13 of case study solution California Insurance Code. a In picking out no matter if to assess penalties and, if so, case study answer applicable amount to be assessed, case study solution Commissioner shall imagine admissible proof on case study solution following:2 no matter if case study solution licensee has a good faith and within your budget basis to trust that case study answer claim or claims are fraudulent or in another way in violation of relevant law and case study solution licensee has complied with case study answer provisions of Section 1872. 4 of case study solution California Insurance Code;5 colossal mischaracterization of case study answer instances surrounding case study answer loss or case study solution alleged default of case study answer vital;7 case study solution relative variety of claims where case study answer noncomplying acts are found to exist, case study solution total variety of claims dealt with by case study answer licensee and case study solution total variety of claims reviewed by case study answer Department during case study solution relevant period of time;11 whether, under case study answer totality of circumstances, case study solution licensee made a good faith effort to conform to case study solution provisions of this subchapter;12 case study solution frequency of incidence and/or severity of case study answer detriment to case study solution public brought on by case study solution violation of a distinctive subsection of this subchapter;13 whether case study answer licensee’s management was conscious about facts that apprised or need to have apprised case study answer licensee of case study solution acts and case study answer licensee failed to take any remedial measures; andb This phase shall not bar, impede or limit any right to administrative due technique an insurer may be afforded under California Insurance Code Sections 790. 05, 790. 06, and 790. 07.