Agency News blog CAR News

Shannon Agency Appeals Commerce’s Contract Cancellation to the Division of Insurance

On April 25, 2019, after separate selections of CAR’s market assessment committee and governing committee evaluate panel upheld the termination of its business vehicle, taxi, and limousine exclusive representative producer contracts and appointments by the Commerce Insurance Firm (“Commerce”), the Shannon Insurance Agency (“Shannon Agency”), of 429 S. Washington Road, North Attleboro filed an attraction to the division of insurance.

Pending a hearing earlier than the division, the attraction filed by the Shannon Agency will keep Commerce’s cancellation until a division listening to officer orders the stay lifted.

Cancellation for six violations of CAR’s guidelines

On September 11, 2018, Commerce despatched the Shannon Agency a thirty-day discover that Commerce was terminating the Shannon Agency’s business exclusive representative producer appointment for violations of CAR Rule 14.B.1.d., e., g., j., x., and y. The 150-page discover of termination documented, in Commerce’s opinion, the Shannon Agency’s failure to comply with CAR’s rules justifying Commerce’s action to finish the relationship.

On December 19, 2018, CAR’s market evaluation committee heard on the merits the Shannon Agency’s request for evaluation. The committee discovered that Commerce’s termination of the Shannon Agency’s exclusive consultant producer appointments was not unfair, unreasonable or improper. Accordingly, the market evaluate committee voted to uphold Commerce’s termination of the Shannon Agency’s business unique representative producer contracts and appointments for violations of CAR rules 14.B.1.d., e., g., j., x., and y., and deny the agency’s request for aid.

On January eight, 2019, the Shannon Agency submitted a request for aid to CAR interesting the determination of the market assessment committee to a three-member governing committee evaluate panel (“review panel”).

Beneath CAR’s guidelines, the governing committee evaluation panel conducts a de novo assessment. They make their determination on whether to uphold a termination based mostly on the grounds said in the notice of termination and the proof introduced to them. The evaluation panel doesn’t consider the choice of the market assessment committee.

Mr. Shannon repeats his market evaluate committee arguments for denying Commerce’s cancellation

At the March 28, 2019 hearing earlier than the assessment panel, Mr. Paul Shannon of the Shannon Insurance Agency, LLC, introduced the company’s attraction.

He suggested the evaluate panel the company had been with Commerce since 2011 and had all the time had an excellent relationship together with his assigned underwriters.

Nevertheless, in December 2017 when Commerce assigned a new underwriter to his company, many giant risks that had been on his books for many years and renewed by Commerce with out concern, have been now being scrutinized by this underwriter. Further reviews and data have been requested at renewal, and if this documentation weren’t acquired, the policies can be non-renewed.

Mr. Shannon reviewed a number of of the particular accounts he had referenced at the market evaluate committee meeting.

  • In one example, the coverage was submitted via Collaborative Edge to Commerce. Nevertheless, a 5-10 day underwriting hold was positioned on it, and a subsequent notice of cancellation issued by the service in consequence of the willpower that the enterprise did not qualify for the business market:
  • In another case, it took a considerable quantity of time for the premium to be developed which impacted the securing of financing; and,
  • In other situations, Commerce typically refused to make the motor service filings that the danger required.

Mr. Shannon suggested the evaluation panel that these risks have been then typically in a position to secure insurance via another servicing service, often for less premium, and have been typically even rewritten by Commerce with another Commerce agent, without the request for documentation as previously requested from the Shannon Agency.

Mr. Shannon said that, based mostly upon these obvious underwriting requirement inconsistencies, he felt that his agency had been singled out by Commerce unfairly.

Commerce presents its grounds for the assessment panel to uphold the agency’s cancellation

Mr. John Kelly introduced Commerce’s case to the evaluation panel, stating that the company’s notice of termination and its attachments offered clear documentation of the agency’s repeated violations of Rules 13 and 14 of CAR’s Guidelines of Operation. In Commerce’s opinion, this documentation shaped the basis for the ERP’s termination and offered proof that the cited violations weren’t isolated events but somewhat a steady sample of non-compliant business practices on the half of the ERP.

Earlier than issuing the discover of termination, Commerce tried to treatment its considerations about the Shannon Agency. In June 2018, to help the ERP in avoiding the termination of its appointment, Commerce offered an in depth notice to the Shannon Agency of the repeated rule violations and requested that the ERP conduct its future enterprise with Commerce in accordance with CAR rules. Nevertheless, the ERP failed to alter its business practices, and the violations continued despite warnings and gives of assistance. Based mostly on the company’s continued lack of compliance, Commerce issued its September 11, 2018 discover of termination.

