2

3

4

5

6 In the Matter of

t0f9 JUN 20

STATE OF WASHINGTON HEAiH~uS UN T OFF:CE OF

OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER INSUii.A!:C:'. cm{ ~;._ ~!Olirn

Docket No. 19-0244

? HARINDER.JlT SINGH BISL~ OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

8

9

10

I I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Appellant.

I. RELIEF REQUESTED

The Office of the lnsurance Commissioner ("OIC") requests entry of an order

denying Harinderjit Singh Bisla's ("Bisla" or "Appellant") producer license application

as a matter of law. This motion is made on the grounds that no genuine issue of material

fact related to this matter exists and that there are sufficient uncontested facts to support

the denial of Appellant ' s application for a producer license. This motion is based on the

Declaration of Cheryl Penn in Support of the Insurance Commissioner's Motion for

Summary Judgement ("Penn Deel.") along with Exhibits 1-3, the records of this case, and

the final adjudication in OIC Docket No. 16-0088, wherein Appellant was found to have

violated WAC 284-17-125(4) and RCW 48.17.530(l){h). Based on these violations, the

Insurance Commissioner appropriately denied Appellant's license application following

the directive ofRCW 48.02.060, RCW 48. l 7.090(2)(b), WAC 284-17-120(3), and RCW

48. I 7.530(1). Therefore, the Presiding Officer should grant this motion for summary

judgment pursuant to WAC I 0-08-135.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The OIC licensed Appellant after he passed his insurance licensing exam on May

6, 2014. See Penn Deel., Ex. 2 at 8 (Final Order on Summary Judgment ("Final Order''),

Docket No. 16-0088 (filed November 21, 2016)). After becoming licensed as an insurance

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOCKET NO. 19--0244

1336103

Stllle of Wl!Shin&lon Office of l.o.surancc Comm.isswoer

Insurance 5000 Ba.ildina PO Bo.~ 402.SS

Ol)mpia. WA 9S'°4-0255

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

producer, Appellant sat for the licensing exam at a test center he determined had Jax

security procedures three more times. Id. at 8-9. While sitting for the exam, Bisla

positioned a cell phone with a camera on his chest and concealed it with his jacket and ~ .

beard. Id. Bisla then used this cell phone to photograph the exam. Id. Bisla took these

pictures in an effort to help his wife and a friend pass the exam. Id.

On April 13, 2016, the Insurance Commissioner revoked Appellant's insurance

producer license for his misconduct at the testing center. Id. at 7-8. Presiding Officer

Pardee upheld the OIC's revocation of Appellant's producer license. See Penn Deel., Ex.

2 at 4 (revoking Appellant's_ license based on WAC 284-17-125(4) and RCW

48.17.530(1)(h)). The Appellant did not file a petition to Superior Court appealing the

Presiding Officer's Final Order in' OIC Docket No. 16-0088.

Appellant's current Demand for Hearing arises out of the Insurance

Commissioner's denial of his application for a Washington State life and disability

producer license. On March 31, 2019, the Insurance Commissioner received Appellant's

application for a Washington producer license. Penn Deel., Ex. I. When the OIC receives

an insurance producer application, the Insurance Commissioner performs a background

investigation into the applicant's licensing history through the Washington State.

Insurance Management & Business Application database. Penn Deel. Appellant's

licensing history showed that the OIC revoked Appellant's producer license for violations

of the Insurance Code, namely WAC 284-17-125(4) and RCW 48.17.530(1)(h). Penn

Deel., Ex. 2. In an email dated April 12, 20 I 9, Producer Licensing & Oversight

Compliance Supervisor, Cheryl Penn, notified Appellant that the OIC denied his insurance

producer license application. Penn Deel., Ex. 3. Ms. Penn informed Appellant of the OIC's ~

basis for his denial:

The denial is based on RCW 48.17 .530 ( I )(b ), which gives the Insurance Commissioner the authority to deny an application if the applicant has violated any insurance laws, or violated any rule of this office, AND RCW 48.17.530_( l )(h) which gives the Insurance Commissioner the authority to deny an application based on the applicant's having demonstrated fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practices, or demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility in this state or elsewhere.

