A recent article in Insurance Journal suggests that the use of fingerprinting during background checks of would-be insurance producers can be very effective in weeding out convicted criminals. Fingerprinting, however, is not utilized everywhere. According to the article, only 17 states require producers to submit fingerprints as part of the license application process, and more than 30 states are actually forbidden by law from obtaining fingerprints. Criminal background checks are still performed in virtually all cases, but fingerprints would allow for more extensive checks.

In the survey conducted by Insurance Journal, 11 of the 26 states they polled use fingerprinting in their license applications processes. Each of these “fingerprinting” states reported that it had helped them identify applicants who had served time in prison or had other substantial run-ins with the law. Convicted forgers, child abusers, and even rapists (all of whom, of course, had lied on their applications) were discovered among the potential licensees.

The controversy over fingerprinting is another example of significant differences in insurance regulation and governance from state to state. Some in the industry see this as a reason for the federal government to take a role, however limited, in making sure regulations across the country are more uniform.

Is fingerprinting of potential insurance agents an invasion of privacy, or is it necessary to weed out people with serious criminal histories? Should the federal government step in? Let us know what you think!