BEFORE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ......1. On September 20, 2017, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner ("OIC") issued an Order Revoking License, No. 17-0314 ("Order Revoking"),

BEFORE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER FEB 23

In the Matter of Docket No 17-0314

HEARINGS UNIT

H~SURM~xtmff~1~fissHWER

MICHAEL LEE MURPHY FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER

middot Appellant

TO Michael Lee Murphy 104 S Freya Street Blue Flag Building Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99202

COPY TO Mike Kreidler Insurance Commissioner James T Odiorne JD CPA Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner Melanie Anderson Deputy Commissioner Consumer Protection Division Jeff Baughman Licensing amp Education Manager Consumer Protection Division Toni Hood Deputy Commissioner Legal Affairs Division Darryl Colman Insurance Enforcement Specialist Legal Affairs Division Office of the Insurance Commissioner PO Box 40255 Olympia WA 98504-0255

BACKGROUND

1 On September 20 2017 the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) issued an Order Revoking License No 17-0314 (Order Revoking) effective October 5 2017 revoking Michael Lee Murphys Washington State insurance producers license

2 On October 2 2017 Mr Murphy filed a Demand for Hearing (Demand) with the OIC Hearings Unit requesting a hearing to contest the Order Revoking The Order Revoking was thereby automatically stayed pending entry of Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Final Order

3 On October 3 2017 I issued to Mr Murphy a Notice of Receipt of Demand for Hearing acknowledging the OICs receipt of his Demand On that same date I transmitted the Demand and Mr Murphys case to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and requested that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from

OAH as presiding officer conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue an initial order in this matter

4 On December 13 2017 ALJ Terry A Schuh of OAH acting as Presiding Officer conducted an evidentiary hearing on Mr Murphys Demand On January 25 2018 Judge Schuh entered an Initial Order in this matter which contained findings of fact and conclusions oflaw A copy of ALJ Schuhs Initial Order is attached hereto

5 ALJ Schuh s Initial Order was transmitted to me for review and for entry of Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Final Order pursuant to RCW 3405464

6 I have reviewed and considered the record in this matter including the evidence presented to ALJ Schuh

7 I have given due regard to ALJ Schuhs opportunity to observe the witnesses pursuant to RCW 3405464(4) Put another way a review judge may substitute his or her findings for those of a presiding officer but cannot reject credibility determinations without substantial evidence to the contrary in the record Chandler v Office of the Ins Comm r 141 Wn App 639 657 173 P3d 275 (2007) That said evaluating the record to determine whether a witness testimony is substantively consistent differs from a true credibility

determination Id

FINDINGS OF FACT

I make the following changes to the Findings of Fact in ALJ Schuhs Initial Order to reflect the reality that whether or not Mr Murphy actually forged anothers name andor initials is part of the Conclusions of Law below concerning RCW 4817530(l)G) and not a conclusion to be made in the Findings of Fact

413 Replace the word forged with wrote





436 Delete the word forged


FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER No 17-0314 Page 2

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

middot I adopt Conclusion of Law 51 in ALJ Schuhs Initial Order and topical heading above the same except for the final phrase and Chapter 3412 RCW since that chapter governs Administrative LawJudges governed by the Office of Administrative Hearings not hearings officers housed in the OIC I also adopt Conclusions ofLaw 52-53 in the Initial Order and the topical heading above Conclusion of Law 52 I adopt but renumber Conclusion of Law 54 as Conclusion of Law 510 I adopt Conclusion of Law 55 in the Initial Order except change the word of in Conclusion of Law 55 to to and renumber it ltonclusion of Law 528 I adopt and renumber Conclusion of Law 56 in the Initial Order to Conclusion of Law 531 I adopt Conclusion of Law 59 in the Initial Order but change the citation to Wilson from 90 Wn2d 136 to 90 Wn2d 649 and renumber it Conclusion of Law 537 I do not adopt Conclusions of Law 57-58 and 510shy511 nor the topical heading above Conclusion of Law 58 in the Initial Order I add additional Conclusions of Law 54-59 511-527 529-530 532-536 and 538-540 which read as follows

54 As stated in Tesoro Refining and Mktg Co v Dept ofRevenue 164 Wn2d 310 317 190 P3d 28 (2008) The goal of statutory interpretation is to carry out the legislatures intent Burns 161 Wash2d at 140 164 P3d 475 If the meaning of the statute is plain the court discerns legislative intent from the ordinary meaning of the words1 As stated in Tenino Aerie v Grand Aerie 148 Wn2d 224 239 59 P3d 655 (2002) Legislative definitions provided in a statute are controlling See also Postema v Postema Enters Inc 118 Wn App 185 195 72 P3d 1122 (2003)(If a term is defined in a statute we must use that definition)

55 Aside from statutory definitions of terms Washington courts use Websters Third New International Dictionary in the absence of other authority State v Glas 106 Wn App 895 27 P3d 216 (2001)(citing In re Personal Restraint ofWell 133 Wn2d 433 438 946 P2d 750 (1997)) But as the Washington Supreme Court explained in Garre v City of Tacoma 184 Wn2d 30 37 357 P3d 625 (2015) the ordinary definition of a term is not dispositive of a statutes plain meaning where the term is also a term of art As the Court states in City ofSpokane ex rel Wastewater Mgmt Dep t v Dep t ofRevenue 145 Wn2d 445 452 38 P3d 1010 (2002) Technical language should be given its technical meaning when used in its technical field Keeton v Dept ofSoc amp Health Servs 34 Wn App 353 361 661P2d982 (1983) In other contexts courts have turned to the technical definition of a term of art even where a common definition is available

56 The question to be addressed under RCW 4817530(1 )( e) is whether Mr Murphy by writing the signatures andor initials of Mr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens making unnecessary errors andor authorizing payroll deductions on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their knowledge or permission equate to him

