STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE )

TREASURER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-6040

)

FREDERICK BRUCE MAHLE )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Veronica E. Donnelly, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on June 26, 1990, in Fort Myers, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: C. Christopher Anderson III, Esquire

Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services

412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

For Respondent: Mark P. Smith, Esquire

GOLDBERG GOLDSTEIN & BUCKLEY, P.A.

1515 Broadway

Post Office Box 2366

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2366 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether the Respondent's insurance licenses should be disciplined on the basis of the alleged multiple violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.

Whether the violations which are ultimately proved are sufficient to allow the Department to continue with its denial of Respondent's applications dated October 10, 1989, and May 18, 1990.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In an Administrative Complaint dated October 2, 1989, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (the Department), charged the Respondent, Frederick Bruce Mahle (Mahle), with a series of violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Essentially, the Respondent Mahle is charged with taking an insurance application from a potential insured, accepting the premium money, and failing to obtain insurance or promptly refund the money. The Department seeks to discipline the Respondent's Life and Health Insurance Agent License as well

as his Health Insurance Agent License as a result of the alleged violations. The Respondent contests the factual allegations in the Complaint and has requested a formal administrative hearing to resolve the dispute of material facts.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to resolve factual disputes from pending licensure denials not previously filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings in addition to the pending disciplinary matter.

Jurisdiction was accepted, and the dispute concerning the two letters of licensure denial dated October 10, 1989 and May 18, 1990, was heard during the same scheduled time period under the same case number.

The Petitioner presented four witnesses and submitted two exhibits at the final hearing. The Respondent called two witnesses and testified in his own behalf. Respondent filed six exhibits numbered 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. All of the exhibits were admitted into evidence, contrary to the representations in the transcript of proceedings.

The transcript was filed on July 24, 1990. Proposed Recommended Orders were timely filed by the parties. The thirty- day time requirement for the filing of the Recommended Order was waived by the parties and the established due date for the Recommended Order was extended to September 7, 1990.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing insurance agents of all types, regulating licensure status, and enforcing the practice standards of licensed agents within the powers granted by the Legislature in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. At all times material to the disciplinary action, Respondent Mahle was licensed as an insurance agent in the following areas: Life and Health Insurance and Health Insurance.

   
   

3. During the last quarter of the year 1988, New Concept Insurance, Inc. mailed brochures to residents of Naples, Florida, which stated that representatives of the company were willing to provide information about long- term care insurance, including nursing facility benefits, to interested parties. Those who wanted to learn more about the insurance were asked to return their name, address and telephone number to the company on an enclosed card.

   
   

4. Eleanor Drown responded to the advertisement, and an appointment was arranged for Thomas DiBello and Respondent Mahle to meet with her regarding the insurance program.

   
   

5. On November 10, 1988, Thomas DiBello and Respondent Mahle met with Ms. Drown and discussed the benefits of a long-term care policy with a nursing facility daily benefit of one hundred dollars ($100.00). After the discussion, Ms. Drown completed an application for the insurance and gave it to Respondent Mahle, along with a check for five thousand one hundred and eighty-three dollars and forty-nine cents ($5,183.49).

   
   

6. During the insurance transaction on November 10, 1988, Ms. Drown was given a receipt which states:

   
   

   This receipt is given and accepted with the express understanding that the insurance you

   applied for will not be in force until the policy is issued and the first premium is paid in full. If your application cannot be approved, we will promptly refund your money. Application is made to the company checked (/) on this receipt.

   
   

   On another area of the receipt, it is clearly written, as follows:

   
   

   If Acknowledgement of Application does not reach you within 20 days, write to: Mutual Protective Insurance Company, 151 South 75th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124.

   
   

7. The Respondent Mahle did not forward the application and the check completed by Ms. Drown to Mutual Protective Insurance Company.

