Canadian Underwriter
News

B.C. broker receives reprimand for failing to witness client’s signature on ICBC documents


July 4, 2012   by Canadian Underwriter


Print this page Share

A 17-year veteran broker in B.C. received a reprimand on June 26 for failing to witness a signature at a car dealership because she was in a hurry to serve another client.

B.C. Insurance Council admonished Anjaline Lata Kuhn and ordered her to pay council investigation fees of $750 after an incident in 2009, when Kuhn left ICBC transactional documents at a Honda dealership for a client to sign while she left to meet another client waiting to buy insurance at another location.

Kuhn had processed an ICBC Autoplan transaction on a Porsche for the client in August 2009, and ICBC financed the premium for the transaction. The Porsche developed mechanical problems shortly after the sale and required servicing. The dealership chose to lease a Honda to the client while the Porsche was being repaired.

Kuhn agreed to meet the client at the dealership to have him sign the ICBC transactional documents for the Honda. She spoke with the client several times while waiting at the dealership and he indicated he would be there momentarily.

But Kuhn had another client who wished to buy insurance at a different location and she did not feel that she could wait. She left the documents for the client to sign in the office of the dealership’s business manager and left. Later that day, she returned to collect the ICBC documents, which she assumed had been signed, and returned to her agency where she remitted the documents for processing.

Council noted licensees have been fined $2,000 under similar circumstances, but gave Kuhn the benefit of the doubt because of her previously unblemished, lengthy career and her forthrightness in the investigation.

“The licensee, who had never acted similarly in her 17 year insurance career, felt pressured to service clients in a timely manner which caused her to deviate from her normal practices,” the council ruled. “Nonetheless, council determined the licensee acted contrary to the usual practice of the business of insurance, as required under the Code of Conduct, and she potentially put the public at risk.”