Insurance Agent Who Kept Premium Money Loses License
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/.../agents-license-removed-fraud... and see the full video at https://rumble.com/v2b5io2-agents-license-removed-for... and at
Vincent Alexander, appealed the trial court judgment which affirmed the March 23, 2021 decision of the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law that revoked his insurance agency license. He appealed and the Louisiana Court of appeal reviewed the appeal in Vincent Alexander v. Louisiana Department Of Insurance, No. 2022 CA 0769, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit (February 24, 2023)
FACTS
Alexander was an insurance agent licensed by the State of Louisiana, doing business as Vincent Alexander Insurance Agency (the agency). He was married to Tacey Ann Tolliver, who was also an insurance agent licensed at one time by the State of Louisiana and worked with him at the agency. Ms. Tolliver’s insurance license expired on August 31, 2018.
The Louisiana Department of Insurance (LDI) received a complaint from Kendall Lewis, one of the agency’s customers, that was filed against Progressive Insurance Company (Progressive). In the complaint, Mr. Lewis stated he had paid premiums to the agency on a policy that went into effect December 7, 2018, but the policy was cancelled on January 22, 2019. Mr. Lewis provided premium receipts as proof of payment, dated from January 2019 to May 2019, of which were signed “T. Alexander.” Progressive informed Mr. Lewis that the policy was cancelled due to non-payment, but he was not made aware of the cancellation until he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.
LDI directed Mr. Alexander to respond to Mr. Lewis’s complaint and to explain why Mr. Lewis’s policy was cancelled despite his payment of premiums. Mr. Alexander failed to respond.
Representatives from Progressive met Ms. Tolliver at the agency, but Mr. Alexander was not present. Ms. Tolliver explained to the representatives that she began working there in 1997, and that she and Mr. Alexander were the only two employees of the agency. When the Progressive representatives asked Ms. Tolliver about her expired insurance license, she stated she was not aware that it had expired.
Progressive, for obvious reasons, terminated Alexander’s producer’s agreement with the agency, and the agency refunded to Mr. Lewis his premium payments and paid his reinstatement fees to the Office of Motor Vehicles (OMV) for not having vehicle insurance.
LDI then issued a Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action and Wrongful Conduct via certified mail to Mr. Alexander regarding Mr. Lewis’s complaint and the failure to pay the fine. On the same date, LDI mailed its intent to suspend and revoke Mr. Alexander’s license. After receiving multiple complaints similar to that of Mr. Lewis from other customers of the Agency LDI eventually notified Mr. Alexander of violations pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1554(A)(4), which provides for the suspension or revocation of an insurance license for “[u]sing fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practices or misrepresentation, or demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility in the conduct of business such as might endanger the public.”
The Louisiana Division of Administrative Law (LDA) reviewed LDI’s decision, and, on March 23, 2021, signed an order affirming the revocation of Mr. Alexander’s insurance license.
LDA found that Mr. Alexander was particularly irresponsible in allowing Ms. Tolliver to run the business after he had been made aware of Mr. Lewis’s complaint, which then led to other consumer complaints being filed against the agency. Alexander appealed and after a full hearing the district court signed a judgment on November 16, 2021, affirming LDA’s decision to revoke his license. Mr. Alexander appealed to the Court of Appeal.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1554(A) authorizes LDI to take a number of actions, including revocation of license, upon anyone who holds an insurance license issued by LDI, who commits any of a number of enumerated actions, which include “demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility in conduct of such business as might endanger the public. The judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the March 23, 2021 decision of the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law, thereby revoking the insurance license of the appellant, Vincent Alexander, was affirmed. All costs of the appeal were assessed to the appellant, Vincent Alexander.
ZALMA OPINION
The LDI properly revoked Mr. Alexander’s license. It took too long to do so because, while it was investigating, the Agency defrauded multiple additional customers by taking premium and not forwarding the funds to the insurer causing fully paid for policies to be cancelled for non-payment of premium. What Alexander and his wife did was criminal and just revoking their licenses is insufficient and the court should have referred them to the local prosecutor or the state Attorney General.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Go to substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at substack.com/refer/barryzalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
