STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND ) TREASURER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-5555

)

STEPHEN SCHNUR, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on March 6, 1990, in Tampa Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: C. Christopher Anderson, 111, Esquire

412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

For Respondent: Alan J. Kerben, Esquire

8814 Rocky Creek Drive Tampa, Florida 33615

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues are (1) whether respondent's licenses as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, life agent, life and health agent, general lines agent and health agent should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the amended administrative complaint, and

(2) whether respondent's applications for the issuance and renewal of a resident license should be granted.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By a six-count administrative complaint filed on September 5, 1989, petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, charged that respondent, Steven Schnur, licensed as an agent, had violated certain provisions within Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (1987). More specifically, the complaint alleged that respondent, while licensed as an agent for Clarendon National Insurance Company, accepted applications and premium checks from six customers in October 1988 for automobile insurance but did not remit the same to the insurance carrier nor obtain insurance for the customers. Petitioner alleges that the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(5), (7), (8), (9), and (10), Florida Statutes (1987). On February 27, 1990 petitioner was authorized to amend the complaint by adding the charge that respondent's conduct also violated Section 626.734, Florida Statutes (1987).

Respondent disputed the above allegations and requested a formal hearing

pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The matter was referred by petitioner to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 10, 1989, with a request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a formal hearing. By notice of hearing dated November 6, 1989, a final hearing was scheduled on January 3, 1990 in Tampa, Florida. Upon request of respondent, the matter was rescheduled to March 6, 1990 at the same location.

By agreement of the parties, this cause was enlarged to add the issue of whether respondent's applications for renewal of a resident license to represent United States Life Insurance Company in City of New York and Acceleration Life Insurance Company should be approved. Those applications were denied by petitioner's letters dated February 14 and April 6, 1990, respectively, on the ground respondent was the subject of an outstanding administrative complaint.

At final hearing petitioner presented the testimony of Daphne Jo Daniels, Brian A. Wilson, Dorothy F. Wilson, Robin K. Kennedy, Michael G. Andrews and Miguel Diaz, all customers of respondent. It also offered petitioner's exhibits

1 - 18. All exhibits were received in evidence. Finally, prior to taking testimony, petitioner voluntarily dismissed Count IV of the complaint. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of William Ely, a licensed general lines agent.

The transcript of hearing was filed on March 27, 1990. Proposed findings of fact and conclusion of law were filed by petitioner on April 13, 1990. A ruling on each proposed finding has been made in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:

1. At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Stephen Schnur, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, life agent, life and health agent, general lines agent - property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous lines, and health agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed as a property and casualty insurance agent for Clarendon National Insurance Company (CNIC) and had placed his license as a general lines agent with Devor Insurance Agency (DIA), an incorporated general lines insurance agency located at 6611 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida. He has been licensed by petitioner for approximately nineteen years.

   
   

2. In August 1987 respondent was associated with Bill Ely Insurance (Ely) in Tampa, Florida. Because that firm was unable to write automobile insurance on young drivers, Schnur referred some of Ely's business to DIA, a firm owned by one Marcia Cline, who held no insurance licenses. In September 1987 Schnur received an offer from Cline of a weekly salary of $150 if he would place his property and casualty general lines agency license with DIA. After obtaining independent verification from petitioner that DIA had no pending "problems", and accepting Cline's representation, albeit false, that the firm had an errors and omissions policy, respondent accepted Cline's offer and placed his license with DIA effective that month. He continued to utilize his other licenses to sell insurance for Ely, his principal employer. It should also be noted that another unnamed general lines agent had placed her license at DIA during this same period of time.

3. At first Schnur attempted to review all automobile insurance applications received by DIA. However, because of his duties at Ely, he was unable to devote more than a few hours per week to DIA. In view of this, he agreed to sign in blank applications and binders for Cline to use in his absence. In doing so, he relied upon Cline's honesty and integrity and assumed she would forward all applications and premiums to the insurance company and secure coverage for DIA's customers. Under this arrangement, Cline was considered to be an employee of DIA and operating under Schnur's direct supervision and control.

   
   

4. In October 1987 five customers purchased various types of automobile insurance from Cline. 1/ Each customer gave Cline either cash or checks as payment for their policies. Although none of the customers met with or spoke with respondent, and dealt exclusively with Cline, each received a binder from Cline signed by respondent evidencing insurance with CNIC. In addition, Cline gave each customer a receipt of payment also carrying respondent's signature.

