The General Insurance Council of Manitoba has issued a decision in the case regarding Mary Louise Charles, after the agent self-reported to the insurance council that she’d inadvertently allowed an employee to act as an agent without holding a valid license.
In this case, the employee’s license lapsed in May 2019 when she was on leave. The employee had not completed the required continuing education needed to renew. The employee returned to work in November 2019 and was able to transact business on two insurers’ systems, despite not holding an appropriate license. December 10 that year, the agency’s licensing department informed the employee’s manager that the employee’s license was not active. The manager advised the employee to cease all activity the following day.
While unlicensed, the employee completed a large number of transactions with one insurer and sold two travel polices with another. Charles says she was not aware the employee had processed business when she authorized the renewal and reinstatement of the employee’s license. On agency attestation forms, Charles agreed that she was responsible for implementing reasonable screening procedures to determine an applicant’s suitability, and to ensure that no employee, director or partner who is not licensed acts as an insurance agent.
Charles says when she signed the agent’s license renewal, she had not yet been informed about the unlicensed activity. She also says the employee answered ‘no’ to questions regarding unlicensed activity. During the course of the council’s investigation, Charles admitted that the firm was not aware that individuals could access the systems in question without a valid license.
“Though the unlicensed activity occurred due to a misunderstanding between the manager and the agency’s licensing team, as the operating agent, it was the licensee’s responsibility to provide adequate supervision of the staff and assistants to whom she delegates particular tasks and functions,” the insurance council adds in its decision. For failing to implement screening procedures and for being unaware that an employee had engaged in unlicensed activity prior to giving approval to sponsor that employee’s license, the insurance council has fined Charles $1,000 and assessed investigation costs of $1,500.
