STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-3474RP

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) INSURANCE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to written notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Errol H. Powell, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 27, 1994, and September 12, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Thomas J. Jones, Esquire

HOLLAND & KNIGHT

Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Bill O'Neil, Esquire

A. Kenneth Levine, Esquire Department of Insurance 645A Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination at formal hearing was whether proposed Rule 4- 166.051, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 3, 1994, the Florida Department of Insurance (Respondent) published proposed Rule 4-166.051, Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly (V. 20, No. 22, P. 3881-3882). The proposed rule requires Respondent to conduct a public hearing on a rate filing by an insurer "where the percentage of rate increase is 25 percent or more and the aggregate amount of such rate increase is $2 million or more," or of "50 percent or more" or when Respondent determines that a rate filing "appears to have a significant or disproportionate impact on any group or geographic area." Further, the proposed rule establishes a procedure for conducting the public hearing. The American Insurance Association (Petitioner) filed a petition, pursuant to Subsection

120.54(4), Florida Statutes, challenging the proposed rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

On June 24, 1994, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and on June 28, 1994, a Hearing Officer was assigned to this matter.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition asserting certain deficiencies in the petition. Subsequently, Petitioner was granted leave to amend the petition and filed an amended petition curing the deficiencies cited by Respondent. Respondent, by agreement, withdrew its motion to dismiss. A formal hearing was scheduled on July 27, 1994, pursuant to notice and, because additional time was needed, continued until September 12, 1994.

At the hearing, Petitioner called no witnesses and entered no exhibits into evidence, contending that the issue was one totally of law not of facts.

Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and entered one exhibit into evidence.

A transcript of the formal hearing was ordered. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which have been addressed in the appendix to this final order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department of Insurance (Respondent) is charged with regulating the business of insurance in the State of Florida. As part of this responsibility, Respondent examines and analyzes rate increases.

   
   

2. The scope of proposed Rule 4-166.051, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Examination of Significant Rate Increases," provides:

   
   

   (2) Scope. This rule applies to residential and habitational, personal and commercial

   property insurance in the State of Florida . . . .

   
   

3. The proposed rule requires Respondent to conduct public hearings on rate increases of insurers under certain specific conditions:

   
   

   (3) Public Hearings.

   1. Significant Rate Increases. The Department will hold a public hearing on any rate filing where the percentage of rate increase is 25 percent or more and the aggregate amount of

      such rate increase is $2,000,000 or more, or a rate increase of 50 percent or more. The Department will hold a public hearing as to any rate filing which appears to have a signi- ficant or disproportionate impact on any group or geographic area.

      
      

      Respondent contends that insurers employing the present methods for rate filings would be able to calculate the increases and would, therefore, have no difficulty in determining whether they meet the threshold in the proposed rule.

4. The proposed rule provides in Section (3) a procedure for the public hearings:

   
   

   1. Procedure.

      1. The time and place of the public hearing will be noticed by order of the Department.

      2. The public hearing shall be for the purpose of gathering information and evidence, and is not subject to the procedures of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Each insurer shall bear its own costs, including any attorney's fees, which may be associated with this examination and with its attendance at the public hearing. Specifically, the public hearing will provide the Department with, and the insurer shall be prepared to present, information necessary to determine whether:

         1. The proposed activity will have a hazardous or detrimental effect upon the residential property

            insurance market in this State and a specific adverse, hazardous, or detrimental effect upon its policyholders located in this State.

         2. The proposed activity violates the terms and conditions of residential property insurance policies and constitutes material misrepresentation, or results in the insurer having unlawfully misrepresented the benefits and promises which induced its policyholders to purchase policies from the insurer.

         3. The proposed rating structure, elimination of current policyholders, and overall marketing strategies of the insurer, in relation to current market conditions in this State, render the insurer's rates excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

         4. The proposed activity constitutes an arbitrary or capricious act of unfair discrimination against policyholders, and constitutes a practice detrimental to the insurer's policyholders or the insurance buying public.

         5. The proposed activity will adversely contribute to a further reduction in the availability of residential property insurance in this State and the ability of the current admitted market to absorb further losses or liabilities.

         6. The proposed activity will adversely impact the Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association's (RPCJUA) ability to provide coverage and/or service to present or potential insureds.

         7. Other relevant impact.

   
   

5. Respondent is granted general authority by the Legislature, through Section 624.324, Florida Statutes, to hold public hearings within the scope of the insurance code 1/ whenever it deems such action necessary. Respondent contends that this authorization includes holding public hearings on rate increases which it has deemed necessary to be in the public eye.

