• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Sign Up
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise With Us
    • Monthly Banner Ad
    • Sponsor An Email
    • Post A Job
    • Product Launch

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts-inspired Insurance News & More

  • JOBS
  • Checklists
    • Starting Your Own Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Purchasing An Insurance Agency in Massachusetts
    • Why, When, & How: Times When A Massachusetts Insurance Agent Should Use A Business Broker
    • Deciding Whether or Not to Outsource Your Customer Service?
    • Employment Contracts & The Non-Compete Clause In Massachusetts
    • Hiring An Insurance Producer In Massachusetts
    • Insurance Agent to Agency Loans In Massachusetts
    • Moving Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • How Premium Financing Can Work For Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Remuneration Audit Checklist
    • Selling Your Massachusetts Insurance Agency
    • Applying For An Agency Loan
    • When The Auditor Calls
  • Data
  • Events
  • InsurShop
    • Insurance Quiz Time
    • Insurance Books
      • Innovation Titles
      • Improvement
      • Leadership
      • Licensing
      • Marketing
      • Sales
    • Insurance Films
    • Insurance Glossary
  • Partner News
You are here: Home / Insurance Law | Massachusetts / MA Insurance Law | DOI Insurance Licensing Cases / Agency “No” About Lawsuit Results In No License

Agency “No” About Lawsuit Results In No License

January 5, 2016 by Owen Gallagher

On December 15, 2015, the Division of Insurance Hearing Officer Jean F. Farrington entered an Order affirming the denial of the application of the Tarantino Insurance Agency, LLC, (“Tarantino Agency”), of 1090 Massachusetts Avenue, Arlington, Massachusetts, for the renewal of its producer license.

Division denied agency’s renewal license alleging three statutory grounds

The Hearing Officer’s decision resulted from the Tarantino Agency’s appeal of the Director of Producer Licensing’s September 15, 2015 letter notifying Tarantino Insurance that she would not issue the agency a renewal license.

On appeal from the Director’s decision, the Division relied upon three of the fourteen grounds contained in G.L. c. 175, §162R(a) that permit the Commissioner to refuse to issue or renew a producer’s license. These provisions were §§162(a)(1), 162(a)(7), and 162(a)(8) that state as grounds for license denial that:

  • The applicant has provided “incorrect, misleading incomplete or materially untrue information on the application.” (§162(a)(1));
  • The applicant has been “found to have committed any insurance unfair trade practice or fraud” (§162R(a)(7)); and
  • The applicant has been “found to be using fraudulent, coercive or dishonest practices or demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness or financial irresponsibility in the conduct of business in the Commonwealth.” (§162R(a)(8).

Agency failed to disclose lawsuit by premium finance company alleging conversion of funds

In the course of reviewing the application of the Tarantino Agency, the Division obtained records relating to an action initiated by a premium finance company, Magna Finance of Worcester, against the Tarantino Agency and its manager, Michael F. Tarantino. The agency and Mr. Tarantino had been sued in December 2013 in the Waltham District Court in a civil action where the complaint had alleged among other matters, a “conversion of funds.”

Based on the allegation of this suit, that resulted in a final default judgment of some $27,000 in July 2014, the Division argued that the Tarantino Agency’s failure to disclose this suit in its license application gave the Director a sufficient ground for her refusal to issue a license.

The Tarantino Agency had answered “no” to the application’s Background Question 5, that asked if the business entity or any owner of that entity or the member or manager of a Limited Liability Company (LLC):

…is a party to or ever been found liable in any lawsuit involving allegations of fraud, misappropriation or conversion of funds or misrepresentations. (Emphasis added).

Agency claims advice from Division in omitting lawsuit from license application answer

The agency’s manager, Michael Tarantino, did not dispute that he had not disclosed the Magna Finance suit on the Tarantino Agency’s application. However, he contended that the omission resulted from information provided by the Division.

Mr. Tarantino claimed that at the start of the license renewal process he had spoken with Division’s Special Investigation Unit. This conversation related to a 2004 settlement agreement between him and the Division and what information needed to be included on the agency’s application. The 2004 enforcement action against Mr. Tarantino had involved a “Failure to timely remit return premium to finance company” that had been resolved by a settlement agreement imposing a $500 civil penalty and a cease and desist order.