   
   

8. The check issued by Ms. Drown to Mutual Protective Insurance Company was deposited into the account of New Concept Insurance, Inc.

   
   

9. A cashier's check for the same amount of money was issued by New Concept Insurance, Inc. to Ms. Drown on March 7, 1989. The letter from New Concept that was mailed with the check represented that the check was the refund of the money paid to Mutual Protective Insurance Company by Ms. Drown.

   
   

   Mitigation

   
   

10. An application for long-term care insurance from a different insurance company was sent to Ms. Drown by Respondent Mahle on March 2, 1989. Although this course of conduct was not directly responsive to the duties owed by the Respondent to Mutual Protective Insurance Company or his customer, Ms. Drown, it does demonstrate a concern about the insurance needs requested by the customer. This conduct also reveals that there was no intention to convert the funds received to the Respondent's own use, and it explains some of the delay in the return of the premium funds to the customer.

    
    

11. The Respondent has been an insurance agent for twenty years. This was the only complaint against the Respondent the Hearing Officer was made aware of during the proceedings.

    
    

12. The allegations in the Complaint involve a single insurance transaction.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

14. In a proceeding to discipline a professional license, the Petitioner has the burden of proof and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

15. Section 626.611, Florida Statutes [1988], empowers the Department to deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent if it finds that any of the following 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 or 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.

    * * *

    (13) Willful failure to comply with, or willful violation of, any proper order or rule of the department or willful violation of any provision of this code.

    
    

16. The Respondent was charged with having violated all of the foregoing subsections of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes, in the Administrative Complaint. In addition, the Respondent was charged with having violated Sections 626.561(1) and 626.621(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

17. Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes [1986], provides as follows:

    
    

    All premiums, return premiums, or other funds 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, insured, or other person entitled thereto.

18. Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes [1987], states: The department may, in its discretion,

    deny, suspend, revoked, or refuse to renew or

    continue the license of any agent . . . , and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person,

    if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee or permittee any one or more of the following applicable grounds exists under circumstances for which such denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal is not mandatory under s.626.611:

    1. Any cause for which issuance of the license or permit could have been refused had it then existed and been known to the department.

       
       

19. During the hearing, the Department was able to establish the Respondent accepted an application and an insurance premium from Ms. Drown. These items were not transmitted to Mutual Protective Insurance Company, as directed by the proposed insured and the insurance company. The insurance premium funds were held by the Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. He had a statutory duty to account for and pay the funds received to the designated insurer, or to promptly return these funds to the customer. The Respondent's decision to allow the five thousand dollars belonging to a seventy-five year old customer to remain in the insurance agency's financial accounts for four months was improper. This course of conduct violates Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

20. When the Respondent failed to follow through with the insurance application on behalf of the agency customer and failed to even attempt to secure the requested policy through the usual process, he breached another fiduciary duty to the customer. See In the Matter of White, 10 FALR 1664 (Final Order 4-10-87); In the Matter of Anderson, 9 FALR 1186 (Final Order 10-2-86). Such conduct demonstrates a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance pursuant to Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes.

    
    

21. All of the other allegations in the Administrative Complaint were not proved by clear and convincing evidence. There was no showing that the Respondent willfully violated any of the other provisions of the Insurance Code. The evidence presented did not reveal that a misappropriation, conversion, or unlawful withholding of the money occurred. Lack of knowledge and competence to engage in transactions authorized by his license was not revealed at hearing. Accordingly, the Respondent is not guilty of any of the remaining allegations of statutory violations.

    
    

22. Although the Department has the statutory authority to revoke the Respondent's license for the violations proved at hearing, it is recommended that the agency exercise its discretion, and impose an administrative penalty under Section 626.681(1), Florida Statutes [1987], in lieu of such suspension, revocation, or refusal to license. In addition, it is recommended that the Respondent be placed on probation in connection with the monetary penalty, pursuant to Section 626.691(1), Florida Statutes [1986]. The mitigation considerations in the findings of fact are the basis for these recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Respondent be found guilty of one violation of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, and one violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, during a single insurance transaction.

