Wood applied for a Maine nonresident insurance agent license in 1988. On his application, he responded negatively to the following question: "Has any public official, state department, or court suspended, revoked or refused to renew or refused to issue any insurance . . . licenses held or applied for by you?" Contrary to this response, the Oklahoma Commissioner of Insurance had denied Wood's application for a license in 1987.




Wood and his companies had also been the subjects of disciplinary proceedings in seven other states, where they were charged with selling insurance without a license or engaging in unfair, fraudulent or deceptive practices. All of these actions were terminated by consent orders or settlement agreements, which required Wood and his companies to pay fines or attorney fees, comply with applicable insurance laws, and, in some cases, surrender their licenses or agree not to renew them.




On March 14, 1989, the Bureau of Insurance issued Wood a nonresident agent license. On April 24, 1989, two of Wood's companies, Keith Wood Agency, Inc. and Keith Wood Agency of Delaware, Inc., entered into a contract with Paul Richard, a licensed Maine agent. Richard sold health and life insurance for these companies for three years. Although Wood was licensed individually, his agencies were not.




On September 3, 1991, the Bureau notified Wood that all insurers that had appointed Wood as their agent had canceled those appointments. The Bureau further informed Wood that unless he obtained a new appointment within sixty days, he was required to


On March 31, 1992, the Staff of the Bureau of Insurance filed a petition for disciplinary order, which charged Wood with three violations of the Maine Insurance Code, 24-A M.R.S.A. § 1-6407 (1990 & Supp. 1993) (the "Code"):




  (1)  failure to disclose on his Maine application that Oklahoma
    denied him a license, in violation of 24-A M.R.S.A. § 1518(8)
    (1990);



  (2)  failure to maintain a good personal and business
    reputation, in violation of 24-A M.R.S.A. § 1673 (Supp.
    1993); and



  (3)  failure to license his agencies, in violation of
    24-A M.R.S.A. § 1512 and 1517 (1990).



The Staff sought the revocation of Wood's license, which had previously terminated, and a $2,000 fine.




After a hearing on the petition, the Superintendent concluded that Wood wrongfully withheld information on his application, failed to maintain a good personal and business reputation, and failed to license his agencies. The Superintendent revoked Wood's license and imposed a $2,000 penalty. On Wood's appeal to the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Mills, J.) the Superintendent's decision was affirmed, and this timely appeal followed.




I. Superintendent's Authority




On this appeal, we review the agency's decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors of law, or findings not supported by the evidence. International Paper Co. v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 629 A.2d 597, 599 (Me. 1993). When interpreting statutes, we "seek to discern from the plain language the real purpose of the legislation, avoiding results that are absurd, inconsistent, unreasonable, or illogical." Id. at 599-600 (quoting Mahaney v. State, 610 A.2d 738, 741 (Me. 1992)). When the dispute involves an agency's interpretation of a statute administered by it, the agency's interpretation, although not conclusive, is entitled to great deference and will be upheld "unless the statute plainly compels a contrary result." Abbott v. Commissioner of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 623 A.2d 1273, 1275 (Me. 1993).




Wood argues that the Superintendent lac

Page 1 2 3 4 
Maine Employee Leasing Services
						  
						Employee Leasing Services