment plan with the Department that was subsequently rejected by the agency. The credible evidence of record establishes that while it is likely accurate that Respondent omitted her criminal conviction from her application for licensure due to a subjective error, it also reflects an inexcusable level of defiance in Respondent’s refusal to pay the underlying civil money penalty. Licensure is a privilege, not a right. Here, Respondent has acted with wonton disregard for the privilege she was afforded. In order to protect the public, the Department is justified in the use of its authority to revoke National Producer License No. 21129992.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Department revoke National Producer License No. 21129992 as issued to Respondent.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the recommended Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising OAH in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the recommended Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the Final Decision by OAH.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by OAH’s Director, the effective date of the Order will be five (5) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, March 12, 2026.

Office of Administrative Hearings

/s/ Jenna Clark

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile:

Charles Bassett, Interim Director

Deian Ousounov, Chief Financial Deputy Director

Alena Caravetta, Regulatory Legal Affairs Officer

Ana Starcevic, Paralegal Project Specialist

Steven Fromholtz, Licensing Division Manager

Aqueelah Currie, Licensing Supervisor

Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions - Insurance

100 N. 15th Ave., Ste. 261

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2630

[email redacted]

Raya Gardner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for DIFI

2005N. Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004

[email redacted]

Adrina Berry, Respondent

20815 S. Jefferson Pkwy.

Pleasant Hill, MO 64080

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff