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.

The issue in this case is whether the Department of Insurance should grant, in whole or in part, PRUPAC's application for an exception to the Chapter 93- 401, Laws of Florida (1993), moratorium on cancellations and non-renewals of personal lines residential property insurance on the basis of risk of hurricane claims.Petitioner entitled to exemption from moratorium on homwowner policy nonrenewal based on hurricane risk; otherwise, an "unreasonable risk of insolvency."

The issues in these cases are whether all or any part of PRUPAC's petition challenging the validity of emergency rules 4ER93-20 and 4ER93-28 should be granted.Challenge to 2 emergency rules. One expired before the challenge, and valid- ity was moot. Second was repromulgation of 1st and invalid for that reason.