Mr. Tarantino argued that he received conflicting information because one person told him that he needed to respond about Magna Finance and another stated that the only disclosure issue was the 2004 enforcement action.

He further argued that in a subsequent communication with the Division, he was informed that the Tarantino Agency, LLC had been dissolved. But that after he had brought the agency back into good legal standing with the Secretary of State, the Division, in asking for a paper application, made no mention of his having to disclose the Magna Finance litigation.

As a result of these interactions with the Division, Mr. Tarantino claimed that he was led to believe that the only issue was the dissolution of the LLC and not the disclosure of the Magna Finance litigation in answering Question 5 on the application.

Mr. Tarantino also advised the Hearing Office that he would pay the court judgment obtained by Magna Finance against the agency and himself personally, “…under protest if I must to get my license reinstated”.

Hearing officer finds the Division’s evidence does not support denial under §§162R(a)7 and (a)(8)

The Hearing Officer started her decision by pointing out that the grounds for refusing to issue or to renew an insurance producer license are specified by statute in Massachusetts.

With regard to two of the three statutory subsections relied upon by the Division, the Hearing Officer found the Division’s evidence did not support a finding that Tarantino Agency had either been “found to have committed any insurance unfair trade practice or fraud” or “found to be using fraudulent, coercive or dishonest practices or demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness or financial irresponsibility in the conduct of business in the commonwealth…”

The Division’s evidence in support of its position on those two statutory provisions primarily consisted of the records relating to the Magna Finance litigation against the agency.

The Hearing Officer found that these records did not support a conclusion that the the Tarantino Agency had committed an unfair insurance trade practice or fraud sufficient to satisfy the Division’s burden of proof.

In particular, the Hearing Officer found that in the District Court no answer was filed to the Magna Finance complaint and that Mr. Tarantino’s and the Tarantino Agency’s liability resulted from a default judgment. Thus, the District Court never made any findings or rulings on the complaint’s allegations that could constitute evidence that either Mr. Tarantino or the Tarantino Agency had engaged in practices that would support a denial under §162R(a)(7) or §162R(a)(8) of the agency’s license application.

As a result, the Hearing Officer ruled that there was

…insufficient evidence to support denial of the Tarantino Agency’s license application for the reasons set out in §162R(a)(7) or §162R(a)(8).”

Hearing officer finds agency’s failure to disclose suit alleging “conversion of funds” sufficient to deny issuance of license

However, in the Hearing Officer’s opinion, the Director had the right to deny the agency’s application.

The agency’s incorrect answer to the application’s question that specifically asked if Mr. Tarantino, as the agency’s manager, or the Tarantino Agency were parties to litigation alleging “conversion of funds” supported a decision denying the license on the grounds that he provided incorrect or materially untrue information on that application.

Hearing Officer rejects claim that Division relieved agency of duty to disclose lawsuit

Mr. Tarantino’s argument that his incorrect answer to Question 5 resulted from conversations with Division staff that led him to believe that he did not need to report the Magna Finance litigation, the Hearing Officer found had no merit. In her opinion, Mr. Tarantino, as the LLC manager, had sole responsibility for the content of the Tarantino Agency’s business entity application. As part of that application, the Hearing Officer found, he certified that he understood and complied with the insurance laws and regulation of the commonwealth, and that he was responsible for the Tarantino Agency’s compliance with those laws, rules and regulations.

Further, the Hearing Officer found that Mr. Tarantino’s chronology of his contacts with Division staff about the Tarantino Agency’s application did not support his contention that his answer to Question 5 was based on advice from the Division. The evidence showed that Mr. Tarantino acknowledged that he was told, at the beginning of the renewal process, that he needed to respond about the issue with Magna Finance. Since he elected to omit it from the application, the Director had the right to deny the application.

Also, the Hearing Officer commented that Mr. Tarantino’s offer to pay Magna Finance’s court judgment if that would allow his license to be reinstated “demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the reason for denial of the Tarantino Agency application.”

Final order denying appeal of license denial

The Hearing Officer’s final order was:

After careful review of the record in this matter, I find that it fully supports the Director’s determination that the omission from the Tarantino Agency’s application for a business entity producer license of information on a civil action by Magna Finance against the Tarantino Agency and Michael Tarantino is grounds for denying that application.

