The Colorado Division of Insurance finds that a producer knowingly committed deceptive acts that left a policyholder's contractual claim unpaid. In addition to monetary penalties, what may the Commissioner order under C.R.S. § 10-3-1108?

Why D is correct

C.R.S. § 10-3-1108(1)(b) and (1)(c) let the Commissioner order suspension or revocation where knowledge of the violation is shown, and order payment of the contractual claim that the violation caused to go unpaid. The remedy package is therefore aimed at both the wrongdoer's authority to transact and the harmed policyholder's pocket. For a Colorado producer, this means a knowing deception finding threatens the license itself and compels making the claimant whole, on top of the per-act monetary penalties.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Knowledge is precisely the trigger that exposes the license to suspension or revocation under C.R.S. § 10-3-1108, so a reprimand is not the ceiling.
• B) Administrative enforcement and criminal referral are separate tracks; the Commissioner does not substitute one for the other.
• C) The statute provides for payment of the unpaid contractual claim, not a forfeiture of the producer's past commissions.

Memory hook

Knowing harm to a claimant puts the license on the line and the claim back on the table.