1 Although an Insurance Commissioner cannot bind the courts the courts appropriately defer to an Insurance Commissioners interpretation of insurance statutes and rules Credit General Ins Co v Zewdu 82 Wn App 620 627 919 P2d 93 (1996) Premera v Kreidler 133 Wn App 23 37 131 P3d 930 (2006) As the Court stated in Premera An agencys interpretation of the statutes it administers should be upheld if it reflects a plausible construction of the statutes language and is not contrary to legislative intent 133 Wn App at 37


intentionally misrepresenting the terms of an actual or proposed insurance contract or application for insurance This requires analysis of the language in that provision which necessarily involves an examination of related statutes and case law addressing intentional misrepresentation and what an application for insurance is2

57 The terms intentional misrepresentation fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud are synonymous Concrete Spaces Inc v Sender 2 SW3d 901 904 (Tenn 1999) See Cornerstone Equip Leasing Inc v Macleod 159 Wn App 899 905 247 P3d 790 (2011)(Fraudulent misrepresentation requires proof by clear cogent and convincing evidence of the nine elements of fraud) Hawkins v EmpRes Healthcare Mgmt LLC 193 Wn App 84 100 371 P3d 84 (2016)(To state a claim for fraud or intentional misrepresentation a plaintiff must plead nine elements)(Citing Stiley v Block 130 Wn2d 486 505 925 P2d 194 (1996) via footnote)

58 The nine elements of fraudintentional misrepresentationfraudulent misrepresentation are (1) representation of an existing fact (2) materiality3 (3) falsity (4) the speakers knowledge of its falsity ( 5) intent of the speaker that it should be acted upon by the plaintiff (6) plaintiffs ignorance of its falsity (7) plaintiffs reliance on the truth of the representation (8) plaintiffs right to rely upon it and (9) damages suffered by the plaintiff Stiley 130 Wn2d at 505 The law recognizes two distinct types of fraudulent misrepresentation affirmative misrepresentation and silence when a duty of disclosure is owed Dussault v Am Int Group Inc 123 Wn App 863 871 99 P3d 1256 (2004) A duty of disclosure is not an element of fraud when the plaintiff alleges affirmative misrepresentations by the defendant Id

59 Mr Murphy wrote the signatures andor initials of Mr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens made unnecessary errors andor authorized payroll deductions on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their knowledge or permission That being the case it was also done without Mr Murphy intending that it be acted upon by them (element (5) above) and without their reliance on the truth of any representation (element (7) above) As such Mr Murphys actions did not equate to him intentionally misrepresenting the terms of an actual or proposed insurance contract or application for

2 RCW 4818080(1) addresses applications for insurance and implies they generally precede an insurers issuance of an insurance policy or contract to an insured and states in part No application for the issuance of any insurance policy or contract shall be admissible in evidence in any action relative to such policy or contract unless a true copy of the application was attached to or otherwise made a part of the policy when issued and delivered It is undisputed that the actions of Mr Murphy at issue in this Order involve applications for insurance to AFLAC 3A representation made in conjunction with an insurance policy application or negotiation is material if the representation influenced the insurance companys decision to issue the coverage Cutter amp Buck Inc v Genesis Ins Co 306 FSupp2d 988 1003 (WD Wash 2004)(citing Queen City Farms Inc v Aetna Cas and Surety Co 126 Wn2d 50 100 882 P2d 703 891 P2d 718 (1994)) When a false statement has been made knowingly there is a presumption that it was made with intent to deceive Id at 1004 (citing Music v United Ins Co ofAm 59 Wn2d 765 769 370 P2d 603 (1962)) Rowley v USAA Life Ins Co 670 FSupp2d 1199 1202-1203 (WD Wash 2009)(Proof that a material false statement was made knowingly raises the presumption that it was made with the intent to deceive)(Also citing to Music) In the absence of credible evidence that false representations were made without [an] intent to deceive the presumption prevails Id (citing Wilburn 8 Wn App at 620)(emphasis in original)( citing Music)


insurance in violation of RCW 4817530(1)(e)

511 The question to be addressed under RCW 48l 7530(l)(h) is by writing the signatures andor initials of Mr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens making unnecessary errors and or authorizing payroll deductions on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their lmowledge or permission whether Mr Murphy was using fraudulent coercive or dishonest practices or demonstrating incompetence untrustworthiness This requires us to interpret that crucial statutory phrase As explained in Lake v Woodcreek Homeowners Assn 169 Wn2d 516 528 243 P3d 1283 (2010)

The dictionary describes or as a function word indicating an alternative between different or unlike things WEBSTERS THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1585 (2002) (emphasis added) In this sense or is used to indicate an inclusive disjunctive-one or more of the unlike things can be true The dictionary gives the example wolves [or] bears are never seen in that part of the country Id

Given the inclusive disjunctive or present in the relevant statutory phrase in RCW 48l 7530(1)(h) we will evaluate the meaning of the sub-phrases using fraudulent coercive or dishonest practices and demonstrating incompetence untrustworthiness separately since both represent alternative modes of violating that statutory provision

512 The verb using in RCW 4817530(1)(h) is an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 2523 (2002) defines the verb use of which using is the nonfinite verbparticiple form in relevant part as follows

1 a archaic to observe or follow as a custom b archaic to follow or practice regularly as a mode of life or action c archaic to make familiar by repeated or continued practice or experience d chiefly dial to resort to regularly FREQUENT

513 The adjective fraudulent is an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 904 (2002) defines the adjective fraudulent in part as follows

1 belonging to or characterized by fraud founded on fraud obtained or performed by fraud

