ALJDEC

99A-209-INS · Department of Insurance · 1999-12-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

On December 7, 1999, a disciplinary hearing was held to determine if the Respondent has violated A.R.S. §§ 20-299 and 20-313. Assistant Attorney General Michael J. De La Cruz represented the Arizona Department of Insurance (the “Department”). Julie Ann Ripple (the “Respondent”) failed to appear for the hearing scheduled in this matter. The record was kept open until approximately 9:45 a.m. to allow for the appearance of the Respondent or the receipt of any information which would constitute good cause for the Respondent’s absence or delay. No such information was received from or on the behalf of the Respondent. Based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Decision are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent is licensed to transact insurance business as an insurance broker. See Department’s Exhibit 1. Her license (License No. 743787) is due to expire on January 31, 2000. Id. The Respondent has been bonded in the amount of $1,000.00 by Western Surety Company (“Western Surety”) since 1989. See Department’s Exhibit 2.

2. On or about June 7, 1999, the Department was notified by Western Surety that the bond filed by the Respondent in favor of the state of Arizona would be canceled as of July 9, 1999. See Department’s Exhibit 3. The reason cited for the cancellation of the bond was “nonpayment of premium.” Id. The Western Surety letter shows that the Respondent received a copy of this letter. Id.

3. Bob Hill is an Investigator for the Department. Investigator Hill testified that the Department sent a letter to the Respondent on June 14, 1999, reminding her that she had to replace her bond no later than July 9, 1999. See Department’s Exhibit 4.

4. Investigator Hill testified that on or about August 2, 1999, he sent a letter to the Respondent’s home address to notify the Respondent of her statutory obligation to replace the canceled bond. See Department’s Exhibit 5. Investigator Hill testified that he received the Respondent’s home address from Western Surety. Investigator Hill testified that this letter was returned to the Department because the address was incorrect.

5. Investigator Hill testified that on or about August 10, 1999, he sent a second letter to the Respondent’s home address of record to notify the Respondent of her statutory obligation to replace the canceled bond. See Department’s Exhibit 6. Investigator Hill testified that the Respondent’s “home address of record” is the Respondent’s address on file with the Department. The Respondent’s home address of record is also her business address.

6. Investigator Hill testified that on or about August 13, 1999, the letter sent to the Respondent’s home/business address was returned to the Department by the United States Post Office with a notation of “ML N/A” on the envelope. Investigator Hill testified that he contacted the United States Post Office and learned that “ML N/A” stood for “moved, left no address.”

7. Investigator Hill testified that he placed a telephone call to the Respondent’s business telephone number on file with the Department. Investigator Hill testified that a telephone company recording indicated that this telephone number had been disconnected. Investigator Hill testified that he also placed a telephone call to the Respondent’s home telephone number. Investigator Hill testified that a telephone company recording gave him a new telephone number. Investigator Hill testified that he called the new telephone number and left a message for the Respondent to contact him. Investigator Hill testified that the Respondent never contacted him.

8. The Respondent failed to appear for the hearing scheduled on December 7, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the Office of Administrative Hearings located at 1400 West Washington Street, Suite 101, Phoenix, Arizona. The Notice of Hearing correctly states the date, time and place of this hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Respondent (1) to her last known address on file at the Department and (2) to an address provided by the Respondent’s bond company. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the Respondent was properly noticed for this disciplinary hearing.

9. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the Respondent has failed to maintain a bond in favor of the state of Arizona while licensed as an insurance broker. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge further finds that the Respondent has failed to promptly provide written notice to the Department of any change in her address.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Department has the burden of proof, and the standard of proof on all issues is by a preponderance of the evidence. Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). A “preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, §5 (1960). It “is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 1182 (6th ed. 1990).

2. The Respondent has failed to appear and present evidence supporting her position.

3. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent has violated A.R.S. §§ 20-299 and 20-313 as set forth in Finding of Fact #9.

4. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge further concludes that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes a wilful violation of or a wilful noncompliance with Title 20 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (e.g., A.R.S. §§ 20-299 and 20-313), within the meaning of A.R.S. § 20-316(A)(2).

5. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that sufficient grounds exist to revoke the Respondent’s insurance broker’s license pursuant to A.R.S. § 20-316(A).

RECOMMENDED DECISION

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Respondent’s insurance broker’s license No. 743787 be revoked.

Done this day, December 9, 1999.

______________________________________ Casey J. Newcomb Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of December, 1999, to:

Mr. Charles R. Cohen Department of Insurance ATTN: Curvey Burton 2910 North 44th Street, Ste. 210 Phoenix, AZ 85018

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826