   
   

5. As it turned out, Cline did not process the applications or forward them to CNIC. She also failed to remit any monies to the insurance company. Consequently, none of the customers received a policy from CNIC or any other insurance company. However, respondent had no reason to suspect anything since he periodically examined the office files during this period of time and found all documents in order.

   
   

6. On January 3, 1988, respondent learned from other office personnel that there was a problem with Cline's handling of insurance applications. He immediately telephoned petitioner's Tampa district office the same day and advised that DIA applications were found unprocessed and in the waste basket. When Schnur asked if he should pull his license from DIA, he was told by petitioner's representative not to do anything. In the meantime, the other general lines agent at DIA pulled her license and left the state.

   
   

7. On January 28, 1988 DIA sent a form letter to various customers, including the five who had purchased policies in October 1987. The letter read as follows:

   
   

   Dear

   We are writing you this letter concerning the insurance policy which you sought through our agency. Please consider this letter as official notification from our agency that you need to purchase insurance coverage from another agency or agencies as soon as possible. You have no insurance coverage on your vehicle or vehicles.

   Again, you must secure insurance on your vehicle or vehicles immediately, as in today!!

   Sincerely,

   Devor Insurance Agency

   
   

   It should be noted that none of the five customers received any refund of monies.

8. In early February 1988 respondent pulled his license with DIA. Since then, he has worked full-time with Ely. Respondent has fully cooperated with the Department during the course of this investigation. At hearing, Schnur was can did and forthright and admitted he used extremely poor judgment in signing in blank the binders and receipts and relying on Cline's honesty. However, there was no intent on his part to violate the insurance code or otherwise harm the customers. He strongly desires to continue in the insurance profession, a field in which he has worked without a blemish for the last nineteen years. His present employer, Ely, has expressed complete trust and confidence in Schnur, allows him to handle all of the firm's money, and intends to reward him with a part ownership of that business.

   
   

9. Other than the charges set forth in the pending amended administrative complaint, there is no basis upon which to deny the applications for renewal and issuance of a resident license.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1989).

    
    

11. Since respondent's licenses as a life insurance agent are at risk, the Department is obliged to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the charges in the administrative complaint are true. See, e.g., Pascale and Chandler v. Department of Insurance, 525 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988).

    
    

12. The administrative complaint, as amended, alleges that respondent violated a number of statutes by his conduct while associated with DIA. First, he is charged with having violated Subsection 626.561(1), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides in relevant part as follows:

    
    

    1. All premiums . . . belonging to insurers or others received by an agent . . . in transactions under his license shall be trust funds so received by the licensee in a fiduciary capacity; and the licensee in the applicable regular course of business shall account for and pay the same to the insurer

       
       

       Respondent is also charged with violating Section 626.611, Florida Statutes (1987) in five respects. Those violations, if true, would subject respondent to compulsory suspension or revocation of his licenses or eligibility to hold such licenses. The alleged statutory violations are as follows:

       
       

       The department shall deny, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent . . . and it shall suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person, if it finds that as to the . . . licensee . . . any one or more of the following applicable grounds exist:

       * * *

       (5) Willful misrepresentation of any insurance policy or annuity contract or willful deception with regard to any such policy or contract, done either in person or by any form of dissemination of information or advertising.

       * * *

       1. Demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance.

       2. Demonstrated lack of reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by the license or permit.

       3. Fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license or permit.

       4. Misappropriation, conversion, or unlawful withholding of moneys belonging to insurers or insureds or beneficiaries or to others and received in conduct of business under the license.

       * * *

       
       

       Respondent is further charged with violating Section 626.734, Florida Statutes (1987). That statute imputes the wrongdoing of an employee to a general lines insurance agent such as Schnur. It reads as follows:

       
       

       Any general lines insurance agent who is an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of an incorporated general lines insurance agency shall remain personally and fully liable and accountable for any wrongful acts, misconduct, or violation of any provisions of this code committed by such licensee or by any person under his direct supervision and control while acting on behalf of the corporation.

       
       

13. Respondent's guilt or innocence rests upon the provisions of section 626.734, cited above. In other words, if it can be established that Cline was guilty of wrongdoing, that wrongdoing can be imputed to respondent as the responsible licensee. This is because the legislature has provided that licensees are to be strictly liable for the wrongful acts of their employees.

