After having admitted his guilt on the sole count of the complaint, Valerie Cote (certificate no. 170 469) was sanctioned by a reprimand by the disciplinary committee of the Chamber of damage insurance.
The sanction was handed down on March 29. The respondent is also ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings.
The Respondent was representing herself, without the assistance of an attorney. She submitted her confession in writing in December 2021, before reiterating it at a management conference held in January 2022, and again at the hearing held at the end of February.
The Respondent acted negligently or failed to act as a conscientious adviser between November 2018 and May 2019, in obtaining quotes for four separate commercial insurance companies. She contravened section 37(1) of the Code of ethics of damage insurance representatives.
The committee issues a conditional stay of proceedings with respect to the other provisions alleged in support of the complaint. The respondent lost her job as a result of the events related in the complaint.
The vice-chairman of the committee confirms to the plaintiff’s attorney that the sanction is limited to negligence and that there is no question of dishonesty.
None of the customers suffered any damage. The Respondent worked diligently on the four files that were the subject of the complaint, despite her health problems and the difficulties she was having in contacting the insured.
Although the count is divided into four events, it contains only one offence, according to the syndic’s attorney. It proposed a fine of $4,000 for this offence. The Respondent admits that she does not know whether it is the Discipline Committee or the Complainant who determines the just and appropriate sanction.
The committee chose not to reproduce the agreed statement of facts submitted by the parties, because “it is of no assistance in determining what is the just and appropriate sanction”.
The Respondent’s new employer sent a letter to the Committee in January 2022, in which he saluted the 15 years when the Respondent “brought honor to the profession of broker” in damage insurance.
When she was hired in August 2020, the respondent had informed the employer that the Chamber was checking into her layoff by her former employer. The new employer has been supervising his activities since then and has absolutely nothing to reproach him for. He invokes health problems which should have prompted the Respondent to put her career on hold, which she failed to do.
The committee believes that in the particular circumstances of the case, the imposition of a reprimand on the respondent should be sufficient to convince the public that it is adequately protected.
The committee specified that the reprimand was a sanction and that it would remain in the respondent’s file throughout her career as a damage insurance broker.
Do not mix up
In its press release published on April 7, 2022, the Chamber specifies that the respondent should not be confused with six other people bearing the same name as her and who hold a certificate with theFinancial Markets Authority.
One of them is inactive. Another Valérie Côté is a claims adjuster in personal-lines damage insurance. Two others are registered as financial security advisors and a fifth is a mutual fund dealer representative. The sixth is a personal-lines damage insurance agent attached to the firm of a major insurer.
–
–