Penn Deel., Ex. 3.

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOCKET NO. 19-0244

1336103

2 Sme or WBSmlll)OO Office of lnsurmcr Cmnmissioon

Insurance sooo 8aildiaa PO Bm.402SS

Olympi.3_ WA 9SS04.02SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

r

On May 3, 2019, Appel1ant filed a hearing demand, appealing the denial of his

license application. In the Appellant's Demand for Hearing, he did not dispute that he has viol~ted insurance laws or demonstrated dishonesty. Demand for Hearing at 3. Rather, the

Appellant asks the Presiding Officer to set ·aside the OIC's denial of his license

application, in consideration of ''mitigating factors." Id.

III. ARGUME.NT AND AUTHORITY

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. See WAC I 0-08-135.

Summary judgment is designed to do away with unnecessary trials where there is no

genuine issue of material fact. LaPlante v. State, 85 Wn.2d 154, 158 ( 1975). "A 'material

fact' is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends." Jacobsen v. State, 89

Wn.2d 104, 108 (1977).

The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of \

material fact and that, as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. Jacobsen, 89

Wn.2d at 108. If the moving party satisfies its burden, then the nonmoving· party must

present evide1;1ce demonstrating material facts are in dispute. Atherton Condo. Ass ·n v.

Blume Dev. Co., . 115 Wn.2d 506, 516 (1990). The nonmoving party must "set forth

specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." LaP/ante, 85 Wn.2d at 158. A

nonmoving party may not oppose a motion of summary judgment ''by nakedly asserting

that there are unresolved factual questions." Bates v. Grace United Methodist Church, 12

Wn. App. 111, 115 (1974).

A. Appellant Committed a RCW 48.17.530 Violation, And His License Denial Must Be Upheld Under RCW 48. l 7.090(2){b).

The Office of the Insurance Commissioner acts to protect the public interest and

must execute his duties and enforce the Insurance Code. See RCW 48.02.060(2) and RCW

48.01.030. RCW 48.01.030 states:

The business of insurance is one affected by the public interest, requiring that all persons be actuated by good faith, abstain from deception, and practice honesty and equity in all insurance matters. Upon the insurer, the insured, their providers

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOCKET NO. 19-0244

1336103

3 Sim or WasmnglOII Office of~ CommissiOIYT

1nsunmce SOOD Buildina POBm41PJS

Olympg, WA 93S04-0"..SS

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

and their representatives rests the duty of preserving inviolate the integrity of insurance.

This requirement is rarely more important than in the licensing of producers who are

entrusted by consumers with their finances, health status, and personally identifiable

information. Further, insurance producers are not limited to work in their offices, but

regularly meet with consumers in consumers' homes, gaining access to potentially more

personally identifiable information and potentially placing these consumers in a position

that makes them vulnerable to theft or other crimes of dishonesty.

As a result, the Washington Insurance Code sets forth stringent guidelines in the

licensing of insurance producers to protect consumers and Qther parties to an ins~ce

transaction. For instance, statutes and regulations require that insurance producer

applicants pass a licensing exam and govern applicants' conduct during such exam. RCW

48.17.125 and WAC 284-17-125; se_e also WAC 284-17-130 (advising examinees that

WAC 284-17-125 violations constitute RCW 48.17.530 violations and subjects a person

13 to a disciplinary action, including revocation). Before approving a producer license

14 · application, th~ Insurance Commissioner "shall find that the individuaJ" "[h]as not

committed any act that is a ground for denial, suspension, or revocation set forth in RCW 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

_,

48.17.530." RCW 48. l7.090(2)(b). The word '"shall' in a statute is presumptively

· imperative and operates to create a duty," and "imposes a mandatory requirement unless

a contrary legislative intent is apparent." State v. Krall, 125 Wn.2d 146, 14_8 (1994) (citing

Erection Co. v. Department of labor and Indus., 121 Wn.2d S 13, 518 (I 993)); see also

Karla Deane, OIC Order # 16-0165, pg. 3. Lastly, WAC 284-17-120(3) provides the

Insurance Commissioner will review a license application and only issue the applicant a

license "if all requirements have been met." Following the procedure set out in RCW

48.17.090(2)(b) and WAC 284-17-120(3), the Insurance Commissioner must ensure that

an applicant for an insurance producer license has not committed any act that is grounds

for denial of an insurance producer license.

