How expediting a client’s paperwork netted this broker a $1,000 fine

A brokerage manager with 28 years of experience as a broker was fined $1,000 in August for forging clients’ signatures on insurance documents to be sent to B.C.’s public auto insurer.

Christine Helene Craig’s actions did not harm any clients, the Insurance Council of B.C. concluded in its decision to impose the fine. In fact, she was trying to expedite paperwork on behalf of her clients, and she did not even view what she was doing as “forgery” until a complaint was raised.

“During the [council’s discipline] committee meeting, she stated the gravity of her actions did not occur to her until her supervisor and the agency’s head of Human Resources used the word ‘forged’ during their conversation with her,” council’s decision states. “The licensee stated she immediately realized her conduct was wrong. She expressed extreme remorse, embarrassment, and regret over what she had done and advised she it would never happen again.”

Craig admitted to signing the documents improperly on the clients’ behalf after the brokerage followed up on complaints lodged by two employees. During council’s investigation, she told the provincial broker regulator that she could not say how many times she had done it, saying only that it was “rare.”

“She advised it began in January 2017 when her agency directed branch managers to review the document batches before they were sent to ICBC [Insurance Corporation of B.C.],” council’s decision states. “While doing so, she would come across the occasional transfer of vehicle ownership form on which staff had inadvertently missed obtaining one of the multiple required signatures from the client.”

The usual procedure in such instances is to contact the client and ask him or her to return to the brokerage to finish signing the documents, the council observed.

“However, on the rare occasion staff could not get in touch with the client, the licensee advised she would forge the client’s signature herself,” council said in its decision. “She advised she did so because she did not wish to delay delivery of the documents to ICBC, she felt there was no harm to the client, and she did not know the documents could have been sent to ICBC unsigned.”

Craig went on to tell the council that she believed every document sent to ICBC “had to be perfect.” She added that if there were any missing signatures due to unintentional clerical errors on the part of her staff, she believed that there would be no impact to the client if she entered them herself.

The insurance council found that her actions breached Council Rule 7(8) and Council’s Code of Conduct, which requires licensees to be trustworthy and carry on the business of insurance in good faith in accordance with the usual practice.

Council “accepts that the licensee had no malicious intent, no clients were harmed, and that she is extremely remorseful,” the decision states. “However, the licensee holds a Level 3 general insurance licence and has been in the insurance business for a long time and, therefore, council finds she ought to have known it was wrong to forge a client’s signature.”

In coming to a decision about the penalty to be applied, council “took into consideration that there have been no other complaints to council about the licensee over her nearly three decades in the industry. Council also considered the fact that the agency continues to employ her is highly indicative of their support for her.”

Citing previous caselaw, the council imposed a $1,000 fine, ordered the licensee to pay council’s $1,512 investigative costs, and required her to complete an ethics course and a council rules course.

David Gambrill