2. That the Respondent pay an administrative penalty of $500.00 for the two violations of the Insurance Code within thirty days of the imposition of the penalty.

   
   

3. That the Respondent be placed upon six month's probation. During this probation period, he should file a report with the Department demonstrating the manner in which he intends to keep accurate business records which assure him, the insurance company, and the customer that he is continuously accounting for premium funds and promptly carrying out his fiduciary responsibilities.

   
   

4. That the Respondent's requests for licensure dated October 10, 1989 and May 18, 1990, be granted.

DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

VERONICA E. DONNELLY

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative 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 12th day of September, 1990.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-6040

The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:

1. Accepted. See HO #2.

2. Accepted. See HO #2.

3. Accepted.

4. Accepted. See HO #5.

5. Accepted. See HO #5.

6. Accepted. See HO #5.

7. Accepted. See HO #5.

8. Rejected. Conclusion of Law.

9. Rejected. See HO #6.

10. Accepted. See HO #7.

11. Accepted. See HO #7.

12. Accepted. See HO #7.

13. Accept that Ms. Drown's funds remained in the insurance agency's financial accounts for four months. Reject that the interest bearing ability of these funds is relevant in any manner to this case.

Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:

1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4.

2. Accepted. See HO #5.

3. Accepted. See HO #5.

4. Accepted. See HO #5.

5. Accepted.

6. Rejected. This testimony was rejected by the hearing officer as self serving. It was not found to be credible.

7. Rejected for the same reasons given immediately above.

8. Accepted, but not particularly probative.

9. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer.

10. Accepted.

11. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer.

12. Accept that an application for Penn Treaty Insurance was sent to Ms. Drown on this date.

13. Accepted.

14. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer.

15. Rejected. Self serving. Not believed or found to be credible by the hearing officer.

16. Accepted. See HO #9.

COPIES FURNISHED:

C. Christopher Anderson III, Esquire Department of Insurance

Division of Legal Services

412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Mark P. Smith, Esquire

GOLDBERG, GOLDSTEIN & BUCKLEY, P.A.

1515 Broadway

Post Office Box 2366

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2366

Honorable Tom Gallagher

State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Don Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

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

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

OFFICE OF THE TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO.: 89-L-830CCA DOAH CASE NO.: 89-006040

FREDERICK BRUCE MAHLE

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE came on before the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida, Department of Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), for consideration and final agency action. On October 2, 1989, an Administrative Complaint was filed, charging FREDERICK BRUCE MAHLE (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") with violations of various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. The Respondent timely filed a request for a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was heard before Veronica D. Donnelly, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Hearing Officer") on June 26, 1990 in Fort Myers, Florida. Subsequent to the Administrative Complaint, various license applications of the Respondent were denied.

Although the Respondent did not request a hearing on these denials, the issue was raised during the hearing on the Administrative Complaint.

After consideration of the evidence, the argument and testimony at hearing, and subsequent written submissions by the parties, the Hearing Officer issued her Recommended Order on September 12, 1990 to the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner. (Exhibit "A", attached.) The Hearing Officer recommended that a final order be issued, finding the Respondent guilty of two (2) counts in the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of the remaining six (6) counts, and recommending the imposition of a six (6) month probationary period and an administrative penalty of Five Hundred Dollars ($500). The Hearing Officer further recommended that the Final Order grant the licenses for which the Respondent had applied and been denied during the pendency of this action.

On September 21, 1990, the Department filed its Exceptions to the Recommended Order. (Exhibit "B", attached.)

On October 8, 1990, the Respondent filed "Objections to Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order". (Exhibit "C" attached.)

RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS

TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER

The Respondent's motion was styled "Objections to Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order". There is no provision in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Chapter 26, Florida Administrative Code, or Chapter 4, Florida Administrative Code, for such a post-hearing motion. However, regarding the Respondent's motion as Exceptions to the Recommended Order, the Respondent's motion was not

considered in the preparation of this Final Order because they were not timely filed. Under Rule 4-38.043, Florida Administrative Code, each party is allowed ten (10) days to file exceptions to the Recommended Order. Here, the Recommended Order was issued on September 12, 1990 and the ten (10) day period lapsed on Monday, September 23, 1990.

1. Filing on October 8, 1990 is not timely and the Respondent's motion is properly disregarded in preparation of this Final Order.

RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Paragraph 3 of Petitioner's Exceptions takes exception to Paragraph 1 of the Recommendation in the Recommended Order, which concludes, as a matter of law, that although the Respondent violated Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, the Respondent is nevertheless not guilty of, or accountable under, Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is correct that a completed violation under Section 626.561(1) renders the Respondent accountable under Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes as a matter of law. Therefore, the Hearing Officer's recommendation at page 9 of the Recommended Order, denominated Paragraph 1 of the Recommendation, is rejected in part with respect to a conclusion of not guilty under Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and Paragraph 3 of the Petitioner's Exceptions is hereby adopted.

   
   

2. Paragraph 4 of the Petitioner's Exceptions takes exception to Paragraph

1 of the Recommendation in the Recommended Order, which concludes that the Respondent was not guilty of, or accountable under, Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Petitioner argues that the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, establish all the elements of a completed violation of Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes as a matter of law.

One element of a violation under Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes is willful intent. The Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact, Paragraph 10, appearing in the portion of the Recommended Order denominated "Mitigation", is the only factual finding with respect to intent, and contains the statement "this conduct... demonstrate[s] a concern [for] the insurance needs [of] the customer... [and] also reveals that there was no intention to convert the funds received to the Respondent's own use."

Inasmuch as the Hearing Officer did not make an affirmative Finding of Fact on the element of willful intent, it was proper for her to conclude, as a matter of law, that the Respondent did not violate, and was not accountable under, Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Paragraph 4 of the Petitioner's Exceptions is therefore rejected.

RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION

1. Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Petitioner's Exceptions take exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendations, in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the portion of the Recommended Order denominated "Recommendations", of the imposition of a Five Hundred Dollar ($500) administrative penalty and a six (6) month probationary period, and the grant of licenses denied during the pendency of this matter.

In Paragraph 1 of the "Recommendation" portion of the Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Respondent had violated, and was accountable under, Section 626.561(1) and 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Based

upon the first ruling on Petitioner's Exceptions to Conclusions of Law, above, the Respondent is also found guilty, and accountable under, Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes.

On pages 8 and 9 of the Recommended Order, in the portion denominated "Conclusions of Law", the Hearing Officer reasoned that the DEPARTMENT has discretion to refrain from suspending or revoking a license where a licensee has violated, and is accountable under, any subsection of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes, and that this discretion is granted in Section 626.681(1), Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer further determined that the Findings of Fact appearing in Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the Recommended Order, denominated the "Mitigation" portion, provide an adequate basis for the exercise of this discretion.

Section 626.611, Florida Statutes uses clear, affirmative, and mandatory language, which requires the suspension, revocation, or refusal of a license when any subsection therein has been violated or made applicable. By contrast, Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes uses permissive and discretionary language. Violation of a subsection of Section 626.621, Florida Statutes vests the DEPARTMENT with discretion to suspend, revoke or deny a license.

Section 626.681, Florida Statutes operates to enlarge the DEPARTMENT'S discretion under Section 626.621, Florida Statutes, with the result that the DEPARTMENT may impose an administrative penalty in lieu of suspension, revocation or denial of a license. Section 626.681, Florida Statutes does not affect Section 626.611, Florida Statutes because there, the necessary discretion is not granted, and thus, is not subject to expansion. Section 626.681(1), Florida Statutes reads in pertinent part:

[I]f the [D]epartment finds that one or more grounds exist for [action against a license] under...[C]hapter [626], the [D]epartment may, in its discretion, in lieu of [action against the license], and except...when (action against the license) is manadatory, impose an administrative penalty... (Emphasis added.)