Here, the Appellant's Washington State producer license was revoked based on

his violations of RCW 48.17 .530(1)(h) and WAC 284-17-125. These previous violations

provide grounds for the Insurance Commissioner's denial of the Appellant's insurance

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGM£Nf DOCKET NO. 19-0244

1336103 '

4 SweofW~ Office of 1nmncc Commissioner

In= 5000 Baikling PO Bax 40255

Olympia. WA 93504-m55

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

producer license under RCW 48.17.530(1)(b) and 48.17.530(1){h). Following the

directives of RCW 48.02.060(2), RCW 48.17 .090(2)(b), and WAC 284-17-120(3), the

Insurance Commissioner properly denied the Appellant's insurance producer application.

Accordingly, the Presiding Officer should grant this motion for summary judgment, and

uphold the OIC's denial of Appellant's license application.

i. The Insurance Commissioner Has the Authority to Deny an Insurance Producer License Application Under RCW 48.17 .530(1)(h) if the Applicant Has Used Dishonest Practices or Demonstrated Untrustworthiness.

RCW 48.17 .530( I ){h) states that the Insurance Commissioner may refuse to issue

an insurance producer's license for "(u]sing fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practices,

or demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility in this

-state or elsewhere." See RCW 48.17.530. The Appellant's application for a producer

license was denied based on Appellant's RCW 48. l 7.530(1)(h) violation, identified _in

13 · Presiding Officer Pardee's Final Order. See Penn Deel., Ex. 2 at 4.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26"

The facts adopted in Presiding Officer Pardee's Final Order describe Appellant's

untrUStworthy behavior. Id. at 2. On three separate occasions, Appellant attached a smart

phone to his chest in order to take pictures of the exam materials. Id. at 8. Appellant took

these pictures in order to help his wife and friend pass the exam. Id. at 9. These dishonest, . C

deceptive, and untrustworthy acts reflect a disregard for regulations, such as WAC 284-

17-125, which the OJC promulgated to protect Washington State consumers from

incompetent and dishonest producers. Appellant's assertion that he did "not succeed" in

recording part of the licensing exam, does not mitigate his dishonest, deceptive, and

untrustworthy behavior. Demand for Hearing at 3. Presiding Officer Pardee's Final Order,

Docket No. 16-0088, remains a final determination that Appellant violated provisions of

the Insurance Code, and as a result, the OIC properly revoked his insurance producer

license.

The ''mitigating factors" listed by.the Appellant in his Demand for Hearing are not

relevant to the Court's analysis of whether the Insurance Commissioner properly denied

his license application. The dispositive issue of whether the Insurance Commissioner

OlC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOCKET NO. 19-0244

1336103

5 SLIIC of Wasfun&toa Office of lnsunmcc ComrowDIICI"

Wllr.llKC sooo Buildina PO Box4025S

Olympi.11. WA 9SS04--02SS

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

. legally denied Appellant's application is whether he has "committed any act that is a

ground for denial, suspension, or revocation set forth in RCW 48.17.530." RCW

48.17 .090(2)(b ). Given his clear violations of RCW 48.17 .530 and the absence of any

issue of material fact, this Presiding Officer should grant OIC's motion for summary

judgment and affirm OIC's denial of Appellant's license application.

II. The ~surance Commissioner Has the Authority to Deny an Insurance Producer License Application Under RCW 48. l 7.530(l)(b) if the Applicant Has Violated any Insurance Laws, or Violated any Rule, Subpoena, or Order of the Commissioner.

