STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND ) TREASURER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-2708

)

MICHAEL CHARLES PEPPE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Tallahassee, Florida on October 5, 1992 before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner: James A. Bossart, Esquire

Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

For the Respondent: Thomas F. Woods, Esquire

1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32309

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure as a life agent, a life and health agent, a general lines agent, a health agent and a dental health care contract salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

By Administrative Complaint dated March 26, 1992, the Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer, (Department), seeks to discipline the Respondent's currently held insurance licenses and his eligibility for licensure in those fields in Florida because, it alleges, he or his agents oversold insurance policies to two clients, in violation of several subsections of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1992, through his attorney, Respondent requested a formal hearing on the allegations and by letter dated April 30, 1992, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the appointment of a Hearing Officer.

By Notice of Hearing dated May 2, 1992, Hearing Officer Linda Rigot set the matter for hearing in Tallahassee on August 20, 1992, but due to several amendments to the Administrative Complaint and the continuances resultant therefrom, the hearing was, on August 3, 1992, postponed to October 5, 1992 at which time it was heard as scheduled by the undersigned to whom the file was transferred in the interim.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Deborah Hawthorne, manager of consumer relations and agent investigations for American Integrity Insurance Company; Susan D. Segrest, an employee of First National Life Insurance Company; Jerry A. Laney, agency service representative for United American Insurance; Warren W. Schellhase, a senior analyst in the consumer affairs department of Transport Life Insurance Co.; Susan L. Clarke, underwriting manager and chief underwriter for Life and Health of America; Milton O. Bedingfield, a special agent with Prudential Insurance Company and an independent insurance broker; and, by deposition, Denise Powell, director of American Travellers Life Insurance Company's southeastern regional office, and Constance B. Abraham, purchaser of many of the policies in issue in this hearing. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 24.

Respondent testified in his own behalf and introduced the testimony by deposition of William Sanner, an insurance agent. Respondent also introduced Respondent's Exhibits A through D.

A transcript was provided and subsequent to the hearing, both counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and regulation of the insurance industry in this state. Respondent, Michael Charles Peppe was and is currently licensed and eligible for licensure in Florida as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, a general lines agent and a health insurance agent. He was an officer and director of M. Peppe Agency, Inc., a Florida corporation.

   
   

2. During the period in issue herein, Respondent's agency had a brokerage agreement with William Sanner and Mary Lou Sanner who were employed as sub- agents.

   
   

3. Constance Abraham, an 85 year old widow first met William Sanner when she moved to Ft. Lauderdale, some 20 or so year ago. They were neighbors in the same apartment building. At that time she was insured with Mutual of Omaha and her policy was transferred to him, an agent for that company, for service. Over the years she purchased quite a bit of other insurance from him. They were all different kinds of health insurance policies and over time, she estimates, she purchased somewhere around 50 policies.

   
   

4. During the period between 1985 and 1991, Mrs. Abraham purchased numerous health policies for both herself and her son through Mr. and Mrs. Sanner, though she does not recall ever having dealt with Mrs. Sanner. Records disclose that her coverage was placed with nine different companies and provided coverage in such areas as Medicare Supplement, nursing home insurance, cancer insurance, and hospital expense - indemnity insurance. Over the years approximately 60 policies were issued through Respondent's agency to either Mrs. Abraham or her son. The applications were taken by Sanner who would collect

   the initial premiums and forward both to Respondent's agency for processing to the various insurers. Some policies were signed by Sanner as agent of record and some were signed by Respondent in that capacity. Only a few were signed by Mrs. Sanner.

   
   

5. Mrs. Abraham claims she didn't realize how much health insurance she had. Mr. Sanner would come to her apartment and talk to her about a new policy and she would abide by his advice. Her purchases amounted to approximately

   $20,000.00 per year in premiums which she would pay by check to Mr. Sanner. At no time did she ever deal with or meet the Respondent, Mr. Peppe.

   
   

6. She did not question Sanner deeply about why he was selling her so much insurance. Whenever she asked about a new policy, he would usually have what appeared to he to be a good reason for it such as something was lacking in her coverage. Even when she recognized he was selling her duplicate coverage, he told her it was a good idea to have more. At no time did he or anyone else tell her she had too much insurance.

