Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2508 September Term 2005

ALLAN J. CULVER

V.

MARYLAND INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Salmon, Adkins, Meredith, JJ.

Opinion by Salmon, J.

Filed: September 7, 2007

The Maryland Insurance Administration ("MIA") revoked Allan J. Culver's insurance producer's license. Cu lver sough t judicial review before the C ircuit Court for Baltimore City, wh ich aff irmed th e MIA 's order of revo cation. Three issues are presented by Culver in this appea l: I. Whether the trial court erre d in holding [that] [a]ppellant was not entitled to a "contes ted hearing " pursuan t to [Section 2-210 of the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code]. Whether the trial court erred [in] affirming the revocation of [appellant's] license entered in excess of the statutory authority granted to [the MIA ]. Whether the trial court erred [in] affirming an order of [the MIA] revoking [a]ppellant's license which was unsupported by substantial evidence.

II.

III.

I. FACTS Anyone selling insurance in Maryland must be licensed as an insurance producer by the MIA.1 Culver, while an attorney ad mitted to pra ctice in M aryland, subm itted his

An "insurance produce r" is defined in Section 1-1 01(u)(1) of the Insuran ce Article of the Maryland Code (2006) as
1

a person that, for compensation, sells, solicits, or negotiates insurance contracts, including contracts for nonprofit health service plans, dental plan organizatio ns, and hea lth maintenance organizations, or the renewal or continuance of these insurance contracts for: (i) persons issuing the insurance contracts; or (ii) insureds or prospective insureds other than the insurance producer.

application for a license to sell insurance on August 10, 2001. On the application, Culver informed the MIA that he was under investigation by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("AGC"). The MIA decided to put Culver's application on hold until the AGC conclu ded its in vestiga tion. As a result of the AGC's investigation, legal proceedings were brought against Culver; the proceedings w ere concluded by an opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals. See Attorney Grievan ce Comm 'n v. Culver, 373 Md. 265 (2002). The Court held that Culver had violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC") 1.5(c), as adopted by Maryland Rules 16-812 (Fees) and 16-607(b)(2) (Commingling of funds), during the course of his representation of a clie nt. Id . at 275-76. Culver was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law but was granted the right to seek reinstatement after thir ty days. Id . at 284. On February 12 , 2003, wh ich was a bout fou r months a fter the effe ctive date of his suspen sion, C ulver's l icense to practice in Ma ryland w as reinst ated. By letter dated March 17, 2003, Culver informed the MIA of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and his reinstatement. His letter advised that the AGC was still investigating another m atter involvin g his conduct. On May 2, 2003, the MIA issued Culver an insurance producer's license. The other matter that the AGC was investigating involved allegations stemming from Culver's representation from 1993 to 1994 of a female client who was seeking a divorce. That investigation led to charges that were ultimately considered by the Court of Appeals. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Culver , 381 Md. 241 (2004). The Court held that Culver

2

had violated MRPC 1.2 (Scope of representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.5, 1.7 (Conflict of interest), 1.15 (Safekeeping property), 3.1 (M eritoriou s claims and co ntention s), 3.2 (Expediting litigation ), 3.3 (Cando r toward th e tribunal), 3.4 ( Fairness to o pposing p arty and counsel), and 8.4 (Misconduct) . Id . at 259-88. Among other things, the Court ruled: (1) Culver's sexual intercourse with his client while representing her in a divorce case violated several rules; (2) Culver's advice to his client to o btain credit ca rd loans in o rder to pay legal fees with the intent of having the debt discharged in bankruptcy was fraudulent conduct; and (3) Culver violated rules governing fees and payments from his client. The Court of Appea ls disbarred Culver from the practice of law in Maryland effective May 13, 2004. On December 9, 2004, the MIA revoked Culv er's insu rance p roduce r's licens e. Intending to challenge the revocation, Culver asked for an evidentiary "contested hearing" to be held by the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH "). The MIA moved for sum mary disposition of the ma tter. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned to the matter refused to issue the subpoena requested by Culver and sent the parties a letter advising that the "contested hearing" requested was being converted to a "motions hearing." The motions hearing was held before the ALJ on April 13, 2005.2 The MIA argued that the decision of the Court of Appeals disbarring Culver indicated that he was untrustworthy and, therefore, did not me et the statutory req uirements for a licensed insurance producer. Culver countered by declaring his desire to contest the findings of fact that had

The parties noted at the hearing held before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that there were "pr oblems" in volved w ith the transcription o f the motio ns hearing held on A pril 13, 2005. Because of those problems, the transcript is not a part of the record.
2

3

already been made by the Court of Appeals. The ALJ agreed with MIA that, in light of the facts as established by the most recent Court of Appeals decision involving appellant's actions, an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. The ALJ issued a recommendation for summary disposition in favor of the MIA. The ALJ ruled: After considering the arguments of the parties, I find that there are no material facts needing to be developed at a hearing on the merits. Although th e Respo ndent [C ulver] may disp ute the facts the Court of Appeals decided in his disbarment procee ding, I h ave no author ity to retry that c ase. The question no w become s whether the M IA is entitled to prevail a s a matte r of law . I find that the Administration has established that it was justified in revoking the Respondent's license to act as an insurance producer in this State. The extensive findings of the Court of Appeals show that the Respondent committed numerous acts eviden cing dish onesty, untrustworthiness and serious breaches of the fiducia ry duty owed to his clients. Moreover, the Court found that the Respondent exhibited an unwillingness to accept res ponsibility for his egregious misconduct. The Court also found that the Respondent showed no remo rse and, instea d, attempted to minimize the seriousness of his actions. In conclusion, I find that the undisputed facts are that the Respondent violated the provisions of Section 10-126(a) and (f) of the In suranc e Article , Anno tated C ode of Marylan d. . . . Culver filed exceptions to the recommended order. The MIA held oral arguments on the exceptions and considered legal arguments but did not allow Culver to present evidence. On July 14, 2005, the MIA issued its final order of revocation. Culver filed a petition for judicial review in the C ircuit Co urt for B altimore City. The circuit court affirmed the MIA's order on December 12. 4

II. THE REVOCATION OF CULVER'S INSURANCE PRODUCER 'S LICENSE In its final order of revocation, the M IA concluded that Culver violated Sections 10-126(a)(2), 10-126(a)(3), 10-126(a)(13), and 10-126(f) of the Insurance Article of the Maryland C ode (200 3 Repl. V ol.). Section 1 0-126 rea ds, in pertinen t part: (a) Grounds .

Download Culver v. Insurance Commissioner.pdf

Maryland Law