The Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICBC) has released three disciplinary decisions against reps, ranging from a two-year ban for misappropriating premiums to a $1,000 fine for signing a client’s documents.

In the most serious case, the ICBC prohibited a former rep, Kiran Lata Parmar, from holding an insurance license for two years and ordered costs of $612.50, in a case where, according to the decision, Parmar admitted to wrongdoing and requested the termination of her general insurance licence (which took effect on April 14, 2011).

The decision noted that she “was very contrite, accepted full responsibility for her actions, and acknowledged her conduct was clearly inappropriate”, adding that she was in “a unique position of financial distress” at the time. It reports that she misappropriated approximately $18,612 from 2009 to 2011. However, the case wasn’t pursued criminally as the funds were effectively reimbursed.

“While council acknowledged the severity of the particular hardship that motivated the former licensee and her otherwise unblemished record during her lengthy career as an insurance licensee, council maintained her misconduct was unacceptable and clearly constituted a breach of the fundamental licensing requirements of trustworthiness and the intention to carry on the business of insurance in good faith. Council found the former licensee’s motivation for her actions was not a justification for her inexcusable behaviour,” the order says.

In another case, the council found that a rep, Michael Anthony Edwin Crowe, created and distributed misleading marketing material that contained an unfair portrayal of a competitor’s insurance coverage; that he breached the confidentiality of clients in that material; didn’t get approval from the insurer underwriting the insurance for the marketing material; and, continued to distribute the material in another province after being directed to stop doing so by council staff.

In that case, the council ruled that he should be prohibited from using any marketing material unless it’s provided to him by the insurance company whose product he is soliciting. He was also fined $10,000, and assessed investigative costs of $2,325.50.

Finally, it also fined a former rep $1,000 and assessed investigative costs of $787.50 amid allegations that insurance documents were signed to create the appearance they had been signed by the client. In that case, the council was unable to determine whether this was done at the request of the client or not, but it did find that it did not benefit the rep.

“Ultimately, council did not view this matter as a situation of untrustworthiness,” it says. Instead, it concluded that he did “not fully appreciate the importance of properly executing insurance transactions”.