Just in case anyone missed this:
http://www.cbs.state.or.us/ins/admin_actions/actions_2011/producer_2011/10-02-005-p.pdfThe evidence has demonstrated that Mr. Claiborne
committed multiple violations of insurance laws in connection with the sale of annuities. Most
significantly, despite his knowledge of the requirement that he attempt to ascertain whether the
sale of an annuity was not unsuitable, Mr. Claiborne, on at least three occasions, recommended
the sale of annuities to elderly individuals without a meaningful assessment of their economic
circumstances. With regard to Ms. Holmes, Mr. Claiborne recommended the sale of an annuity
Page 28 of 30 Amended Proposed Order, Claiborne, Case No. INS 10-02-005
that resulted in an immediate loss of more than $2,000 and the potential for future lost interest
payments. With regard to the Woods, Mr. Claiborne recommended the sale of an annuity despite
having almost no information regarding the Woods‟s savings and investments. When Bankers
Life questioned the suitability of the investment, Mr. Claiborne altered a form which Mr. Wood
had previously signed as being accurate. When confronted about changes to the document, Mr.
Claiborne gave conflicting and increasingly self-serving answers.
With regard to the Holloway transaction, Mr. Claiborne recommended the sale of an
annuity that he knew would be funded primarily through the surrender of a variable annuity and
actively assisted Mr. Holloway in discussions with Prudential to secure the necessary forms
needed to complete the transaction. Mr. Claiborne made this recommendation despite the fact he
had never read the policy nor understood its unique and advantageous features for Mr. Holloway.
Despite his knowledge, Mr. Claiborne falsely indicated on Mr. Holloway‟s application that he
was not replacing an existing annuity, and did not plan on doing so. Mr. Claiborne offered no
reasonable explanation for his conduct, but falsely asserted that he was not aware of Mr.
Holloway‟s decision to surrender the Prudential annuity.
The evidence also established that Mr. Claiborne made false statements, as well as an
untimely response to the Division, including statements under oath, in an attempt to shield
himself from liability for his conduct. His statements to investigators were often self-serving,
contradictory, and contrary to all other available evidence. Given those false statements, the
Division can have no assurance that Mr. Claiborne will fully cooperate with any future
investigations that might arise. Mr. Claiborne has thus demonstrated a willingness to deceive
other insurance companies, the Division, and most importantly, the consumers, to serve his own
interests. Because the Division cannot rely on Mr. Claiborne to tell the truth, its ability to
effectively regulate his conduct to protect consumers in the future will be severely restricted.
Given the evidence in this matter, the ALJ concluded that the appropriate sanction is
revocation. ORS 744.074(1) allows the Division to revoke Mr. Claiborne‟s license. The
Division takes seriously its responsibility to protect the public from unscrupulous licensees. Mr.
Claiborne‟s license has already been suspended once for similar misconduct. (Ex. A1.) Given
his prior discipline and level of misconduct at issue here, the Division finds that the only
appropriate sanction is the revocation2
of Mr. Claiborne‟s license.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/X0n16mr.png)
