The Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICoBC) has fined Maxxam Insurance Services Incorporated $5,000 and assessed investigation costs in the amount of $3,075 after the agency repeatedly allowed misconduct, including theft and fraud, and excluded its nominee from all relevant discussions regarding the offending licensee’s conduct.
In addition, the council ordered all level 3 agents with the agency, also operating as Sussex Insurance Agency, to complete the Council Rules Course for General Insurance Agents, Salespersons and Adjusters and the Nominee Responsibilities and Best Practices Course for General Insurance and Adjusters before Jan. 19, 2026.
The former licensee in question, Shayne Moore, was first licensed as a general insurance agent in January 2010 and as a life and accident and sickness insurance agent in December 2009. Moore was terminated by the agency on multiple occasions for failing to remit client premiums that he collected to his own bank account on behalf of the agency and for issuing fraudulent insurance certificates to clients. In January 2025, Moore was ordered by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to pay the agency $46,065.19.
“The nominee was initially unaware of the agency’s multiple meetings in 2021 and 2022 with the former licensee to address issues concerning the remittance of client payments. The nominee only became aware of the former licensee’s actions when she was advised by senior staff in 2023 to file a complaint to council,” the intended decision in the case states. It adds that the nominee was not involved in supervising the former licensee and was not involved in the agent’s termination “because of an oversight by the agency.”
An aggravating factor in the case is the fact that the agency is not unknown to the regulator: In April 2016 it was the subject of a regulatory order for failing to inform the council on eight different occasions when a licensee’s authority to represent the agency had been revoked.
“Nominees must ensure employees are properly supervised and since they are responsible for all insurance activities of an agency, they should be informed of any employee misconduct. Council was concerned with the agency’s exclusion of the nominee from key meetings and their disregard for her role,” the intended decision continues. “Council felt formal discipline was necessary to emphasize to the public that the conduct of the agency is concerning and reprehensible.”