RCW 48.17.530 provides guidelines for suspending, revoking, placing a licensee

on probation, or refusing to issue or renew a license, and contains a list of behaviors that

would trigger these sanctions. For instance, RCW 48.17 .530( l )(b) states, in part, that the

Insurance Commissioner may refuse to issue an insurance producer's license for violating

any insurance laws, or violating any rule, subpoena, or order of the commissioner. Here,

the Insurance Commissioner denied Appellant's application for a producer license based .

on RCW 48.17.530(l)(b) for his prior WAC 284-17-125(4) violation. See Penn Deel., Ex.

2 at 3-4. In his Final Order, Presiding Officer Pardee found that Appellant violated WAC

284-17-125(4) by possessing a photography device during an insurance producer

licensing examination. See Penn Deel., Ex. 2 at 3. Based on this violation, the Insurance

Commissioner had the authority to deny Appellant's license application, and the

Commissioner's decision to do so should be upheld by the Presiding Officer.

rv. CONCLUSION

Washington State insurance laws recognize the position of trust that consumers

give insurance producers. Consumers are particularly vulnerable financially and in the

security of their information when dealing with insurance producers because they are

often disadvantaged in their knowledge of insurance and insurance related financial

transactions. As a result, Washington insurance laws set forth stringent guidelines in-the

licensing of producers to protect consumers and other parties to an insurance transaction,

including ensuring that the Insurance Commissioner does not place a person, who has

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOCKET NO. 19--0244

1336103

6 SweofWashiii&ton Offia: of !nsurancc COl!llllissitloe

lnsunmcc sooo Bui.ldiD.I PO Bo.'t 402SS

Ol)mpia. WA 93504-0"-SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

demonstrated dishonesty, ir:i a position of trust as a producer. While the lnsurance -

Commissioner commends the Appellant for his efforts to atone for his repeated acts of

dishonesty, see Demand for Hearing at 3, the Insurance Commissioner would not be

following the law and its intent to protect consumers from potential harm if it permitted

the Appellant to obtain a producer license.

For these reasons, the Insurance Commissioner requests that the Presiding Officer

grant this motion for summary judgment and affirm the OIC's denial of the Appellant's

application for a producer license.

DATED this· 2 0 day of June, 2019.

orC'S MOTION FOR SUMMAR y .JUDGMENr DOCK.Er NO. 19--0244

1336103

MIKE KREIDLER Insurance Commissioner By and through his designee

f{kg~~ Insurance Enforcement Specialist Legal Affairs Division ·

7 Stale or Washingtoo Ollice or lns=ce Commissioner

Insur= 5000 Buildina PO Ben 40"-SS

Olympia, WA 9SS04--02SS

l

2

3

4

5

6

7 ,/

8

9

10

l l

12

l3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

The undersigned certifies under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

of Washington that I am now and at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United

States, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party

to or interested in the above-entitled action, and competent to be a witness herein.

-on the date given below, I caused to be served the foregoing OIC'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DECLARATION OF CHERYL PENN IN

SUPPORT OF OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT on the following

individuals in the manner indicated:

Via Hand Delivery OIC Hearings Unit Attn: Julia Eisentrout, Presiding Hearings Officer Washington State Insurance Commissioner 5000 Capitol Blv~ Tumwater, WA 9850 I hearingsu@oic.wa.gov

Via U.S. Mail and Email Harinderjit Bisla 1850 McKinley Street Ferndale, Washington 98248 bisla. wfg@·gmail.com

SIGNED this ,t.O ~ day of June, 2019, at Tumwater, Washington.

Christine M. Tri

OIC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DOCK.ET NO- 19-0244

1336103

8 SClllC or WltShingtcn Office or 1nsunmcc Cc.nrnissionn

lr.=c sooo Bw~ POBo..\40US

. Olympu. WA 9S'°4-0.?SS