514 Websters Third New International Dictionary 904 (2002) defines the noun fraud in part as follows

1 a an instance or an act oftrickery or deceit an intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right a false representation ofa matter of fact by words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by the concealment ofwhat should have been disclosed that deceives


or is intended to deceive another so he shall act upon it to his legal injury

5 15 The adjective coercive an undefined statutory term is defined in Websters Third New International Dictionary 439 (2002) in part as follows

serving or intended to coerce being or exerting coercion

516 The verb coerce is defined in Websters Third New International Dictionary 439 (2002) in part as follows

1 to restrain control or dominate nullifying individual will or desire (as by force power violence or intimidation) 2 to compel to an act or choice by force threat or other pressure

517 The adjective dishonest is also an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 650 (2002) defines the adjective dishonest in part as follows

2 characterized by lack of truth honesty probity or trustworthiness or by an inclination to mislead lie cheat or defraud FRAUDULENT lt politiciansgt lthoarding his gainsgt lta report on his earningsgt

Syn DECEITFUL LYING MENDACIOUS UNTRUTHFUL DISHONEST may apply to any breach of honesty or trust as lying deceiving cheating stealing or defrauding lt a clerk fired for stealinggt

518 Practices is too an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 1780 (2002) defines the noun practices as follows

habitual conduct that is socially ethically or otherwise unacceptable ltthe unwholesome s of folk medicinegt ltdeparting these evil sgt

(Emphasis added)

5 19 Harmonizing these dictionary definitions I conclude that the sub-phrase using fraudulent coercive or dishonest practices in RCW 48 l 7530(1)(h) means customary or regular (ie habitual) conduct characterized by a lack of truth honesty probity or trustworthiness by an inclination to mislead misrepresent lie cheat trick deceive conceal not disclose or defraud or by force threat or other pressure compe_lling another to act that is socially ethically or otherwise unacceptable This definition is consistent with the call in RCW 4801030 that requires all persons in the business of insurance be actuated by good faith abstain from deception and practice honesty and equity in all matters

520 Mr Murphys conduct of writing the signatures andor initials of Mr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens making unnecessary errors andor authorizing payroll

FINDINGS OFFACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER No 17-0314 Page 6

deductions on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their knowledge or permission was characterized by a lack of truth honesty or trustworthiness and by an inclination to deceive or conceal and was socially and ethically unacceptable As such it amounted to Mr Murphy using fraudulent coercive or dishonest practices in violation of RCW 48l 7530(l)(h)

521 Now turning to the sub-phrase demonstrating incompetence untrustworthiness in RCW 4817530(1)(h) and whether Mr Murphys actions violated that clause The verb demonstrate is an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 600 (2002) defines the verb demonstrate in part as follows

1 b to manifest clearly certainly or unmistakably show clearly the existence of

522 The noun incompetence is also an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 1144 (2002) defines the noun incompetence in part as follows

the state or fact of being incompetent as a lack of physical intellectual or moral ability INSUFFICIENCY INADEQUACY b lack of legal qualification or fitness

523 The noun untrustworthiness is too an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 2514 (2002) defines the noun untrustworthiness in part as follows

the quality or state of being untrustworthy

524 Websters Third New International Dictionary 2514 (2002) defines the adjective untrustworthy in part as follows

not trustworthy UNRELIABLE

525 In Chandler v Office ofthe Ins Comm r 141 Wn App 639 661-662 73 P3d 275 (2007) the court addressed RCW 4817530 and what it means to be untrustworthy under that statute stating

The purpose of RCW 4817530 is to protect the public and the professions standing in the eyes of the public In the context of the common knowledge and understanding ofmembers of the insurance profession the terms trustworthy and untrustworthy are sufficiently clear to put an insurance agent on notice that certain conduct is prohibited As the Supreme Court said about the term moral turpitude in Haley v Medical Disciplinary Board the central question is whether the conduct in question reflects an unfitness to practice the profession In Haley the court explained that [p ]hysicians no less than teachers veterinarians


police officers [or insurance agents] will be able to determine what kind of conduct indicates unfitness to practice their profession

He cannot seriously contend that he did not know or realize or have adequate notice that this conduct would violate the statutory standard

(Emphasis added footnotes omitted)

5 26 Again harmonizing these dictionary definitions with the case law above I conclude that the sub-phrase demonstrating incompetence untrustworthiness in RCW 4817530(1)(h) means where a person manifests clearly certainly or unmistakably

that they lack the ability to practice in the insurance profession because they are not trustworthy or reliable

527 Mr Murphys conduct of writing the signatures andor initials of Mr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens making unnecessary errors andor authorizing payroll deductions on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their knowledge or permission demonstrated that he lacks the ability to practice in the insurance profession and that he is not trustworthy or reliable Such conduct amounts to Mr Murphy demonstrating incompetence untrustworthiness in violation of RCW 48l 7530(1)(h)

529 The question to be addressed under RCW 4817530(l)G) is whether Mr Murphy forged anothers name to an application for insurance or to any document related to an insurance transaction The verb forge is an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 891 (2002) defines the verb forge in part as follows

3 to make or imitate falsely specif to alter (a writing) in respect of a material matter with intent to defraud lthe forged a check for $20gt 4

530 Mr Murphys conduct of writing the signatures andor initials of Mr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their knowledge or permission amounted to false imitations of those individuals with intent to defraud AFLAC As such Mr Murphy forged those individuals names to an application for insurance in violation of RCW 4817530(1)G)

532 The question we must answer with regards to RCW4830210 is whether Mr Murphy

4 See also RCW 9A60020(1) which defines the crime offorgery as follows

(1) A person is guilty of forgery if with intent to injure or defraud (a) He or she falsely makes completes or alters a written instrument or (b) He or she possesses utters offers disposes of or puts off as true a written instrument which he or

she knows to be forged


knowingly made an impersonation in or relative to an application for insurance to an insurer The adverb knowingly is an undefined statutory term and Websters Third New International Dictionary 1252 (2002) defines knowingly in part as follows

in a knowing manner esp with awareness deliberateness or intention

533 The noun impersonation is an undefined statutory term Websters Third New International Dictionary 1134 (2002) defines impersonation in part as follows

the act of impersonating or the state of being impersonated

Websters Third New International Dictionary 1133 (2002) defines the verb impersonate in part as follows

