The Massachusetts Division of Insurance has resolved four producer enforcement matters involving an incorrect address on a resident-license application, business conducted while two business-entity producer licenses were expired, and alleged unauthorized loans against two life insurance policies.
The actions resulted in the revocation of one Massachusetts producer license, a $7,500 settlement with an individual producer, a $1,200 settlement with one business entity and a cease-and-desist agreement without a monetary fine for another.
Three of the matters were Special Investigations Unit investigations resolved through settlement. The fourth resulted from a formal administrative proceeding in which a presiding officer granted the Division’s motion for default and summary decision.
Incorrect Address Leads To Producer License Revocation
The DOI revoked the Massachusetts producer license of Kenyata Kitaka after finding that her application for a resident producer license contained a Massachusetts residential address for a city and ZIP code located in Washington state.
Kitaka electronically applied for a Massachusetts resident insurance producer license on May 6, 2025, listing her residence as “Puyallup, Massachusetts 98373.” The Division issued the license that day.
On May 15, Kitaka asked the Division to cancel the Massachusetts license temporarily so that she could apply for a similar license in Washington. Her email used the same numerical street address but identified the city as Puyallup, Washington.
The Division subsequently requested documentation showing Kitaka’s residential address. A certified letter sent to the address on her license application was returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked “not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward.” The record also included a Massachusetts map showing no municipality named Puyallup and Postal Service correspondence confirming that ZIP Code 98373 is assigned to Puyallup, Washington.
The DOI filed an Order to Show Cause on May 6, 2026, seeking revocation under M.G.L. c. 175, §162R(a)(1) and (a)(3). Kitaka did not answer, and the Division moved for default and summary decision. The presiding officer found that Kitaka’s failure to answer placed her in default and waived her right to an evidentiary hearing.
Section 162R(a)(1) permits disciplinary action for incorrect, misleading, incomplete or materially untrue information on a licensing application, while §162R(a)(3) addresses obtaining or attempting to obtain a license through misrepresentation or fraud. Presiding Officer Jean F. Farrington found that the record “amply” supported both grounds.
The July 17 decision revoked all producer licenses issued by the Division to Kitaka. It also prohibited her from directly or indirectly transacting or acquiring any insurance business in Massachusetts and required her to dispose of any interests in Massachusetts as a proprietor, partner, stockholder, officer or employee of a licensed insurance producer.
Producer Settles Unauthorized Policy Loan Allegations For $7,500
In a separate SIU matter, producer Trucly Tran agreed to pay a $7,500 fine to resolve allegations arising from two allegedly unauthorized loans totaling $54,000 against life insurance policies belonging to a policyholder.
According to the DOI’s Dec. 8, 2025 settlement letter, the Division opened its investigation after receiving notice that Transamerica Life Insurance Company had terminated Tran for cause.
The letter recounts a Transamerica investigation that began after the insurer received a fraud-hotline call concerning three policies Tran had written for policyholder Kim Ha. According to the DOI letter, the investigation concerned two loans taken around March 1, 2021 — $30,000 against one policy and $24,000 against another.
The settlement letter states that the loan proceeds were deposited into a Citizens Bank account controlled by Tran and her husband. It further states that after Ha became aware of the loans and contacted Tran, both loans were repaid by phone using numbers associated with Tran.
The Division alleged that taking two unauthorized loans against Ha’s policies demonstrated untrustworthiness in the business of insurance in violation of M.G.L. c. 175, §162R(a)(8).
Tran agreed to waive her right to a public hearing, cease and desist from the alleged conduct and pay a $7,500 fine. She signed the settlement Jan. 6, 2026.
The agreement states that the DOI considers the settlement a reportable administrative event that must be included on Tran’s next Massachusetts insurance producer license renewal application. It also states that she may be required to report the action in other jurisdictions where she holds an insurance producer license.
Two Business Entities Settle Cases Over Lapsed Licenses
The DOI also resolved separate SIU investigations involving District Bonding and Assist-Card Corporation of America, both arising from allegations that the business entities conducted insurance activity in Massachusetts after their producer licenses expired.
The two matters resulted in different monetary outcomes.
Assist-Card’s business-entity producer license expired on Feb. 3, 2025, and was reinstated on Dec. 4, 2025. The Division alleged that Assist-Card wrote, placed, renewed and/or negotiated approximately 66 policies between Feb. 3 and Dec. 3 while unlicensed.
The DOI alleged 66 violations of M.G.L. c. 175, §175 for acting as an insurance producer without a license, with each violation also constituting a violation of §162R(a)(2).
Assist-Card agreed to waive its right to a hearing, cease and desist from the alleged conduct and pay a $1,200 fine. Company President and Director Carlos F. Stefani electronically signed the agreement April 10.
The settlement expressly identifies the agreement as a reportable administrative action.
District Bonding Settlement Carries No Monetary Fine
District Bonding’s business-entity producer license expired July 13, 2024, and was reinstated Nov. 5, 2025, according to DOI licensing records.
The Division alleged that District Bonding wrote, placed, renewed and/or negotiated fewer than five policies while unlicensed, conduct the DOI alleged violated M.G.L. c. 175, §175 and §162R(a)(2).
In light of the facts and circumstances and the corrective action undertaken by District Bonding, the DOI offered to resolve the matter if the entity waived its right to a hearing and agreed to cease and desist from the alleged conduct. The agreement did not impose a monetary fine.
District Bonding signed the agreement Feb. 26, 2026. Like the Assist-Card settlement, the agreement expressly states that it constitutes a reportable administrative action.