   
   

7. Mrs. Abraham claims to know nothing about insurance herself. However, she was cognizant of the nature of the policies she had, utilizing without prompting the terms, "indemnity", "supplemental", and "accident." Mr. Sanner would come to her home at least once a month She trusted him to help her with her health insurance and would talk with him whenever a policy came up for renewal. On some occasions he would recommend she renew and on others would recommend she drop that policy in favor of another. At no time was she aware, however, of the fact that she was duplicating policies. She also claims she never had to tell Mr. Sanner what she wanted from her coverage. He always seemed to know and would handle not only the purchase of her policies but also the filing of her claims. She can recall no instance where she asked for any coverage and he tried to talk her out of it.

   
   

8. Mrs. Abraham denies she was the person who complained to the Department. It was her daughter who noticed what was going on and took matters into her own hands. At no time did either Sanner or the Respondent attempt to contact her after the complaint was filed.

   
   

9. Mrs. Abraham and her husband had four children. Her son, Lewis, who is somewhat retarded, lives with her and she also purchased some policies for him. Over the years she has had many occasions to file claims under her policies. It is important to her that she have protection to provide full time care if necessary because she has no family locally to provide that care for her. She had coverage that provided nursing care, a private room in the hospital, and some policies which provided for extended or nursing home care. She recognizes that such care is expensive and wanted enough policies to give her total coverage without out of pocket expense if the care was needed. She keeps track of the policies she has on her personal computer and has been doing so for some six or seven years. She apparently is sufficiently computer literate that she knows what she has and what she is doing.

   
   

10. Mrs. Abraham owns a condominium at the Galt Ocean Mile apartment in Ft. Lauderdale. The $20,000.00 figure in policy premiums she mentioned were for her policies only. Those for her son were extra. She has sufficient income from stocks and bonds to pay her premiums, pay her mortgage, and still live comfortably. Her son has his own income from a trust fund and his own investments.

11. At one point in time, when Mrs. Abraham had some recurring health problems and was in and out of hospitals regularly, she received in benefits far more than her actual expenses and made a tidy profit. Nonetheless, she adamantly disclaims she purchased the policies she had for that purpose claiming instead that she wanted merely that both she and her son be able to pay for the best medical care possible in the event it is needed. To that end, Lewis Abraham has filed very few claims against his carriers.

    
    

12. Most, if not all, of the companies which provided the coverage for Mrs. Abraham and her son have limits on the amount of total coverage any one policy holder can have in any line of insurance. The limit is cumulative and not limited to policies with a specific company. Taken together, the policies in force for Mrs. Abraham in some cases exceeded that limit and had the insurers been made aware of the totality of her coverage, their policies would not have been issued. This information was not furnished to the companies, however, by either Sanner or Respondent. In addition, on many of the policies the mental condition of a policy holder must be disclosed if that person is retarded or not fully competent. Respondent did not know of Lewis' condition though Mr. Sanner was fully aware of it both as it related to his retardation and his drop foot. On none of the policy applications relating to him, however, was either ever mentioned. Some companies indicated that if Lewis's mental and physical condition had been properly disclosed on the application, they either would not have issued the coverage or, at least, would have referred the matter to the underwriter for further evaluation and a determination as to whether to issue the policy and if so, at what premium. Even more, Lewis' physical and mental condition may have caused the company to decline payment of a claim within two years of issuance of any policy actually written.

    
    

13. Respondent received monthly statements from the various insurers with whom his agency did business detailing the transactions for that month. Commissions on each sale were paid by the insurers to Respondent's agency and thereafter, pursuant to an agreement between Respondent and Sanner, the commissions were divided. The commissions paid to Respondent's company by the insurers on all these policies amount to in excess of $18,000.00.

    
    

14. Respondent asserts that Mrs. Abraham knew exactly what she was doing and was, in effect, conducting if not a scam, at least an improper business activity through the knowing purchase of duplicative policies and redundant coverage. This well may be true, but even if it is, Mr. Sanner was a knowing accomplice and participant. In addition, while it is accepted that Respondent might not know the status of every policy purchased through his agency or the total activity with any particular client, when his name appears as signatory on policy applications forwarded to a company for whom he accepts or solicits business, as here, it is hard to find he did not have at least a working familiarity with the business written by his sub-agents .

    
    

15. This finding is supported by the analysis done of Respondent's pertinent activities here by Milton O. Bedingfield, a 39 year insurance agent and broker for 10 companies, a Certified Life Underwriter, and an expert in life and health insurance. Mr. Bedingfield concluded, after a review of all the policies written for the Abrahams through Respondent's agency, there was a gross oversale of policies and repeated omissions of pertinent information on policy applications. He found a duplication of benefits and overlapping coverage, all without legitimate purpose, especially for an 85 year old woman. Since the average hospital stay is less than 2 weeks, she would not likely benefit from her insurance for the stay. He could not see where Mrs. Abraham would get back in benefits what she has paid in premiums.

16. In Mr. Bedingfield's opinion, this is the worst case of oversale he has seen in his 39 years in the insurance business. He contends the agent stands in almost a fiduciary capacity to his clients - especially the aged who rely on their agent to properly advise them on adequate coverage. There is often an element of fear involved that the unscrupulous agent can profit from. Here, he feels, Respondent's practice falls far short of the state's standard of acceptability on the sale of Medicare Supplemental insurance.

    
    

17. On balance, however, Mr. Bedingfield does not know if all the policies he saw stayed in force throughout the period of the policy. Many could have lapsed or been cancelled. In all fairness, as well, where insurance is brokered, as here, the ultimate placing agent normally does not meet the client but must rely on what he is told by the offering agent.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

18. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

19. In its Administrative Complaint, the Department has alleged that the Respondent is guilty of willful misrepresentation, a demonstrated lack or fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the insurance business, a demonstrated lack of adequate knowledge and competence, fraudulent or dishonest practices, and a willful failure to comply with or a willful violation of a rule of the Department or a statute, in violation of several provisions of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes. If established, any violation under that provision requires the Department to deny, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the license of any agent.

    
    

20. The Department has also alleged that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of the statute, a violation or a rule of the Department, and of engaging in deceptive acts or practices, in violation of Section 626.621, Florida Statutes. If a violation of any of these allegations is established, the Department may discipline a license.

    
    

21. Included in the allegations next above is one which asserts Respondent was guilty of "twisting", in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(l), Florida Statutes. "Twisting" is defined by the statute as, "Knowingly making any misleading representations or incomplete or fraudulent comparisons or fraudulent material omissions of or with respect to any insurance policies or insurers for the purpose of inducing, ..., any person to lapse, forfeit, surrender, terminate, retain, pledge, assign, borrow on, or convert any insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer.

    
    

22. Subsection 626.9541(1)(a)6 defines "misrepresentations and false advertising or insurance policies" as, inter alia, knowingly making any type of sales presentation which misleads for the purpose of inducing an exchange or conversion of a policy. Subsection (1)(e) defines "false statements and entries" as knowingly doing such things or publishing those matters which can be classified as false material statements.

    
    

23. Section 626.8373, Florida Statutes, requires an insurance agent selling health insurance and Medicare supplement insurance to inquire of his client whether that person is currently covered under a similar policy, and the agent is required to inform that client whether the proposed policy will overlap

    or duplicate existing coverage. Clearly, Respondent did not do this but he was not the agent dealing with Ms. Abraham. Mr. and Mrs. Sanner were those agents, and it is clear neither did the required counselling. Both are, therefore, guilty of a violation of this provision and both have surrendered their licenses.

    
    

24. Section 626.839, Florida Statutes, holds an officer. director, stockholder, or employee of an incorporated general lines agency personally and fully liable and accountable for any wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of the code committed by any person under his direct supervision. However, this provision does not render a licensee liable for criminal or disciplinary action for any act unless such person personally committed or knew or should have known of the improper acts and the facts constituting the violation.

    
    

25. The Petitioner has the burden to establish the guilt of the Respondent in this matter by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d

    292 (Fla. 1987). The testimony of Ms. Abraham clearly shows that at no time did she have any contact at all with Respondent. Her sole contact with his agency was through Mr. or Mrs. Sanner who acted as subagents and who forwarded all policy application and premiums to Respondent. The fundamental issue for determination, then is whether Respondent knew, or should have known, that his subagents, the Sanners, were conducting any type of illegal activities. It cannot be said that he knew. His testimony was that he did not know and there is no direct evidence that he did. Consequently, it can not be held that Respondent is guilty of any of the allegations under Section 626.611, all of which require knowledge of the misconduct. If he should have known of the Sanners' misconduct, and did nothing, he may still be liable for discipline under Section 626.621, however.