2 to assume the character of pretend to be in actuality or personality appearance or behavior

5 34 Harmonizing these dictionary definitions I conclude that the language knowingly made an impersonation in or relative to an application for insurance to an insurer in RCW 4830210 means where a person deliberately or intentionally pretends to be another relative to an application for insurance to an insurer

535 By writing the signatures andor initials ofMr Clark Mr T Parker Mr J Parker and Mr Cavens on insurance application forms to AFLAC without their knowledge or permission Mr Murphy pretended to be them and as such violated RCW 4830210

536 In two letters of correspondence to the OIC Hearings Unit filed on February 8 2018 and February 15 2018 Mr Murphy requests that I not revoke his insurance producer license and states that there have been cases where the decision to revoke was not the ultimate decision and I will be happy to accept any other form ofpunishment or sanction that the OIC would place upon me

538 As explained in Shanlian v Faulk 68 Wn App 320 328 843 P2d 535 (1992) agencies need not fashion identical remedies where they have discretion and courts may not venture into the realm of agency discretion

Moreover even if the penalty imposed was inconsistent with other penalties imposed we would find no error An agency need not fashion identical remedies and the courts may not enter the allowable area of [agency] discretion Stahl v UW 39 Wn App 50 55-56 691 P2d 972 (1984) (quoting In re Case E-368 65 Wn2d 22 29 395 P2d 503 (1964))

(Citations omitted)

Along the same lines the court in Stahl 39 Wn App at 55-56 stated


The relation of remedy to policy is peculiarly a matter for administrative competence and the rule is that courts must not enter the allowable area of the boards discretion In the absence of a statutory requirement agencies need not fashion identical remedies in each case

(Citations omitted)

539 In In the Matter ofCase E-368 (or Arnett v Seattle General Hosp) 65 Wn2d at 29-30 in setting aside the trial courts modification of an order of the Washington State Board Against Discrimination the Court emphasized the sanctity of an agencys choice as to how it administers a statute that gives it discretion stating

It is the well-established law in this state as well as in other jurisdictions that modifications of administrative orders by a court of review are limited to acts that are arbitrary or capricious or where the tribunal proceeded on a fundamentally wrong basis or beyond its power under the statute The general rule is well stated in 2 Am Jur (2d) Administrative Lawsect 672

Administrative agencies have considerable latitude to shape their remedies within the scope of their statutory authority especially where a statute expressly authorizes the agency to require that such action be taken as will effectuate the purposes of the act being administered The relation of remedy to policy is peculiarly one for the administrative agency and its special competence at least the agency has the primary function in this regard In particular cases it is held that the fashioning of the remedy or the propriety of the order is a matter for the administrative agency and not for the court that the courts may not lightly disturb the agencys choice of remedies that the order should not be overturned in the absence of a patent abuse of discretion or a showing that it is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the statute or that the courts will not interfere except where the remedy selected has no reasonable relation to the unlawful practices found to exist or is unwarranted in law or without justification in fact Where there is a sufficient basis for the orders issued it is no concern of the court that other regulatory devices might be more appropriate or that less extensive measures might suffice Such matters are the province of the legislature and of the administrative agency

See Whatcom Cy v Langlie 40 Wn (2d) 855 246 P (2d) 836 (1952) Morgan v Department ofSocial Sec 14 Wn (2d) 156 127 P (2d) 686 (1942) Sweitzer v Industrial Ins Comm 116 Wash 398 199 Pac 724 (1921)

The reasoning ofthe trial judge in his oral opinion modifying the tribunal order was not based on the ground that the tribunal exceeded its statutory power or that the


boards action was arbitrary or capricious but the order was modified solely because the trial judge disagreed with the judgment exercised by the tribunal as to the necessary action to be taken in this case to effectuate the policy against further discrimination The trial judge substituted his judgment for that of the tribunal and in so doing acted beyond his power

(Emphasis added)

5 40 Per the holdings in Shanlian Stahl and Arnett the possibility the OIC might reach different conclusions on whether to revoke an insurance producers license for the reasons set forth in RCW 4817530 in disciplinary orders with similar factual circumstances does not prevent me from revoking Mr Murphys license for the violations of law outlined above

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Michael Lee Murphys Washington State insurance producers license is hereby revoked

February 23 2018

~ William G Pardee Reviewing Officer

Pursuant to RCW 3405461(3) the parties are advised that they may seek reconsideration of this order by filing a request for reconsideration under RCW 3405470 with the undersigned within 10 days of the date of service (date of mailing) of this order Further the parties are advised that pursuant to RCW 3405514 and 3405542 this order may be appealed to Superior Court by within 30 days after date ofservice (date ofmailing) ofthis order 1) filing a petition in the Superior Court at the petitioners option for (a) Thurston County or (b) the county of the petitioners residence or principal place of business and 2) delivery of a copy of the petition to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner and 3) depositing copies of the petition upon all other parties of record and the Office of the Attorney General


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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 filed and served the foregoing Findings of Fact

Conclusions of Law and Final Order on the following people at their addresses listed below

Michael Lee Murphy 104 S Freya Street Blue Flag Building Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99202

Mike Kreidler Insurance Commissioner James T Odiorne JD CPA Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner Melanie Anderson Deputy Commissioner Consumer Protection Division Jeff Baughman Licensing amp Education Manager Consumer Protection Division Toni Hood Deputy Commissioner Legal Affairs Division Darryl Colman Insurance Enforcement Specialist Legal Affairs Division Office of the Insurance Commissioner PO Box 40255 Olympia WA 98504-0255

