STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT )

SECURITY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 81-261

)

PLASTILINE, INC., a/k/a )

ROBINTECH, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a bearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This hearing was conducted in Hearing Room No. 2, Division of Administrative Hearings, The Oakland Building, 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was held on March 27, 1981. (This order is being entered within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the transcript of proceedings.)

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Douglas P. Chanco, Esquire

Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East

Suite 117, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: R. Englert, Esquire

1500 East Atlantic

Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 1/ ISSUE

The issue presented here concerns the Petitioner's efforts to revoke the self-insurance privilege of the Respondent for failure to comply with Rules 39F-

1. and 38F-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, and the attendant question of the Respondent's opportunity to continue as a self-insurer in the face of this action in revocation.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. On January 7, 1981, the Petitioner notified the Respondent that an action was being commenced to revoke the Respondent's self-insurance privilege pertaining to employee compensation insurance coverage in the State of Florida. That notification stated as grounds that the Respondent, having had its self- insurer's surety bond terminated, the revocation proceeding would take place. The notification letter afforded the Respondent an opportunity for hearing on

      this revocation question and on January 24, 1981, the Respondent requested a formal hearing. The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 3, 1981. On February 13, 1981, the Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the request for formal hearing and the Petitioner identified the steps that it deemed to be necessary before the Respondent could continue as a self-insured employer, to include the necessity to provide an excess loss insurance policy. The formal hearing de novo was conducted on March 27, 1991.

      
      

   2. The Respondent has employees working in the State of Florida and it has been operating as a self-insured employer in the State of Florida from 1977, through January, 1981, by the process of posting a $25,000 surety bond. On December 11, 1980, the Petitioner received a termination notice related to the Respondent's self-insurer's bond. The bond issued by the Underwriters Insurance Company of North America was officially cancelled February 3, 1981. The Respondent, subsequent to the time of the bond cancellation, has failed to purchase a further bond, which bond at present must be a minimum amount of

      $380,000 or to provide other sufficient security. In lieu of the opportunity for self-insurance, the Respondent could purchase a workers' compensation insurance policy; however, at the time of the hearing, in addition to not having an appropriate bond or other security, the Respondent had not purchased such an insurance policy. The Respondent has no cash and negotiable instruments filed with the Florida Bureau of Self Insurance as surety for workers' compensation coverage.

      
      

   3. The Respondent also is without an acceptable excess loss insurance policy for purposes of workers' compensation.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

   4. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action.

      
      

   5. The Petitioner requested certain admissions from the Respondent to which no response was received. Subsequently, a motion was made for an order deeming the requested admissions to be admitted. In keeping with the terms of Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, those matters are hereby deemed admitted.

      
      

   6. Subsection 440.35(1)(h), allows an employer in the State of Florida, such as the Respondent, to secure the payment of compensation claims through an indemnity bond. The Respondent in this cause has lost that indemnity bond by its cancellation and has failed to comply with this or any other method to secure payment of compensation and allow the Respondent to remain as a "self- insurer." Without this compliance the Respondent fails to meet the minimum specific security deposit requirements set forth in Rule 38F-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, calling for a bond amount of $380,000.

      
      

   7. Moreover, the Respondent has not maintained an acceptable contract for excess insurance as called for by Rule 38F-5.06, Florida Administrative Code.

      
      

   8. As a consequence of the Conclusions of Law, the Petitioner is entitled to revoke the Respondent's self-insurance privilege under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. It is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED:

That the self-insurance privilege of Plastiline, Inc. a/k/a Robintech, Inc., be revoked. 2/

DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1981.

ENDNOTES

1/ Although the Respondent in this cause received appropriate notice of the proceedings to be held in Tallahassee, neither counsel for the Respondent nor officials of the Respondent attended the hearing. In lieu of such attendance, a certain informal discussion was held between counsel for the Respondent and counsel for the Petitioner and the Hearing Officer over a telephone network.

The Petitioner's counsel and Hearing Officer were utilizing phone equipment in Tallahassee, Florida, and the Respondent's counsel was in Pompano Beach, Florida, at the time of the conversation. A representative of the Respondent and a representative of the Petitioner, other than counsel, participated in this telephone conversation with the Respondent's representative being in Pompano Beach, Florida, and the petitioner's representative being in Tallahassee, Florida. Following this brief, off the record discussion on March 27, 1981, certain representations made by Petitioners counsel and the Hearing Officer, in the hearing process, were made known through the telephone communication to counsel for the Respondent and a representative of the Respondent, while being recorded by the court reporter and certain representations made known from counsel for the Respondent to counsel for the Petitioner and the Hearing Officer were placed into the record in the hearing process by paraphrasing those comments.

2/ The Petitioner has submitted proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of those Findings of Fact are hereby rejected. The remaining paragraphs to those proposed Findings of Fact have been incorporated into the Recommended Order, in substance.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Douglas P. Chanco, Esquire Department of Labor and

Employment Security

2562 Executive Center Circle East Suite 117, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

R. Englert, Esquire 1500 East Atlantic

Pompano Beach, Florida 33060

Docket for Case No: 81-000261

Orders for Case No: 81-000261