    
    

26. Notwithstanding Mr. Bedingfield's testimony that Respondent's operation fell far short of meeting industry standards, the evidence of record does not clearly and convincingly establish Respondent knew what the Sanners were doing even though their operations were cleared through his agency. There is no clear showing that Respondent signed every application that came through his agency, or that even if he did, the Abraham applications were so frequent as to be noteworthy in the ordinary course of his business.

    
    

27. To be sure, his operation leaves much to be desired and no doubt Respondent should have paid more attention to his subagents' activities. Here, however, his failure to do so, while less than prudent, does not constitute a lack of competence or trustworthiness, and there was no showing that either Ms. Abraham or her son considered their purchases from Respondent's agency to be a loss. While the evidence of record demonstrates carelessness and mismanagement, it does not clearly and convincingly show any misconduct on the part of the Respondent which is actionable under the terms of the rule or statutes pertinent here.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:

RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this case, Michael C. Peppe, be dismissed.

RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

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 11th day of December, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2708

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.

FOR THE PETITIONER:

1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. Accepted and incorporated herein.

2. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. Accepted and incorporated herein.

2. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein.

13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein.

15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein.

1. Accepted.

2. Accepted.

3. & 22. Accepted.

1. Rejected as not supported by evidence or record except

   for the fact that Respondent sign and processed applications and premium payments and received a financial benefit from the sales.

2. Accepted.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

1. Accepted so far as it relates Ms. Abraham was well informed and aware of her coverage.

2. Not established, but insufficient evidence of actionable misconduct.

3. Accepted.

4. - 6. Not proper Findings of Fact but more Conclusions of Law.

1. Accepted.

2. Not a proper Findings of Fact.

COPIES FURNISHED:

James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services

412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Thomas F. Woods, Esquire

Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdrey 1709-D Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

Tom Gallagher

State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Bill O'Neil General Counsel

Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.

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

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

OFFICE OF THE TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE

IN THE MATTER OF:

CASE NO.: 92-L-041C&S

MICHAEL CHARLES PEPPE DOAH CASE NO.: 92-2708

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE came on before the undersigned Treasurer of the State of Florida, acting in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner, for consideration and final agency action. On March 2, 1992, the Florida Department of Insurance and

Treasurer (hereinafter the "Department"), filed an Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke or suspend the insurance agent license(s), appointments and eligibility for licensure of MICHAEL CHARLES PEPPE (hereinafter "Respondent"), based upon the Respondent's participation in the selling of excessive and duplicative insurance products by a subagent of Respondent.

On or about April 20, 1992, Respondent submitted his request for a formal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. A formal hearing was held on October 5, 1992, before Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, Florida. After consideration of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, and upon review of the Proposed Recommended Orders, the hearing officer issued his Recommended Order. (Attached as Exhibit A). The hearing officer recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent be dismissed.

RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS

Petitioner has excepted to the hearing officer's failure to make a finding of fact that the Respondent was aware that Mrs. Abraham and her son Lewis Abraham had been sold an unreasonable amount of health insurance. In support of this exception, Petitioner points to the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact #14, which states, in pertinent part:

In addition, while it is accepted that Respondent might not know the status of every policy purchased through his agency or the total activity with any particular client, when his name appears as signatory on policy applications forwarded to a company for whom he accepts or solicits business, as here, it is hard to find he did not have at least a working familiarity

with the business written by his sub-agents.

(Recommended Order at 8). The hearing officer further found that between 1985 and 1991 Mrs. Abraham had purchased approximately sixty (60) insurance policies for herself and her son which were issued through Respondent's agency. (Finding of Fact #4, Recommended Order at 4). The record clearly reflects that Mrs.

Abraham and her son were sold an unreasonable amount of health insurance, however, as pointed out in the Recommended Order, the crucial determinant in this matter was whether the Respondent knew or should have known that Mrs.