Dated this ~tttly of February 2018 in Tumwater Washington

FINDINGS OFFACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER Nq 17-0314 Page 12

WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the matter of Docket No

10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J

Michael Lee Murphy Licensee INITIAL ORDER HEampp~~ J~JllT l~rnlJRANCE COMMISSIONER

middotAppellant Agency Office of the Insurance C9mmissioner Program Office of the Insurance Commissioner

__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES

11 Did Michael Lee Murphy forge the signatures of four Washington consumers on applications that he submitted to the insurer without the consumers consent

12 Did Michael Lee Murphy submit an application for a consurrierr who Michael Lee Murphy knew had coverage and did not need a new plan 1 without the consumers knowledge or permission

13 Did Michael Lee Murphy submit an application to the insurer under an incorrect name and without review by the consumer resulting in the loss of insurance to that consumer for three months

14 Did Michael Lee Murphy contact two consumers payroll departments to set up electronic premium payments from their bank accounts on applications submitted with forged signatures and without the consumers authorization

15 Was the Office of t~e lnsurarice Commissioner correct in issuing the middotSeptember 20 2017 Order Revoking License No 17-0314 revoking the Washington resident insurance producer license WAOIC No 825148 held by Michael Lee Murphy pursuant to RCW 4817530(1)(b) (1)(e) (1)(h) and (1)(j) and RCW 4830210

2 ORDER SUMMARY

2 i Yes Michael Lee Murphy forged the signatures of four Washington consumers on applications that he submitted without the consumers consent to the insurer

22 Yes Michael Lee Murphy submitted an application for a consumer Who Michae Lee Murphy knew had coverage and did not need a new plan Michael Lee Murphy did so without the consumers knowledge or permission

2 3 Yes Michael Lee Murphy submitted a policy to the insurer under an incorrect name and without review by the consumer This conduct resulted in the loss of coverage for that consumer for three months

24 Yes Although M1chael Lee Murphy did not directly contact the consumers payroll department he submitted forms authorizing payroll deductions that were not

OAH (253) 476-6888INITIAL ORDER Pag~ 1 of 1middot)Dcmiddot~~et No middot)-2017-INS-OOOi 9

signed or permitted by the effected consumers on which Michael Lee Murphy forged the consumers signature

25 Yes The Office of the middotinsurance Commissioner had the discretion under RCW 4817530(1)(b) (1)(e) (1)(h) and (1)()j) and under RCW 4830210 to revoke Michael Murphys Washington remiddotsident insurance producer license WAOIC No 825148 in view of the Michael Lee Murphys conduct described here

middot 3 HEARING

31 Hearing Date December 13 20-17

32 Administrative Law Judge Terry A Schuh

33Appellant Michael Lee Murphy prose

331 Witness Scott Nielson

34 Agency Office of the Insurance Commissioner

3A1 middotRepresentative Darryl Colman Insurance Enforcement Specialist Legal Affairs Division Office of the Insurance Commissioner

342 Witness Brandon Lee Investigator Supervisor Office of the Insurance Commissioner

343 Obs~rver Christian Dixon Investigator Office of the Insurance Commissioner

35 Exhibits Exhibits 1 through 26 were admitted

4 FINDINGS OF FACT

l find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence

Jurisdiction

41 The Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) issued an Order Revoking License dated September 20 2017 The order revoked Washington resident insurance producer license WAOIC No 825148 of Michael Lee Murphy (Mr Murphy or Murphy) effective October 5 2017 The order was served on Mr Murphy by US Mail on September 20 2017

42 Mr Murphy filed an appeal on Oct~ber 2 2017

43 Because Mr Murphy filed his appeal before October 5 2017 the license revocation was stayed pending entry of a Final Order

440n October 5 2017 OIC requested that the Office of Administrative Hearings assign an Administrative Law Judge to hold an evidentiary hearing and issue an Initial Order

OAH (253) 46 6888INfflAL ORDHl Page 2 of 10Docket No 10-2017-INS-00019

Mr Murphys license

45 Mr Murphy has been licensed by OIC since January 1 2013 as a Washington resident insurance producer WAOIC No 825148 Ex 1 p 4

46 During the period of time at issue here Mr Murphy was associated with American Family Life Assurance Company (AFLAC) See Ex 25

47 Subsequent to his assqciation with AFLACi Mr Murphy associated with Colonial Life Ex 1 p 7 He remains associated with Colonial Life Scott Nielson (Mr Nielson or Nielson) Testimony

48 Mr Murphy first informed his supervisor at Colonial Life Mr Nielson of the allegations at issue here in mid- or late November 2017 Nielson Testimony

49 The allegations are serious implying lack of integrity Nielson Testimony Colonial Life would not tolerate such conduct Nielson Testimony Colonial Life would likely terminate any employee who forged documents although it might consider what duress predicated the misconduct Nielson Testimony

Casey Clark

41 o Casey Clark (Mr Clark) never middotapplied to AFLAC for insurttnce Ex 15 p 3 Rather Mr Murphy submitted an application without Mr Clarks knowledge or permission Murphy Testimony Ex 1 p 7 Ex 24

411 Mr Clark may have observed Mr Murp~y by means of a jcompany wide video conference [sic] but Mr Clark has never met Mr Murphy or had a direct conversation with him Ex 15 p 3

