Which of the following is NOT a valid reason for a licensee to be suspended or revoked?

The focus of this question is on the criteria that can lead to the suspension or revocation of a license. The correct answer revolves around the concept of what constitutes professional misconduct or violations within the insurance industry.

Making factual but subjective comparisons of two policies does not inherently constitute a violation of regulations. This kind of practice can often be part of helping clients understand their options in a comparative manner. Subjectivity may arise from personal interpretation or opinion but does not imply wrongdoing unless it leads to misleading information. Licensing authorities primarily pursue actions based on unethical practices, misrepresentation, or violations of legal mandates.

In contrast, the other scenarios—making false statements in a license application, violating an insurance regulation, and intentionally violating a cease and desist order—represent serious misconduct. These actions demonstrate a lack of integrity and can harm consumers, which justifies disciplinary action against a licensee. Therefore, the practice of making subjective comparisons, if done transparently and without intent to deceive, is not a valid reason for suspension or revocation of a license.