Abraham and her son were being sold inordinate amounts of insurance. (Conclusion of Law #24, Recommended Order at 11). The record also clearly reflects that the Respondent had more than "a working familiarity with the business written by his sub-agent." Id. Therefore, the hearing officer's Conclusions of Law regarding this issue and ultimate determination that the Respondent apparently did not know or should not have known of his sub-agent's conduct in selling Mrs. Abraham unconscionable amounts of health insurance is simply not supported by the record in this case and cannot stand.

Contrary to the hearing officer's findings, the Respondent was not only well aware of Mrs. Abraham's insurance policies, but had became concerned and discussed this concern with his sub-agent, Mr. Sanner:

Q. Mr. Peppe, did you ever discuss Mrs. Abraham's coverage with Mr. Sanner?

A. Certainly.

Q. Without reciting the exact words of the conversation, could you give us kind of

the gist of it?

A. Yes. I saw what seemed to me an inordinate amount of policies coming in on one person. We had this discussion early on. TR. 189.

The Respondent also had a later conversation with Mr. Sanner regarding Mrs. Abraham's insurance policies which he testified to:

A. I said earlier that we've discussed these many times. And I did state at those time that I felt that it was unreasonable. He responded with her computer printouts and the fact of what she was trying to accomplish. Late in 1990 we had a different discussion at which time I felt it was completely unreasonable and had to stop.

Q. But you didn't tell him to stop before that?

A. No.

Q. And even though you thought it was unreasonable, as you just told us, you continued to accept commissions, renewal commissions from him?

A. Yes, of course. (TR. 206).

This record evidence, as well as the deposition of William Sanner, entered as Respondent's Exhibit B, clearly shows that Respondent, contrary to the hearing officer's Conclusions of Law, knew a lot about Mrs. Abraham and her insurance policies.

Insurance is an agreement to indemnify and not a wagering contract. If Mrs. Abraham's intention was to realize a profit in the event of an illness through the knowing purchase of duplicative policies and redundant coverage, it should not have been aided and abetted by Mr. Sanner and the Respondent on the basis that was what the customer wanted. (Respondent's exhibit B at 29)(TR.

193, 196). Respondent had a professional responsibility far beyond making the customer happy. Insurance is not like the purchase of apparel where a customer may freely purchase whatever they please and customer satisfaction is a goal of the salesperson. Rather, the business of insurance is greatly affected with the public trust. Natelson v. Department of Insurance, 454 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Whether Respondent knew of the entirety of Mr. Sanner's wrongdoing is unclear, however, he knew that an exorbitant number of policies had been issued, he knew no one who had that many policies, and finally told Sanner that he would no longer accept applications from Mrs. Abraham or Lewis Abraham. (TR. 193- 195). That Respondent failed in his professional responsibility by allowing this activity to continue is unquestioned. He condoned Sanner's conduct by forwarding and signing applications for more and more insurance and accepting his override on both new policies and renewals despite having concerns about Sanner's conduct in his dealings with Mrs. Abraham. Simply put, this is clearly and convincingly detrimental to the public interest and violative of sections 626.839 and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes.

The balance of Petitioner's exceptions deal primarily, either directly or indirectly, with Respondent's knowledge of the policies sold to Mrs. Abraham and

have already been addressed in the preceding paragraphs and are rejected except as previously noted.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, a complete review of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Findings of Fact of the hearing officer, as far as they reach, are adopted in full as the Department's Findings of Fact.

   
   

2. The Conclusions of Law of the hearing officer are rejected as to the knowledge of the Respondent of the activities of his sub-agents. Otherwise, they are adopted as the Department's Conclusions of Law.

   
   

3. The hearing officer's recommendation that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, MICHAEL CHARLES PEPPE, be dismissed is rejected. Rather, MICHAEL CHARLES PEPPE, is hereby placed on probation for a period of one

(1) year from the date of the entry of this Final Order.

ACCORDINGLY, all licenses and eligibility for licensure held by MICHAEL CHARLES PEPPE are hereby placed on probation for a period of one (1) year from the date of this Order, pursuant to Section 626.691(1), Florida Statutes.

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, Fl.R.App.P. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the General Counsel, acting as agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300, and a copy of same with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1993.

TOM GALLAGHER

Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

COPIES FURNISHED:

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

THOMAS F. WOODS, ESQUIRE

Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

JAMES A. BOSSART, ESQUIRE

Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Docket for Case No: 92-002708

Orders for Case No: 92-002708