412 Mr Clark did not sign or initial any insurance application forms Ex 15 p 3 Ex 1 p 5 Mr Clarks signature on his declaration does not match his purported signature on the insurance application forms Brandon Lee (1Mr Lef) Testimony compare the signature on Ex 15 p 3 with those on Ex 4 pp 7 9 10 15 18 19 and 25 When Mr Clark uses initials he uses CTC not CC as appears on the insurance application forms~ Ex 15 p 3 Ex I p 5 see Ex 4 pp 6 14 17 23 and 24 Moreover the home address identified on the insurance application forms is not Mr Clarks Eltmiddot 15 p 3 Ex 1 p 5

413 Mr Murphy completed the insurance application forms and forged Mr Clarks signatures and initials Michael Lee Murphy (Mr Murphy or Murphy11

) rmiddotestimony Ex 1 p 7 Ex 24

4 14 In particular Mr Murphy forged Mr Clarks signature on the form authorizing payron deduction of the insurance prem1um Ex 15 p 3 Ex 4 pp 3 7 Murphy

Testimony Ex 7 p 1 Ex 24 When Mr Clark observed the payroll deduction he complained to AFLAC and was told that they would investigate Ex 1 p 5

OH (253) 476-683-3INITIAL ORDtfl Oacket ~h 1J-2~J1l-lgt1S-COOi0 ParJmiddot 3 0f 1o

Donald Ca vens

415 Mr Murphy appeared at Donald Cavenss (Mr Cavens) workplace and made a presentation of his products Ex 21 p 2 Ex i p 7 Later Mr Murphy called Mr Cavens Ex 21 p 2 Ex 1 p 7 Mr Cavens told Mr Murphy that Mr Cavens had insurance through his wife Ex 21 p 2 Ex 1 p 7

4 16 Nevertheless Mr Murphy submitted an AFLAC application in the name of Mr Cavens without Mr Cavenss knowledge or permission Ex 21 p 2 Ex 1 p 7

4 i 7 Mr Murphy forged Mr Cavenss signatures on the insurance application forms including the authoriza~ion for payroll deduction Murphy Testimony Ex 21 p 2 Ex 1 p 7 compare the signature on Ex 21 p 2 with those on ix 61 pp 21 34 35 48 and 50

418 Subsequently Mr Cavens observed that an $84 deduction from each of his middot paychecks that he did not authorize Ex 21 p 2 Ex1 p 7

Johnny Parker

419 Mr Murphy appeared at Johnny Parkers eMr J Parker) workplace to update employees policies Ex 17 p 2

420 Mr J Parker did not complete review sign or authorize insurance application forms to updatemiddot his coverage Ex 17 p 2 Rather Mr Murphy did so shyunilaterally Murphy Testimony

421 Had Mr J Parker reviewed and signed the insurance application forms he would have observed and corrected the errors Park instead of Parkermiddot incorrect home address incorrect date of birth incorrect spouse name Ex 171 p 2 Ex 1 p 6

422 Mr Murphy forged Mr J Parkers initials and signature on the insurance application forms Mttrphy Testimony Ex 17 p 2 Ex 1 p 6 compare signature on Ex 17 p 2 with Ex 6 p 15

423 Consequently AFLAC insured John Park and Johnny Parker had no AFLAC insurance for three months Ex 1 p 6 Mr J Parker did not learn about this until contacted my AFLAC after the fact Ex 1 p 6

Troy Parker

424 Mr Murphy appeared at Troy Parkers (Mr T Parker) workplace to update employees policies Ex 19 p 1 Ex 1 p 6

425 Mr T Parker told Mr Murphy that he did not need coverage from AFLAC Ex 1 p 6

426 Nevertheless Mr Murphy submitted the insurance application to AFLAC without Mr T Parkers knowledge or permission Ex 1 p 6 Murphy Testimony

OAH (253) 476-6Ba8iNtTl~L OHDER Page 4 of 10fJcket ~middot~o 10middot017 middotNS-Q1)019

427 Had Mr T Parker completed reviewed authorized and signed the insurance application forms he would have corrected o~vious errors Park rather than Parker birthdate and last name of spouse Ex 19 p 1 see Ex 6 pp 1 7 I 8 and 31-

428 Mr Murphy forged Mr T Parkers signatures on the insurance application forms Murphy Testimony Ex 19 p 1 Ex 1 p 6 compare signature on Ex 19J p 1 with those on Ex 6 pp 6 7 ald 29

AFLAC investigation

429 The consumers experienced payroI deductions for premiums and complained to AFLAC Lee Testimony middot

~30 AFLAC investigated Ex 1 p 2 Ex 2 Ex 8

431 Mr Murphy wrote a letter of resignation to AFLAC dated April 25 2016 Ex 7 There is no evidence in the record that AFLAC received it

432 AFLAC terminated Mr Murphys employment effective Junmiddote 2 2016 Ex 8 pp 1w2 Mr Murphy denied that he was terminated by AFLAC Ex 11 There is no evidence in the record that Mr Murphy ever received the termination letter

433 On June 14 2016 AFLAC referred 1o OIC 1 AFLACs determination that Mr Murphy committed forgery Ex 8 p 5

434 Mr Murphy had earned commissions totaling $2q7B~4 from thes~ transactions~ Lee Testimony Ex 25

OC investigation

435 OIC opened an investi9ation when it received a complaint from Wanda Conley of middotAFLAC after AFLAC asserted that it terminated Mr Murphy for cause Lee Testimony Ex 1 Ms Conley alleged that Mr Murphy generated and submitted forged insurance applications for Washington consumers Ex 1 p 4

436 AFLAC paid Mr Murphy $270834 in commissions for eight forged applications from four Washington co~sumers Ex 1 pp 1 and 4 Ex 25

437 AFLAC identified three forged policies for Mr Clark two for Mr T Parker one for Mr J Parker and two for Mr Cavens Ex1 pmiddot 8