Mr. Kelly said that in Commerce’s opinion, the Shannon Agency had offered no defense to the violations cited in Commerce’s termination letter. As an alternative, the Shannon Agency attempted to deflect the agency’s noncompliance with the CAR rules with unsubstantiated, inaccurate and irrelevant allegations relative to Commerce’s intent.

Mr. Kelly emphasized that the actions of the underwriter that the Shannon Agency complained of to the evaluate panel have been in keeping with the obligations of the limited servicing service agreement. Additionally, the underwriter’s requests to the Shannon Agency to provide further studies have been valid requests to decide the eligibility, correct classifications and score of the danger. Mr. Kelly identified that CAR’s committees have targeted on creating consistency among servicing carriers’ handling of risks in the business marketplace. Subsequently, CAR should anticipate all servicing carriers to provide increased scrutiny on risks In response to Mr. Shannon’s complaints about risks subsequently written by Commerce by way of another company, Mr. Kelly indicated that such successor company, as opposed to the Shannon Agency, had correctly and promptly offered all the documentation needed for Commerce to concern the coverage.

In summation, Mr. Kelly said the termination of the Shannon Agency’s unique representative producer assignments was not unfair, unreasonable or improper. He requested the evaluation panel to uphold the ruling of the market assessment committee to deny the ERP’s petition for aid from the termination of its business vehicle, taxi, and limousine exclusive consultant producer appointments to Commerce.

Governing Committee evaluate panel upholds the cancellation of the Shannon Agency’s contract

After listening to from the Shannon Agency and Commerce, the evaluate panel discussed the info introduced and agreed that there exists a clear set of CAR rules to which each agent in the state of Massachusetts should adhere. To the evaluate panel, the written documentation submitted by Commerce offered enough proof that the agency had failed to adhere to these rules. As to the company’s defense that the issues arose because a brand new underwriter had been assigned to the company by Commerce, the evaluate panel found that reality irrelevant.

Based mostly on the sense of the evaluate panel, CAR counsel, Benjamin Hincks, advised they need to only deliberate on the alleged violations that Commerce claimed a foundation for termination and determine if the violation have been established and, in that case, whether the violation was a legitimate basis for termination

Following counsel’s instructions, the assessment panel thought-about every of the actions from which the Shannon Insurance Agency requested aid, as laid out in Commerce’s termination letter dated September 11, 2018. As required by CAR procedure, they voted on separate motions relating to every floor.

The evaluation panel’s votes have been all unanimous and held:

Floor one: By failing to submit for all applicants a brand new business software for insurance with applicable certification types completed in their entirety, and a signed premium finance software/agreement, if relevant, within two enterprise days, the Shannon Insurance Agency had violated CAR Rule 14.B.1.d.

The evaluation panel additionally found that Commerce had established that this violation offered a legitimate basis for termination of the company.

Ground two: By failing to provide an inexpensive and good faith effort to verify the info offered by the applicant, together with score and licensing knowledge, the Shannon Agency had violated CAR Rule 14.B.1.e.

The evaluate panel additionally discovered that Commerce had established that this violation offered a legitimate basis for termination of the agency.

Floor three: By failing to verify that the applicant has not been in default in the cost of any Motor Car Insurance premiums in the previous 24 months, the Shannon Agency had violated Rule 14.B.1.g.

The evaluate panel also discovered that Commerce had established that this violation offered a legitimate foundation for termination of the company.

Ground 4: By failing to forward all premium funds to a servicing service inside two business days, such interval not required to be prolonged by the servicing service as a result of however any written assurances the premium finance company had previously failed to perform its dedication, the Shannon Agency had violated CAR Rule 14.B.1.j.

The evaluation panel additionally discovered that Commerce had established that this violation offered a legitimate foundation for termination of the company.

Ground 5: By failing to comply with all of the circumstances contained in the contract between the ERP and the servicing service, the Shannon Agency had violated Rule 14.B.1.x.

The evaluation panel additionally discovered that Commerce had established that this violation offered a legitimate foundation for termination of the company.

Ground six: By failing to adjust to all the provisions of the Rules of Operation and the Guide of Administrative Procedures, the Shannon Agency had violated Rule 14.B.1.y.

The evaluation panel additionally found that Commerce had established that this violation offered a legitimate foundation for termination of the company.

Keep of cancellation pending additional appeals to the division of insurance coverage

After the ultimate votes of the assessment panel, Lawyer Hincks suggested that the present stay of the termination would remain in place throughout the thirty-day attraction interval from the issuance of CAR’s notice of the assessment panel’s determination to uphold Commerce’s termination.

Based mostly on the Shannon Agency filing an attraction within the thirty-day attraction interval to the division of insurance, the keep will stay in place until the division guidelines on the attraction or makes an earlier determination to raise the stay throughout the appellate proceedings.

Agency Checklists will hold its readers informed on the attraction’s progress at the division.