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]
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
