Whether Respondent has violated Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes.Premium financing company not financing auto club membership.

The issues in this case are framed by the Notice of Intent to Issue an Order to Cease and Desist, filed by the Florida Insurance Commissioner on August 18, 1992, Dept. of Insurance Case No. 92-CA-058EMM, as modified by the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, filed on March 18, 1993. The Cease and Desist Order alleges in Count I essentially that the United Dental Program of America (UDP) 2/ is a dental service plan that has been operating in Florida, through one or more of the named (and unnamed) individual respondents, without the authorizations required by Chapter 637, Part III, Fla. Stat. (1991). Count II alleges essentially that, in so operating, UDP and one or more of the other respondents were guilty of various deceptive acts or practices prohibited by either Chapter 637, Part III, or by Chapter 624, Fla. Stat. (1991). In the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the Department of Insurance dropped all of the alleged deceptive acts or practices except the allegation that sales solicitation materials falsely guaranteed savings of 60 percent or more under the UDP product. Count III alleges essentially that UDP has been transacting insurance in Florida, through one or more of the named (and unnamed) individual respondents, without the authorizations required by Chapter 624, Fla. Stat. (1991). The Cease and Desist Order also seeks an administrative penalty against UDP in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per violation, and an administrative penalty of $10,000 against each of the other respondents for each dental service plan contract or insurance contract offered or effectuated in Florida.So-called dental directory was a dental plan. For annual fee, member got free checkup and xrays and scheduled or reduced fees from participating dentists

Whether Respondents have engaged in the unauthorized practice of insurance in the State of Florida, and if so, the penalties that should be imposed. Respondents raise as an affirmative defense the assertion that the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., preempt the regulation of Respondents' activities in the State of Florida by the Florida Insurance Code.Entity selling insurance without certificate of insurance fined and ordered to cease and desist. Court must determine whether state law preempted.

The issues in this proceeding are 1) whether Petitioner's insurance agent licenses should be disciplined for alleged violations of Section 626, Florida Statutes, and, 2) whether Petitioner's application for a resident license as a life and health agent should be approved.Insurance license-evidence insufficient to establish fraud, misuse of funds, untrustworthiness, or lack of skill.

The issues to be resolved in this consolidated proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Abraham Maida's applications to represent certain life insurance companies should be denied based upon his alleged unlawful failure to forward premium funds from insureds to the insurers during the applicable regular course of business. Also at issue are the charges in the Administrative Complaint in the related penal proceeding which concerns the same factual conduct involving the Respondent's alleged failure to forward premiums to the insurers involved in the policy contracts at issue.Failure to pay premiums due to insurers timely was misappropriated and a lack of fitness. Not fraud, deceit. Potential harm to public proscribed.

The issues for determination in these proceedings are whether the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), should discipline the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, for any of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. The Administrative Complaint charges in seven counts essentially that the Respondent, or employees of his corporate insurance agency, took insurance premium money from seven customers, represented to the customers and others that insurance coverage had been obtained when in fact it had not been, converted the premium money to the Respondent's own use and failed to keep and make available to the Department the proper books, accounts and records, in violation of 626.561(1), 626.561(2), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), 626.621(2) and 626.734, Florida Statutes (1989).Insurance agent did not maintain trust fund. Misappropriation of premiums, not intentional. Willful misrepresentation and culpable responsible for other