Miami Agent Banned After Providing Fake Insurance Certificate

April 20, 2006

  • April 20, 2006 at 2:35 am
    Deb says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds E&O on the Agency. And, why wasn\’t the Agency Name listed in the report?

  • April 20, 2006 at 2:44 am
    Lori says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the agent in question is an agency principal, intentional acts of owner, offficera are generally excluded on most E&O policies I have read.

  • April 20, 2006 at 2:46 am
    Kevin McEwen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I hope all of my clients that are on Agency Billed plans don\’t heed the Commissioners advice and write all of their checks to the insurance company….

    Wouldn\’t better advice be to check out the reputation of the agent??

  • April 20, 2006 at 2:47 am
    JR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why is this agent not listed in FLDFS?

  • April 20, 2006 at 3:42 am
    Dang! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We have a guy here in good old PA that issued over 400 phony certs. for HVAC contractor, pocketing over $500,000 in total over several years. Caught up to him when a cert. holder called one of the companies to verify coverage.

    What are these people thinking???

  • April 20, 2006 at 4:02 am
    MARK WENGERT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    REQUIRE THE AGENTS IN FLORIDA TO PROVIDE A SURETY BOND FOR AT LEAST $50,000. THIS WOULD GET RID OF THAT KIND OF SLIME AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CONSUMER AS WELL AS OTHER AGENTS REPS….MORE THAN PIP COV???

  • April 20, 2006 at 5:33 am
    CT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    why should I have to pay for the actions of others? Why shouldn\’t the consumers have a responsibility to check out their company or agents they choose with DFS? I mean, isn\’t that what they are supposed to do. I am against having to pay any more overhead- including providing any sort of bond for our agency. The more overhead we add- the less agency choices the consumers will have.

  • April 20, 2006 at 5:59 am
    Jim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A bond will not be the answer, prosecution and harsh penalties is the answer.
    The agency should not be named unless this guy was the principal or other agents in the agency were caught doing the same thing. The department can not handle a defamation of character suit from an agency because of a single nut job that was apparently not even legal to sell the coverage, but then we are talking Miami. You start a media blitz about a reputable agency (and I am not saying this one was) and you will have a BIG problem to deal with. More then likely the carrier went ahead and paid the claim simply because the E&O would not cover it, if they even had E&O. Larger reputable carriers will do this in SOME cases because it makes them look like bafoons also. Not sure in this case and I\’m sure the size of the claim would play into this.

  • April 21, 2006 at 7:47 am
    FMKELLER says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I TEACH CONTINUING ED AND ONE COURSE IS ETHICS. i TRY TO PRESS UPON YOUNG AND OLD AGENTS HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO OUR WORK. EVIDENTLY HE DID NOT TAKE ONE OF MY CLASSES

  • April 21, 2006 at 8:32 am
    rs says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You obviously did not realize the agent had a license, what is the dfs supposed to tell the public??? And a bond is good, it weeds out all the little agents that dont know what they are doing and gets rid of the ones that have nothing to loose financial wise. I\’m against overhead, but it\’s too easy to get a license in FLA and that makes it a lower value for all of the professionals.(less profit)You know profit…a good word



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*