Court Opinion

ID: 9519386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:15:36.822808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:19.811346
License: Public Domain

Connor, J.
(dissenting). Historically the courts have given great credence to agency expertise and the Court of Appeals would not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner of Insurance if competent evidence supported the commissioner’s findings. Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Comm’r of *269Ins, 144 Mich App 525, 529-531; 376 NW2d 150 (1985).
The Legislature has provided that the Insurance Bureau may refuse to grant a license to sell insurance if the commissioner finds it is "probable” that violations will occur. MCL 500.1242(3); MSA 24.11242(3).
In this case, the commissioner made several detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the following: "[I]t is probable that the sale of insurance by the agency, as promoted by lsb, will give rise to coercion and be in violation of § 1242(3) and give rise to implied threats to lend money in violation of § 1207(5).”
The majority opines that the commissioner erred in determining that informing customers of the connection between lsb and the agency is an intimidating or threatening tactic because "[t]he 'Disclosure’ section of the Business Plan specifically provides for informing customers that purchasing insurance through the agency will not affect the decision to grant credit either favorably or unfavorably.”
I believe the insurance commissioner’s finding that lsb’s business plan would probably violate § 1207(5) should be affirmed by this Court. Section 1207(5) provides in part that a person may not attempt to induce the purchase of insurance through a particular agent by means of an implied threat to refuse to lend money or by means of an implied promise to lend money.
It is not clear from the business plan who may solicit, when they may solicit, and where they may solicit. I believe the commissioner could reasonably conclude that an on-site insurance agency would "probably” lead to coercive action. Merely disavowing the intent to punish applicants who fail to purchase their insurance from the bank’s insur*270anee agency may not be sufficient to overcome the clear impression an applicant may have to the contrary because of dual ownership. Indeed, the disclaimer may serve to reinforce the fear. Steady customers who must periodically rely on financial institutions for credit certainly perceive the desirability of maintaining a cordial relationship with their bank, and it would be reasonable to conclude that their best interests are served by purchasing insurance from the lender’s insurance agency.
While it is not inherently incompatible for a bank to own an insurance agency, the lines of demarcation must be carefully drawn to avoid abuse, and this Court must defer to the commissioner’s expertise if a factual question is presented. In this case, the bank anticipated that insurance agents would conduct business inside the bank in areas traditionally reserved for the bank’s daily financial activity. Under these circumstances, I believe the commissioner could reasonably conclude that abuses were probable; indeed, they seem inevitable.
I would affirm.