At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, the Colony Beach and Tennis Club, Ltd. ("Colony") is entitled to a refund from Respondent, Florida Power and Light Company ("FPL"), pursuant to statutes and rules cited in the Amended Complaint.Petitioner established no statutory entitlement to refund for eight year period during which it alleged it was erroneously billed at residential rate rather than commercial rate.

Whether the proposed decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) to award a contract to the Intervenor, Health Care Excel, Incorporated (HCE), is contrary to governing statutes, AHCA rules or policies, or the specifications of RFP-AHCA 0101 (RFP).Keystone protested AHCA`s intention to award contract to Health Care Excel (HCE) for Medicaid peer review services. Evidence demonstrated HCE modified Request for Proposals specs so their submission should have been recycled by evaluation committee.

The issues in this case are whether the Florida Real Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association (FRPCJUA) failed to comply with applicable requirements and standards of Part I of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, when it utilized a request for proposals (RFP) in autumn 1995 to arrive at its decision in early 1996 to contract with Intervenors, Audubon Insurance Company (Audubon), AIB Holdings, Inc. (AIB), and American International Insurance Company (AIIC), but not with the Petitioner, Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers), for insurance policy servicing work through the year 1999. Specifically, Bankers asserts: (1) that FRPCJUA improperly gave policy servicing work to AIB, which is not a licensed insurance company; that FRPCJUA violated Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, regarding competitive bidding requirements for state agencies; that, regardless whether Chapter 287 is applicable, whether FRPCJUA acted arbitrarily and in bad faith instead of using procedures equivalent to the procedures found in Chapter 287, Florida Statutes; and (4) that FRPCJUA violated the Government in the Sunshine Law, Chapter 286, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, the Department of Insurance (the Department), and the Intervenors oppose Bankers' assertions. After initially seeking maintenance of the status quo or a contract on the same terms as the others, Bankers now seeks money damages from FRPCJUA, including attorney fees and costs.RO: Chap. 287, FS, didn't apply; JUA actions weren't arbitrary or capricious; claims for money damages were estopped and waived; there were no "Sunshine Law" (SL) violations; and there was no jurisdiction to award money damages and attorney fees under SL.

Whether Rule 67-48.005, Florida Administrative Code, and Section VII on Page 16 of Form 1 of the 1999 Housing Credit Application Package adopted by Rule 67-48.002(10) Florida Administrative Code, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. If so, whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs.Rules prohibiting an applicant`s right to a formal administrative hearing to challenge the evaluation of a competing applicant`s application are valid.

The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the PSC's proposed rule 25-30.431, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority.The rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority due to lack of discernible standards and a lack of adequate analysis of economic impact.

The issue in Case No. 98-3441RX is whether a 15 percent penalty provision of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's 1998 Application Package for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, adopted and incorporated into the Florida Administrative Code, by reference pursuant to Rules 67-48.002(10) and 67-48.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The issue in Case No. 98-3873 is whether Respondent appropriately applied the 15 percent penalty to Petitioner on its 1998 Application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits.Rule imposing 15 percent penalty for errors on application for affordable housing not an invalid exercise or delegated legislative authority. Rule properly applied to Petitioner.

The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 19B-14.001, 19B- 14.002, and 19B-14.003 (collectively the “Rules”), are each an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.Petitioner demonstrated that Rules 19B-14.001, 19B-14.002 and 19B-14.003 were each an invalid exercise of delegated Legislative authority.