Under G.L. c. 26, §7, the agency had three days to appeal to the Commissioner of Insurance. Absent that appeal, the agency would have thirty days from the December 15 decision date to to file an administrative law appeal with the Superior Court.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: MA Insurance Law | DOI Insurance Licensing Cases Tagged With: DOI License Hearings, MA Agency Hearings, ma insurance news, Mass. Insurance News

About Owen Gallagher

Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

Primary Sidebar

Latest Agency Sales

The Philbin Insurance Group

The Philbin Insurance Group Purchases The Douglas Insurance Agency

World Insurance Associates Acquires The R.S. Gilmore Insurance Agency

DealerPolicy | Agency Checklists

DealerPolicy Insurance Acquires Granite State Independent Insurance

Agency Checklists, MA Insurance News, Mass. Insurance News

Arthur J. Gallagher Acquires North Star Marine Insurance

More Agency Sales

2020 NAIC Market Share Reports

NAIC 2020 Market Share Reports

Comments & Updates

  • Tony Lucacio on Associate General Counsel For Goosehead Insurance Terminated After Participating In January 6th Events In Washington, D.C.
  • Annie on Vermont Mutual Distributes $1,000,000 to COVID-19 Relief Efforts
  • Andrew J. Carpentier on The CAR Year In Review: Highlights From The 2020 Annual Report
  • Frank Lombard CPCU ARM on Time To Act As A Trusted Advisor About Earthquake Insurance?
  • Mike Ryan on InsurOp-Ed: Biden Tax Plan’s Impact on Insurance Agencies

AC In Your Inbox

Massachusetts Law Updates

Raynham Agent’s Non-Compete Escape Clause Included In Agency Sale Still Valid After Subsequent Stock Sale

A case deciding whether a non-compete clause included by the former owner of Eagle Insurance in his sale to People’s United Insurance, is still valid after that agency’s subsequent sale to AssuredPartners.

Boston Red Sox And MLB Aim Legal Beanball At Insurers With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

Boston Red Sox and MLB Aim Legal Beanball At Insurers With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

30 Major League Baseball teams have filed suit against their 3 insurers seeking $1.6 billion in Business Interruption losses from the COVID-19 shutdowns.

Should Insurance Agents Help Advocate Claims?

Court Rules An Obscure Statute Cured Contract Breach For A Three-Year Delay In Undisputed Claim Payment

A discussion of a recent Appellate Division of the District Court ruling a little-used statute can protect an insurance entity from a breach of contract for the payment of money.

MA Appeals Court Denies Ballet Master’s Claim Insurers Must Defend A Ballerina’s Sexual Abuse Suit

MA Appeals Court Denies Ballet Master’s Claim Insurers Must Defend A Ballerina’s Sexual Abuse Suit

After receiving the claimant and insurers’ briefs, the Appeals Court issued an unusual order and ordered supplemental briefing on two issues that neither insurer had raised or argued.

More Mass. Law Updates

CAR News

The CAR Year In Review: Highlights From The 2020 Annual Report

Last Look 2020: The Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace in Massachusetts

Last Look 2020: The Commercial Auto Insurance Market Share in Massachusetts

CAR Begins The RFP Process For Commercial Servicing Carriers And Possible Commercial Pool Changes

View More CAR News

DOI News

Massachusetts Moves Up In 2020 Insurance Regulation Report Card

Mass. Division of Insurance Issues Four COVID-19-Related Bulletins Before 2021

Massachusetts Stays The Course As The 12th Largest Insurance Marketplace

DOI Announces Hearings For Two Separate Insurance Company Acquisitions of Control

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Peabody Contractor Indicted For Insurance Fraud And Payroll Tax Evasion On $2.5 Million Of Under-The-Table Wages

Massachusetts Shares in $39.5 Million Multistate Settlement Agreement Over Insurance Company Data Breach

Arthur J. Gallagher Suffers Ransomware Attack

MA Attorney General Sues Keches Law Firm For Referring Injured Workers On Comp To A Mail-Order Pharmacy For Kickbacks

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800
info@agencychecklists.com

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.