Agent is accused of withholding, misappropriating and converting funds to his own use, causing policy revocations. Recommend dismissal.

The issue in this case is whether, for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 10, 1984, the Petitioner should revoke the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent or impose some lesser penalty authorized by statute.License of Non-Resident Life Agent should be revoked on basis of false statements in application and false statements in insurance applications.

Whether Petitioner's two rate filings for private passenger automobile insurance, one filed on March 24, 1989, and the other filed on October 30, 1989, should be approved.Deficiencies in filing for rate increase by automobile insurer justified denial.

Insurance agent who received client's benefit checks and who worked to deprive client of those funds should have license suspended for two years.

Evidence did not establish negligent, fraudulent or dishonest behavior advocating "sliding" motor club insurance by Respondent to her agents.

By amended administrative complaint dated July 18, 1980, petitioner alleged, in seven counts, that respondent violated various statutes and rules while licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent. At the hearing, petitioner voluntarily dismissed Counts I, V, and VI. In Count II, the amended administrative complaint alleges that respondent sold a Medicare Supplement Health Insurance Plan to Ralph P. Barnard "on or about May 30, 1979," that, "on or about June 18, 1979, upon delivering the" policy, respondent told Mr. Barnard and his wife falsely that it was mandatory that they each purchase an Emergency Medical Information Card and that they did buy the cards on the strength of respondent's representations, and that respondent "knew or should have known that the" insurer had not authorized him to sell the cards or "make representations regarding the [cards] in conjunction with the sale of insurance" contrary to "Sections 626.611(4), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611 (9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(3), 626.621(6), and 626.621 (9), Florida Statutes..." In Count III, the amended administrative complaint alleges that respondent sold insurance policies to Clara H. Shackett to whom on or about June 1, 1979, [he] represented...that the insurance company required her to purchase an Emergency Medical Information Card, and/or that she needed the Emergency Medical Information Card because it was going to be required by all insurance companies"; that Ms. "Shackett, relying upon the representations made by [respondent] purchased" a card for $60.00; and that respondent "knew or should have known, that the ...[card] was not required of Clara H. Shackett for any purpose"; that respondent "on or about July 2, 1979, took from Clara H. Shackett, three insurance policies...in which [respondent] had no right to possession...[including a policy that] lapsed while in [respondent's] possession", contrary to "Sections 626.611(4), 626.611(5), 626.611)7), 626.611 (9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(3), 626.621(6), and 626.621 (9), Florida Statutes..." In Count IV, the amended administrative complaint alleges that respondent sold insurance policies to Lesbia Davis "on or about August 14, 1979, September 26, 1979, February 26, 1980, April 29, 1980, February 27, 1980, and July 1, 1980...[which] represented replacement of existing...policies issued to Lesbia Davis by the American Sun Insurance Company"; that Ms. Davis purchased the replacement policies in reliance on respondent's representations that "the American Sun Insurance Company was in financial difficulty and his agency felt that...a change in companies...[was in] Ms. Davis' best interest" although he "knew or should have known that the statements made regarding the American Sun Insurance Company [to induce replacement of existing policies] were untrue, deceptive, false, misleading, derogatory [sic] or defamatory" contrary to Sections 626.611(4), (5), (7), (8), (9), and (13), 626.621(2) and (3), and 626.9541(3) and (12), Florida Statutes (1979). At the hearing, petitioner moved ore tenus to amend the fourth policy number in Paragraph 2 of Count IV to state 10145156 rather than 10134156; and the motion is hereby granted. Finally, in Count VII, the amended administrative complaint alleges that respondent has "with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice...[e]ngaged in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving the business of insurance...[k]nowingly made false or fraudulent statements or representations in or with reference to any application or negotiation for insurance...[k]nowingly caused to be made, published disseminated or delivered to an insured false material statements...[k]nowingly collected a sum as premium or charge for insurance in excess of the premium or charge applicable...[made] misleading representations or incomplete or fraudulent comparisons of...insurance policies or insurers...intending to induce any person to...terminate...any insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer..."; and thereby "engaged in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices as prohibited under Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes."Respondent's insurance license and eligibility for licensure revoked for fraudulent/dishonest practices and lack of fitness/trustworthiness.

Respondent's alleged violations of safety regulations, as set forth in Notice and Order to Show Cause, dated May 14, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend its complaint to substitute Baron Fun Frite's Castle, Inc. as Respondent in this proceeding, and to replace references to Charles Amara as an individual to Charles Amara as an officer of Baron Fun Frite's Castle, Inc.Respondent, Fun House, found in violation of fire code. Hearing Officer recommends cease and desist order.