Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By John Ashcroft Institute for Constitutional Studies

On re-transfer from the Missouri Supreme Court, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District reverses St Louis County Circuit Court's order that reinstated an insurance agent's license and allowed his agency's license to be renewed. Although the disciplined insurance agent and agency "won" in the circuit court, they were still the aggrieved party at the administrative level, and therefore needed to act as the appellant when the case reached the appellate courts. Judge Romines dissented.

Versatile Management Group and Demitrius Glass, Respondents v. W. Dale Finke, Director of Insurance, State of Missouri, Appellant. ED88144-01 05/06/2008
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Gloria C. Reno

The Director of Insurance appeals the circuit court's judgment reversing its decision to discipline Demitrius Glass and Versatile Management Group, Glass's company. After two clients complained that Glass and his company mishandled their insurance-premium payments, the director refused to renew Glass's insurance producer license, which authorized Glass to sell accident and health, life and variable contracts. The director also denied Glass's application to have property and casualty added as an authorized line of insurance on his license. Glass appealed to the Administrative Hearing Commission. The commission denied Glass's applications and found cause to discipline his licenses and Versatile Management Group for failing to timely remit insurance-premium payments. The director revoked Glass's license and Versatile Management Group's business-entity producer license. The circuit court, upon review, reversed the director's decision and ordered the director to reinstate Glass's insurance producer's license, issue Glass a property and casualty insurance producer license and to reinstate Versatile Management Group's business-entity license. The director appealed to this court. This court dismissed the director's appeal for failure to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04. The director sought transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri. By its order of August 21, 2007, the Supreme Court retransferred the cause to this court for reconsideration in light of State ex rel. Riverside Pipeline Co. v. Public Service Commission, 165 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Mo. banc 2005). First, this court must decide who has the duty to file the appellant's brief and bears the burden of proof in certain administrative cases. Secondly, this court must decide whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the administrative decision. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Division Three holds: When an appeal is taken from a circuit court judgment reversing an administrative decision, the party aggrieved by the agency's decision has the duty to file the appellant's brief and the burden of persuasion before this court. There is substantial and competent evidence here to support the administrative decision. We hold that there is substantial and competent evidence to support the director's decision refusing to renew Glass's insurance producer license, denying Glass's request for a property and casualty insurance producer license, and ultimately disciplining Glass's insurance producer license as well as Versatile Management Group's business-entity insurance producer license. Dissenting opinion by Judge Romines: The director had an obligation to point out the error of law made by the circuit court, and the burden of persuasion before this court. There is nothing in Rule 84.05(e) that says otherwise. Thousands of cases per day are appealed to the circuit courts of this state pursuant to section 536.100, RSMo. (2000)--Rule 84.05(e) and judicial rule make this a meaningless way-stop if a circuit court judgment is ignored.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on May 11, 2008 (boomark / email).