Recent Licensing Actions

A previously seldom-quoted bail bond statute has recently been used in decisions by both the Department of Insurance and the Cole County Circuit Court.

The statute I am referring to is:

RSMO 374.755.1. The department may cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621, RSMo, against any holder of any license required by sections 374.695 to 374.775 or any person who has failed to renew or has surrendered his or her license for any one or any combination of the following causes:…(6) Violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state, department of insurance rules and regulations, or aiding or abetting other persons to violate such laws, orders, rules or regulations, or subpoenas. (Emphasis added)

This statute may also be used to refuse to renew or issue a bail bond license under 374.750 RSMO.

The significance of this statute is the very broad language can be applied to a variety of circumstances. The department used this statute to revoke a license for failure to pay income taxes. The court used this statute in the case of DIFP V. Cummings. The court also ruled that the statute can be applied retrospectively (applied to convictions before the law went into effect in 2005) in order to revoke the license of those who are convicted of crimes. Note that the language does not state the violation must be a felony just that the licensee is in violation of the “laws of this state.” Previously, the Administrative Hearing Commission had ruled that Cummings was not subject to discipline under 375.755.1(6) because his convictions were not committed under the bail bond statutes and the crimes were committed before the revised language was adopted. The court reversed this decision and said that the law could be applied retrospectively.

The language was changed in 2004 in SB1122. The previous language said, “Violation of, or assisting or enabling any other person to violate, any provision of sections 374.700 to 374.775 or of any lawful rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to sections 374.700 to 374.775." The language was expanded from violation of the bail bond statutes to violation of the “laws of this state.”

Most decisions and debate regarding the discipline of bail bond agents has surrounded the 15-year felony clause and how to apply the clause. However, with these recent decisions, the justification appears to be evolving into license holders’ compliance with any laws, obligations, rules, regulations, and orders of the state.

Also of note, whether a license is refused or disciplinary action is taken, the discretion to take action resides with the DIFP. The department is not required to take action against any license holder for violating the provisions of the licensing laws. The disciplinary section and the license refusal section of the bail bond statutes both use the word "may" when referring to DIFP and its authority over licensees.