Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sufficiency of Evidence – Restitution

By: Derek Hawkins//January 27, 2021//

Sufficiency of Evidence – Restitution

By: Derek Hawkins//January 27, 2021//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Mark S. Diamond v. Office of the Commissioner of Insurance

Case No.: 2020AP99

Officials: Blanchard, Kloppenburg, and Graham, JJ.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence – Restitution

Mark Diamond appeals an order affirming a decision of the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. The Commissioner determined that Diamond violated various statutory and regulatory provisions that govern the conduct of insurance intermediaries. Specifically, as pertinent to the issues raised on appeal, the Commissioner determined that Diamond, an insurance intermediary: (1) advertised a free retirement workshop that misled Wisconsin consumers by implication and omission in violation of WIS. STAT. § 628.34(1)(a) (2017-18) and WIS. ADMIN. CODE § Ins 2.16(5)(a) (through October 2020);  and (2) recommended an insurance product transaction without “reasonable grounds to believe that the recommendation [was] suitable for the consumer” in violation of WIS. STAT. § 628.347(2)(a). As sanctions, the Commissioner ordered that Diamond pay a forfeiture and restitution and revoked his nonresident insurance agent license. The circuit court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision except that it reduced the forfeiture imposed.

On appeal, Diamond argues that the Commissioner erred in determining that the advertisement was misleading and that Diamond made an unsuitable recommendation, that the Commissioner improperly imposed the forfeiture even as reduced by the circuit court, and that the Commissioner’s calculation of restitution was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.  We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s determinations of violations consistent with the applicable statutes and that Diamond fails to show that the Commissioner or the circuit court improperly imposed the reduced forfeiture or that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner’s calculation of restitution. Accordingly, we affirm.

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Associate Corporate Counsel, IP at Amazon.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests