After unsuccessfully appealing an intended decision of the Insurance Council of British Columbia, Advantage Benefits Plus Inc., and licensee Michael Anthony Edwin Crowe will pay $20,000 and $10,000 respectively, plus hearing costs in the amount of $3,402.50.
The insurance council convened a hearing at Crowe’s request to dispute the agency’s fine, levied against Advantage Benefits Plus over allegations that Crowe and Advantage breached rules and codes of conduct when they purchased domain names in the name of a competitor in order to redirect consumers to the agency’s own website. Crowe did not dispute the council’s statement of facts, or his own $10,000 fine.
Crowe has been licensed with the insurance council since 1981. His agency has been licensed since 1999. During that time, both have been disciplined in the past for creating and distributing misleading and inaccurate marketing materials related to the same competitor’s products. In addition to a fine of $10,000 and costs of $2,325.50 levied against Crowe in 2012, he was also specifically prohibited from using marketing materials in solicitation unless the material was specifically provided to him by the insurance company whose product he is selling. Several years later, in 2016, both Crowe and the agency netted additional fines of $10,000 each, plus costs of $887.50 for again using unapproved marketing materials. In a separate disciplinary proceeding, the agency was also fined $1,000 in 2013 for failing to report that its errors and omissions insurance had expired.
In the current proceeding, the order states that Crowe had no legitimate interest in the domain names in question, and that he registered the domain names in bad faith to disrupt his competitor’s business. Although the agent at one point said he registered the domains to create a website called “Very Funny Insurance Stories” he subsequently admitted that his intention was to purchase the domain names so that his competitor could not use them.
“Council took the position that the licensee’s misconduct in the use of the domain names was not an isolated incident and was contrary to council’s direction that he cease and desist from attempting to discredit his competitor,” they write.
“The hearing committee is very troubled by the conduct of the licensee and the agency. Both have displayed a deliberate and flagrant disregard for council’s rules, code of conduct and guidance on acceptable insurance practices,” the council adds. “The licensee and the agency have attempted to minimize their misconduct, and, worst of all, were untruthful with their intent behind the purchase and use of the domain names. Their actions were in direct violations of council’s rules and code of conduct and specific guidance given by council with respect to marketing practices.”