438 On July 26 2016 OIC notified Mr Murphy that it had opened an investigation Ex 10

439 When OIC interviewed Mr rvturphy on April 3 2017 he initially denied the allegations but after approximately 25 minutes he admitted that he had submitted forged applications for Mr T Parker Mr J Parker Mr Cavens and Mr Clark Lee Testimony see Ex 24 Ex 1 p 7 Ex 12 This admission occurred after OIC

OMi (253) 47G-G889iNITlf-l OFlDER Pa90 5 of 10Qxlltet [) IJ-2017-INSmiddotOOO i 9

showed Mr Murphy the errors on the applications errors that would have been caught and corrected had the applications been reviewed and signed by the consumers Ex 1 p 7

440 Mr Murphy told OIC Investigations that he used a questionnaire purportedly completed by the consumer~ to represent to their payroll department1

authorization to deduct the premiums Ex 1 pp 2 and 7

441 Mr Murphy said that his famjly f~ced unexpected medical expenses and he needed the commissions to pay those bills Ex 1 p 7

442 Once an OIC investigation is complete the DICInvestigations Unitsubmits itsmiddot report to OIC management for a decision regarding discipline on the affected license or licenses Lee Testimony

443 Before determining to revoke Mr Murphys insurance producer license OIC compared the instant circumstances with disciplinary action it took on other insurance producer licensees Lee Testimony

Murphy needed funds for emergent medical treatment

middot 444 Mr Murphy forged the signatures without authorization to do so Murphy Testimomiddotny

445 It was wrong to do so Murphy Testimony It was conduct lacking in integrity Murphy Testimony

446 Mr Murphy needed the money from the resultant commissions to pay for emergency medical costs Murphy Testimony Lee Testimony Ex 1 p 7 At the time he saw no alternative means of generating funds Murphy Testimony

5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the facts aboves I make the following conclusions

Jurisdiction

511 have jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter under Revised Code of Washington (RCW11

) 4804010 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 284-02 070(2)(d)(i) 1 Chapter 3405 RCW 1 and Chapter 3412 RCW

OIC has the authority to cfiscipline Mr Murphys license

52 OIC may middotrevoke or otherwise discipline an insurance producers license for violating any insurance laws or violating any rl)le subpoena or order of the commissioner RCW 4817530(1 )(b)

53 OIC may revoke or otherwise discipline an insurance producers license for intentionally misrepresenting the terms of an actual or proposmiddoted insurance contract or application for insurances RCW 4817530(1 )(e)

OAH (255) 4713-8888INITIAL ORDER middotPage 6 middotif 10Docket No i0-2017middot1NS-OOOl9

54 OIC may revoke or otherwise discipline an insurance producers license for using fraudulent coercive or dishonest practices or demonstrating incompetence untrustworthiness l or financial irresponsibiliti RCW 48 17530(1 )(h)

55 OIC may revoke or otherwise discipline an insurance producers license for forging anothers name of an application for insurance or to any document related to an insurance transaction RCW 4817530(1 )(j)

56 OIC may revoke a license of a person who knowingly makes a false or misleading statement or impersonation or who willfully fails to reveal ~ material fact in or relative to an application for insurance to an insurer RCW 483021 O

57 Here Mr Murphy forged signatures and initials on insurance-related application documents for at least four consumers and for at least eight policies He purposefully or carelessly placed false or flawed information about these consumers on certain of those documents Mr Murphy misspelled the names of at least two consumers In one of those instances~ that error caused the consumer to lose coverage until the consumer discovered the error some three months later He submitted those documents to AFLAC without the knowledge or permission of those consumers In at least two instances the documents included payroll deduction authorizations that Mr Murphy submitted without the consumers knowl~dge or permission Mr Murphy submitted an insurance application for a consumer who specifically told Mr Murphy that he did not need or want the coverage This conduct violated insurance laws and rules constituted intentional misrepresentation was fraudulent dishonest and untrustworthy was incompetent (in at least the instances of misspellinmiddotg the name of aconsumer who wanted insurance) included forging anothers name and was knowingy false Accordingly in view of the foregoing statutory provisions 01C had the basis anmiddotd authority to discipline Mr Murphys license

OIC was correct to revokemiddotMr Murphys license under RCW 4817530(1)(b) 1 (1)(e) (1)(h

and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210

5-8 Mr Murphy acknowledged that he committed the violations referenced above and that he should be disciplined Nevertheless he understandably wishes to avoid license revocation He argued that he is not now the same person as he was when he committed the violations 1 that his misconduct will never re~occur and that he wants the opportunity to prove that he can participate with integrity in the insurance industry lmplict in his argument ismiddot that he faced unique personal circumstances that he wishes that he would have handled differently His argument is rebutted in part by his failure to admit his misconduct until confronted by OIC Investigations on April 3 2017 with irrefutable evidence Regardless Mr ~urphy argued for a less onerous approach to his discipline To be sure OIC is authorized to apply discipline short of revocation In other words OIC has discretion

OJH (253) 4middot76 6888INlTlL ORDEF1 Page7of 10Dod~ei N middot11J21J 7-t~ Js-~)IY111

59 Where action is discretionary a court will not set it aside in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion A clear abuse of discretion may be shown by demonstrating the discretion was exercised in a manner which was manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds orfor untenable reasons Wilson v Board of Governors Washngton State Bar Assn 90 Wn2d 136 656 585 P2d 136 (1978) (citations omitted)

510 Nothing in the record here shows that OIC clearly abused its discretion or exercised it unreasonably or untenably Revocation was specifically a disclpline available to OIC for each and any of the violations Moreover the decision to revoke was made by OIC personnel who undoubtedly had the perspective of having reviewed and determined discipline for a countless number of cases This tribunal does not have that experience and perspective Accordingly I decline to set aside OICs decision to revoke Mr Murphys license

511 Therefore 01Cs decision to revoke Mr Murphys Washington re$ident insurance producer license WAOIC Nomiddot 825138 should be affirmed

