Whether Petitioner, IMH Healthcare, LLC, was required to submit an application for acquisition of Westport Holdings Tampa, L.P., d/b/a University Village, a specialty insurer licensed to operate a facility that undertakes to provide continuing care, pursuant to section 628.4615, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether Petitioner has proven its entitlement to approval of the acquisition application.Petitioner was not required to file an acquisition application upon acquisition of a one-percent general partner ownership interest in a CCRC, but if an application is required, it should be denied.

At issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-186.003(1)(c) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.The proposed rule establishing rates for "junior" loan title insurance contravenes the specific provisions of law it purports to implement, and is arbitrary, due to fact that it is based on unfounded assumptions and unverifiable data.

Whether First American Title Insurance Company's ("First American" or "Petitioner") five Uniform Commercial Code policy forms and 17 endorsements, Filing Number 05-07521, should be approved.Petitioner`s Uniform Commercial Code Insurance Policy and Endorsements do not provide for the "existence" of a security interest as required by Section 624.608(2), Florida Statutes, and should be disapproved.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are delineated with particularity in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation executed by all parties; however, the issues generally are as follows: Whether Experior has standing to challenge the RFP Process. Whether Promissor was a qualified or responsive proposer. Whether Experior's cost proposal was entitled to the maximum points if Promissor's proposal is determined to be unqualified or non-responsive. Whether the scoring of the proposals by Evaluator three was affected by his bias or was so aberrant as to be unsupportable or illogical or in violation of the RFP. Whether DBPR's award of MBE/WBE preference points to Experior and PSI was inappropriate and should be eliminated. Whether Experior suffered an unfair competitive disadvantage.Pet. failed to prove that Agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully in choosing proposal of lowest cost proposer. Pet. was third-ranked, failed to show standing because failed to show first-ranked proposer unqualified and unresponsive.

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 central issues in these cases are the Petitioners' challenges to proposed rules of the Department of Insurance (Department).Challenges to proposed rules establish agency has expanded statutes in part but are within discretion otherwise.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint, and if so, what action should be taken.Respondent, as insurance agent, committed all violations in one count complaint, except for Sec. 626.611(8)/one year suspension/no attorney fees awarded

The issue is whether proposed rule 12B-8.0012 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rule implementing a surcharge by Department of Revenue not deemed to be an invalid rule.