    In this case, Cline wrongly withheld premiums from the insurer, made willful misrepresentations to her customers, demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness in the insurance business, engaged in fraudulent and dishonest practices, and misappropriated monies belonging to others, as proscribed by subsections 626.561(1) and 626.611(5), (6), (9) and (10). However, there was no showing that Cline lacked reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions in question.

    
    

14. Respondent appears to be the victim of circumstances which happened to place his license with the wrong person at the wrong time, and because of poor judgment, is now saddled with Cline's misconduct. Although a violation of section 626.611 carries with it compulsory suspension or revocation of a license, there are compelling factors, as set forth in findings of fact 6 and

    8, that mitigate in Schnur's favor. To recapitulate, Schnur voluntarily reported the matter to the Department immediately after learning of Cline's activities, has fully cooperated with the Department throughout this proceeding, was described by his present employer as an honest and reliable employee who is entrusted with the firm's monies and all aspects of the business and who is about to be rewarded with part ownership of the business, and, except for this episode, has never been disciplined during his nineteen year tenure as an agent. Accordingly, a fifteen day suspension of his licenses is appropriate.

    
    

15. As to respondent's applications to (a) renew a resident license to represent United States Life Insurance Company in City of New York and (b) have issued a resident license to represent Accelerated Life Insurance Company, in view of the recommended penalty, it is further recommended that these applications be approved after the suspension is lifted.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating subsections

626.561(1) and 626.611(5),(6),(9) and (10) that his licenses be suspended for fifteen days. The other charge should be dismissed with prejudice. It is further recommended that his applications for renewal and issuance of resident licenses be approved after the suspension is lifted.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Hearing Officer

Division of Administative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904)488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of April, 1990.

ENDNOTES

1/ These customers were Daphne Jo Daniels, Brian and Dorothy Wilson, Miguel Diaz, Michael Andrews, and Robin Kennedy.

APPENDIX

Petitioner:

1-2. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 1.

1. Substantially adopted in findings of fact 1 and 2.

2. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 3.

5-7. Rejected as being unnecessary.

8-10. Substantially adopted in finding of fact 4.

38. Rejected as unnecessary.

Copies furnished:

Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

C. Christopher Anderson, III, Esquire

412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

Alan J. Kerben, Esquire 8814 Rocky Creek Drive Tampa, FL 33615

Donald A. Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

OFFICE OF THE TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

IN THE MATTER OF

STEVEN SCHNUR CASE NO. 89-L-67SCCA

/ DOAH Case No. 89-5555

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE came on before the undersigned Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida, acting in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner, for consideration and final agency-action. On September 5, 1989 an Administrative Complaint was filed charging the Respondent with various violations of the Insurance Code. The Respondent timely filed a request for a formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Subsequently, by letter dated February 14, 1990, the Department denied Respondent's application to represent United States Life Insurance Company in City of NY as a life and health insurance agent. This denial was based on the charges enumerated in the Administrative Complaint.

On March 1, 1990, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed and on March 2, 1990 the Department moved to consolidate the denial dated February 14, 1990 with the Amended Administrative Complaint. This motion was granted. After the final hearing in this case the parties agreed to enlarge this case to include a denial of Respondent's application to represent Acceleration Life Insurance Company, dated April 6, 1990, and a denial of Respondent's application to renew his resident license to represent C M Life Insurance Company, dated April 9, 1990. These additional denial letters were based upon the charges enumerated in the Administrative Complaint in this case.

On March 5, 1990, the parties entered into a fact stipulation in which Respondent admitted to paragraphs 1 through 4 of the administrative complaint. The Stipulation was filed with the hearing officer on March 5, 1990. Pursuant to notice, final hearing was held on March 6, 1990, before the Donald R. Alexander, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings in Tampa, Florida.

After consideration of the evidence, argument and testimony presented at hearing, and a subsequent written submission by the Petitioner, the hearing officer issued his Recommended Order (attached as exhibit A) on April 19, 1990. The Hearing Officer recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(5), 626.611(6), 626.611(9), and 626.611(10),

Florida Statutes and that Respondent's licenses be suspended for fifteen (15) days. The Hearing Officer further recommended that the license applications under consideration be granted after the expiration of the suspension period.