Thus, the DEPARTMENT is without discretion to forego the imposition of a suspension period as a minimum penalty.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer found that the Respondent deprived a customer of Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Five Dollars and Forty Nine Cents ($5,185.49) during the period November 10, 1988 to March 7, 1989. Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Paragraphs 5,6 and 9, Recommended Order. The Hearing Officer found further that the Respondent did not seek to obtain the insurance coverage for which the customer had applied, and that during the period November 10, 1988 through March,7, 1989, the funds were on deposit in the Respondent's business account. Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Paragraphs 7 and 8, Recommended Order. Finally, the Hearing Officer found that the insurance coverage sought was a long-term care policy with a daily nursing home benefit.

Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Paragraph 5, Recommended Order. The record provides competent, substantial evidence as a basis for the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the Respondent had violated, and was accountable under Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent breached his fiduciary duty to the customer. Paragraph 1, "Recommendation" portion, Recommended Order.

Therefore, the Hearing Officer's Recommendations, Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are hereby rejected and the Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommendation,

embodied in Petitioner's Exceptions Paragraphs 1 and 5, are hereby accepted. Upon careful consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. That the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are adopted in full as the Department's Findings of Fact.

   
   

2. That the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are adopted in part as the Department's Conclusions of Law, to wit:

   
   

   1. That the Respondent's retention of premium funds in the amount of Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Five Dollars and Forty Nine Cents ($5,185.49) after it became proper that these funds should be remitted to the customer, was a violation of the fiduciary duty imposed upon the Respondent by Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes.

   2. That the Respondent demonstrated a lack of fitness of trustworthiness to engage in the business of

      insurance by his conduct described in subparagraph (a), above, within the meaning of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes.

      
      

3. That the balance of the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are rejected by the Department, and in their place, the Department hereby concludes:

   
   

   1. That the Respondent has violated a provision of the Florida Insurance Code or other law applicable to the business of insurance (to wit, that the Respondent violated Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, as described in paragraph 2(a), above) within the meaning of Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes.

      
      

4. That the Hearing Officer's Recommendation be rejected by the Department, and the following action, pursuant to Section 626.611, Florida Statutes, be adopted by the Department as its Recommendation and Order:

   
   

   1. That the Respondent's licenses to engage

      in the business of insurance be suspended for a period of six (6) months.

   2. That the letters of denial issued by the Department (to represent NN Investors life, Providers Fidelity Life, American Integrity Insurance Company, Mutual Protective Insurance Company and Life & Health Insurance Company of America) be affirmed, and that the Respondent be ineligible to apply for licensure for

a six (6) month period, to run concurrently with his suspension period described in subparagraph (a), above.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all insurance license(s), and eligibility for licensure, held or sought in the State of Florida by FREDERICK BRUCE MAHLE shall be SUSPENDED for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS to begin on the date this Order is issued; that the letters of denial issued by the Department to FREDERICK BRUCE MAHLE shall be AFFIRMED.

NOTICE OF RIGHTS

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, Fla.R.App.P. 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 of this Order.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1990.

TOM GALLAGHER

Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

COPIES FURNISHED:

VERONICA E. DONNELLY

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

C. CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON III, Esquire Department of Insurance

Division of Legal Services Room 412 Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 ATTORNEY FOR THE PETITIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

FREDERICK BRUCE MAHLE

12290 McGregor Woods Circle Fort Myers, Florida 33908

MARK P. SMITH, ESQUIRE

Goldberg, Goldsmith & Buckley, P.A. 1515 Broadway

Post Office Box 2366

Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2366

Docket for Case No: 89-006040

Orders for Case No: 89-006040