6 INITIAL ORDER

ff IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

6 i The Office of tQe Insurance Commissioner action is AFFIRry1ED

62 Michael Lee Murphys Washington resident insurance producer license WAOIC No 825148 is REVOKED middoteffective on the date to be determined by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner

Issued from Tacoma Washington on the date of mailing

~~ Terry AS-~ Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHED

01H (253) 476middotf3883 JNTll OFlDEF~ Drnk-i~ No 1Jmiddot2J17-lJS-OOOB Page 8 of 10

APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER

An initial order does not become a final order until the Insurance Commissioner reviews it 1 The Insurance Commissioners Chief Hearing Officer will automatically review this matter and issue a final order middot

PETITION FOR REVIEW

In addition to the automatic review any party may file a Petition for Review2 If you file a Petition for Review the Chief Hearing Officer wIJ consider your specific objections to the Initial Order and your arguments for a different result

You must file your Petition for Review with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) within twenty (20 days of the date OAH mailed the Initial Order3 FileJ means served on all other parties and delivered during business hours4 Mail a copy to the other parties at the addresses in the Certificate of Mailing below

The Petition for Review must speCify all parts of the Initial Order that you dispute and the evidence that supports the Petifion5 Other partles may file a reply to the Petition within 1Odays after the petitioner seteS the Petition6

Deliver the Petition for Review and Reply to the following add res~

Office of Insurance Commissioner Chief Hearing Officer Hearings Unit 1 OIC PO Box 40255 Olympia WA 98504-0255

1 WAC 2B4-02-070(2)(c)(i) 2 RCW 3405464 WAC 1 OftOB-211 3 WAC 10-08-211 4 WAC 10-08-1 iO 5 WAC 10-08-21 1(3) 6 WAC 10-08-211 (4)

OH (253 476-683(~JITJAL OFIDEH Pa_p 8 cf _yOcket No i rJ2017-lmiddotJS-00010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR OAH DOCKET NO 102017middotbull1NS Q0019

I certify that true copies of this document were served from Tacoma Washington via Consolidated Mail Services upon the following as indicated

Michael Murphy 104 S Freya St Blue Flag Building Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99202 Appellant

Darryl Colman

~ First Class Mail D Certified Mail Return Receipt D Hand Delivery via Messenger D Campus Mail 0 Facsimile middotO E mail

Insurance Enforcement SpecialistJ Legal D First Class Mail Affairs Division D Certified Mail Return Receipt Office of Insurance Commissioner D Hand Delivery via Messenger MS 40255 lg) Campus Mail PO Box 40255 D FacsimHe Olympia WA 985040255 DE-mail Agency Representative

Dorothy Seabourne~Taylor Hearings Unit Paralegal Office of Insurance Commissioner MS 40255 PO Box40255

D First Class Mail D Certified Mail Return Receipt D Hand Delivery via Messenger XI Campus Mail D Facsimile

Olympia WA 98504-0255 DE-mail

middot Agency Contact -

Date Thursday January 251 2018

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARtNGS

+

Ricci Frisk Legal Assistant 4

OAH (253) 476-6838iNITlAl ORDER age 10 of 10Docket No i0-20i7-IN3-00019

OAH as presiding officer conduct an evidentiary hearing and issue an initial order in this matter

4 On December 13 2017 ALJ Terry A Schuh of OAH acting as Presiding Officer conducted an evidentiary hearing on Mr Murphys Demand On January 25 2018 Judge Schuh entered an Initial Order in this matter which contained findings of fact and conclusions oflaw A copy of ALJ Schuhs Initial Order is attached hereto

5 ALJ Schuh s Initial Order was transmitted to me for review and for entry of Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Final Order pursuant to RCW 3405464

6 I have reviewed and considered the record in this matter including the evidence presented to ALJ Schuh

7 I have given due regard to ALJ Schuhs opportunity to observe the witnesses pursuant to RCW 3405464(4) Put another way a review judge may substitute his or her findings for those of a presiding officer but cannot reject credibility determinations without substantial evidence to the contrary in the record Chandler v Office of the Ins Comm r 141 Wn App 639 657 173 P3d 275 (2007) That said evaluating the record to determine whether a witness testimony is substantively consistent differs from a true credibility

determination Id

FINDINGS OF FACT

I make the following changes to the Findings of Fact in ALJ Schuhs Initial Order to reflect the reality that whether or not Mr Murphy actually forged anothers name andor initials is part of the Conclusions of Law below concerning RCW 4817530(l)G) and not a conclusion to be made in the Findings of Fact






436 Delete the word forged



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


































(Emphasis added)









































(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


































(Emphasis added)









































(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+






























(Emphasis added)









































(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+
























(Emphasis added)









































(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+













(Emphasis added)









































(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+








































(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+




























(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+














(Citations omitted)




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+




(Citations omitted)








(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+




(Emphasis added)


ORDER


February 23 2018

















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+
















10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+





10-2017-INS 00019 l0l8 JAN 2b

A ~ ~ I ~J



__---~--~--____ Agency No 17-0314

1 ISSUES






2 ORDER SUMMARY








middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+





middot 3 HEARING










4 FINDINGS OF FACT


Jurisdiction






Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+



Mr Murphys license






Casey Clark









Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+



Donald Ca vens





Johnny Parker






Troy Parker







AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+





AFLAC investigation







OC investigation



















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+















Jurisdiction












and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+








and (1)(1) and RCW 4830210






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+






6 INITIAL ORDER








APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+



APPEAL RIGHTS

FINAL ORDER


PETITION FOR REVIEW











Darryl Colman









+






Darryl Colman









+



Documents

BEFORE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ......1. On September 20, 2017, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner ("OIC") issued an Order Revoking License, No. 17-0314 ("Order Revoking"),