On April 30, 1990, the Department filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order and furnished copies of same to Respondent. No exceptions were filed by Respondent.

RULING ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Exceptions take exception to the Preliminary Statement in the Recommended Order which omits reference to the Fact Stipulation entered into by the parties and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 5, 1990.

   
   

   The record in this case does contain the Fact Stipulation entered into by the parties and filed with the hearing officer on March 5, 1990.

   However, the hearing officer's failure to refer to the Fact Stipulation in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order does not prejudice either party, in light of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact. The Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact numbered 1 encompasses paragraphs 1 through 3 of the Fact Stipulation, and the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact numbered 3 encompasses paragraph 4 of the Fact Stipulation. Because the Hearing Officer made findings of fact in accordance with the Fact Stipulation entered into by the parties, the absence of reference to the Stipulation in the Preliminary Statement is irrelevant.

   
   

   Therefore, Petitioner's exception in Paragraph 1 is rejected.

   
   

   RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES, PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION

   
   

2. Paragraph 2 of Petitioner's exceptions takes exception to the Hearing Officer's Statement of the Issues, Preliminary Statement, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation because none of these sections of the Recommended Order address the April 9, 1990 denial of the renewal of Respondent's resident license to represent C M Life Insurance Company as a life and health insurance agent.

   
   

   Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation regarding the April 9 denial on April 17, 1990. Although the record contains no Order ruling on-the last motion for consolidation, it appears that the parties agreed that the April 9 denial be considered together with the administrative complaint and the denial of Respondent's application to represent United States Life Insurance Company of NY as a life and health insurance agent (February 14, 1990) and the denial of Respondent's application to represent Acceleration Life Insurance Company as a life and health insurance agent (April 6, 1990). Because the three denials of Respondent's applications for licensure or renewal of licensure were based upon the allegations in the administrative complaint in this case, all three denials (February 14, April 6, and April 9, 1990) will be consolidated with the administrative complaint for disposition by this Final Order.

   
   

   Accordingly, Petitioner's exception numbered 2 is accepted.

   
   

   RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

3. Paragraph 3 of Petitioner's Exceptions takes exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law numbered 4 because that Conclusion of Law refers to Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes, which was not alleged in the administrative complaint, and the Conclusion of Law does not refer to Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes addresses

   misrepresentations by insurance claims adjusters or agents in effecting claims settlements. Clearly, Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes has no application to the instant case, and violation of that section was not charged in the administrative complaint.

   
   

   On the other hand, Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes lists the demonstration of lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance as grounds for the-suspension or revocation of an insurance agent's license. This statute was included in the charges in each count of the administrative complaint. The hearing officer apparently considered Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, in his Conclusions of Law numbered 3 and 4.

   Accordingly, the citation to Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes is deemed to be a typographical error and it is assumed that Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes was the intended citation.

   
   

   In light of the foregoing, Petitioner's exception in Paragraph 3 is accepted.

   
   

   RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDATION

   
   

4. Paragraph 4 of Petitioner's Exceptions takes

exception to the Hearing Officer's Recommendation that Respondent's license be suspended for fifteen (15) days and that Respondent's applications for licensure be granted after the expiration of the fifteen-day suspension.

After a complete evaluation of the record the hearing officer's recommended penalty of a 15-day suspension and acceptance of Respondent's applications after the 15-day suspension is hereby rejected for the following reasons:

1. The Hearing Officer found, in Findings of Fact numbered 2, that Respondent accepted an offer to "place" his general lines insurance agent license with Marcia Cline, an unlicensed person. This finding is supported by the Respondent's testimony at hearing. (Tr. 71, 72) Respondent was compensated with a weekly salary of $150. (Tr. 72);

   
   

2. The Hearing Officer found, in Findings of Fact numbered 3, that Respondent had signed, in blank, applications and binders for Cline to use in Respondent's absence. This finding is supported by Respondent's testimony at hearing. (Tr. 72, 79, 81);

   
   

3. The Hearing Officer concluded, in Conclusions of

   Law numbered 4, that Cline wrongfully withheld premiums from the insurer, made willful misrepresentations to her customers, demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness, engaged in fraudulent and dishonest practices, and misappropriated monies belonging to others, as proscribed by sections 626.561(1), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9) and 626.611(10), Florida

   Statutes. The Hearing Officer further concluded that Respondent is responsible for Cline's wrongdoing pursuant to Section 626.734, Florida Statutes. (Concl. of Law #4);

   
   

4. The Hearing Officer was of the opinion that Respondent was "the victim of circumstances which happened to place his license with the wrong person at the wrong time, and because of poor judgment, is now saddled with Cline's misconduct." (Concl. of Law #5). This circumstance, together with the facts that Respondent immediately notified the Department when he learned that Cline had misused his license (Finding of Fact #6) and that Respondent was candid and

forthright under oath at the hearing of this matter and admitted that he used poor judgment (Finding of Fact *8), led the Hearing Officer to recommend the 15- day suspension.

It should be noted that Respondent voluntarily "placed" his license with an unlicensed individual. (Tr. 71, 72). Not only was this "placing" of the license the result of poor judgment, but it is prohibited by Section 626.441, Florida Statutes. That section provides:

626.441 License or permit:

transferability.--A license or permit issued under this part is valid only as to the person named and is not transferable to another person.

S626.441, Fla. Stat. Accordingly, it is illegal to place an insurance agent's license on the wall of an agency in order to assist unlicensed persons in selling or servicing insurance policies in the absence of the licensed agent. However, because a violation of Section 626.441, Florida Statutes was not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, this final order does not rule on that issue.

Additionally, agents are prohibited from supplying blank forms, applications and other supplies to unlicensed persons for use in soliciting, negotiating, or effecting contracts of insurance. S626.342, Fla. Stat. Respondent admitted that he signed blank applications and binders for Cline, an unlicensed individual, to use in his absence. (Fact Stipulation of March 5, 1990; Finding of Fact *3). Violation of Section 626.342, Florida Statutes was not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and is not addressed by this Order.

While Respondent was not charged with violation of Sections 626.342 and 626.441, Florida Statutes in the Administrative Complaint, his "poor judgment" in becoming involved in this illegal arrangement is an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor in this case. Accordingly, this aggravating factor should be considered together with the mitigating factors referred to by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer concluded that Respondent is liable for the acts of Cline while his license and signature were used by Cline, and that therefore, Respondent is guilty of violating five subsections of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes.

Section 626.611, Florida Statutes compels the Department of Insurance to deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent who commits any of the acts listed in Section 626.611, Florida Statutes.

However, the mitigating factors found by the Hearing Officer in Conclusion of Law numbered 5, namely Respondent's immediate notification of the Department when he learned of possible wrongdoing and Respondent's cooperation in the investigation, make the 15-day suspension an appropriate, if lenient, penalty in this case. However, the aggravating factor of the improper situation entered into by Respondent in "placing" his license and supplying forms to Cline renders acceptance of Respondent's applications at the end of the 15-day suspension period inappropriate in this case. Petitioner's exception to the Hearing Officer's Recommendation is therefore accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. That the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer

   are hereby adopted in toto as the Department's Findings of Fact.

   
   

2. That the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted in toto with the exceptions noted above;

   
   

3. That the recommendation of the Hearing Officer is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth in paragraph 4 above, Ruling on Petitioner's Exception to Recommendation;

   
   

4. That Respondent is guilty of violating subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(1), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes;

   
   

5. That as a result of Respondent's violations of the above referenced statutes, the licenses and eligibility for licensure of Respondent, Steven Schnur, are hereby SUSPENDED for a period of fifteen (15) days, effective upon the date of this Order. The denial letters dated February 14, 1990, April 6, 1990, and April 9, 1990 are hereby AFFIRMED. Upon expiration of the suspension period, Respondent is free to reapply for any insurance licenses, and the Department of Insurance shall not deny Respondent's applications based upon any of the facts and circumstances at issue in this action.

Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120,68, Florida Statutes and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 412 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0300, and a copy of the same with the appropriate district court of appeal within thirty (30) days of the rendition this Order.

ORDERED this 21 day of June , 1990.

TOM GALLAGHER

Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

Honorable Donald R. Alexander Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

Alan J. Kerben, Esquire 8814 Rocky Creek Drive Tampa, FL 33615

C. Christopher Anderson, III, Esquire Department of Insurance

Division of Legal Services

412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

Docket for Case No: 89-005555

Orders for Case No: 89-005555