   
   

6. Section 627.062, Florida Statutes, entitled "Rate standards," provides that no rate shall be "excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory" and mandates certain specific factors and standards to be considered by Respondent

   when making a determination whether a rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. Respondent contends that the factors and standards in Section

   627.062 are not all inclusive but are only some of the factors and standards to be considered; the others are located throughout the insurance code.

   
   

7. Respondent contends that interpreting Section 627.062, Florida Statutes, requires a reading of the insurance code as a whole. For example, some terms in Section 627.062 are explained in other parts of the code, so the applicable parts of the code defining and explaining the terms would have to be read in para materia with Section 627.062.

   
   

8. The proposed rule is designed, as contended by Respondent, to affect only those insurers which significantly increase their residential property insurance rates; it is not designed to affect all insurers which increase their rates. Also, as part of its design, the proposed rule reflects Respondent's experience with the impact of Hurricane Andrew on the consumer and the insurance industry and with an emergency rule which addressed the same subject of rate increases. However, the emergency rule included lower thresholds in which Respondent attempted to affect only those insurers with significant rate increases.

   
   

9. The proposed rule serves, as contended by Respondent, four purposes:

   1. to assist Respondent in its statutory duty to report annually to the Legislature; (2) to reveal subtle, but important, factors which affect Respondent's decision in determining whether a proposed rate is excessive; (3) to assist Respondent in uncovering unfair trade practices, if any, in proposed rate increases; and (4) to ameliorate the impact of large rate increases on consumers.

      
      

10. As to Respondent's reporting duty, part of Respondent's statutory responsibility is to report the ramifications and implications of large rate hikes to the Legislature. Because of the devastation caused by Hurricane Andrew, an unprecedented number of rate filings for large increases have occurred and a severe availability crisis exists with residential property insurance; if insurance is unaffordable, it is unavailable. Respondent contends that in order to make a determination on the rate filings, it must know the ramifications of the rate hikes on insureds and that public hearings provide an avenue to obtain such information.

    
    

11. Regarding the subtle, but important, factors affecting Respondent's determination of whether a proposed rate is excessive, a public hearing, contends Respondent, would allow Respondent to include the effects of the proposed rate increase on the lives of consumers, removing the effect from only the mathematical or academic arena. Respondent contends that obtaining information of such an effect would include an examination of market conditions, which it is authorized to do by Section 627.062, 2/ and which examination includes reviewing marketing techniques, such as advertising, for misrepresentations by insurers.

    
    

12. As to assisting Respondent to uncover unfair trade practices, Respondent points to "redlining" as an example which in the context of rate increases would encompass the denial of insurance by an insurer to a certain group of people in a given territory because of the increase, i.e., the increase would cause the insurance to be unaffordable and, therefore, unavailable to a certain group of people within a given territory. The insurance code provides a redlining statute 3/ which addresses redlining as the refusal to insure or to continue to insure a risk solely because of certain enumerated factors.

13. Regarding the amelioration of the impact of large rate increases on consumers, Respondent contends that public hearings would provide a forum for the insurer and consumer or insured to freely exchange information and to educate one another on their respective positions and on the effects of a rate increase on both of them. According to Respondent, consumers have a belief that insurers increase rates unreasonably. Additionally, Respondent contends that, through the public hearing, it could direct consumers to less expensive alternatives.

    
    

14. The term "proposed activity" is used in the proposed rule but is not defined by it. Respondent contends that no limits would be placed on the subject matter addressed in the public hearings but that any matter which may have a bearing on any of the items in the proposed rule would be addressed in the public hearings.

    
    

15. Pursuant to Section 627.0613, Florida Statutes, the insurance code provides for an Insurance Consumer Advocate who is authorized to examine rate filings and to make a recommendation to Respondent that the Consumer Advocate deems to be in the public interest. There are approximately 1,200 rate filings a year, and the Consumer Advocate is unable to examine each filing, so he has developed a formula for selecting the rate filings for review. A public hearing on a rate filing would be useful to him in executing his statutory function regarding rate filings; however, such a public hearing is not authorized by Section 627.0613.

    
    

16. American Insurance Association's standing is not at issue in this proceeding.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto, pursuant to Sections

    120.57 and 120.54, Florida Statutes.

    
    

18. Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that a rule is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" if:

    
    

    1. The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in s. 120.54;

    2. The agency has exceeded its grant of rule- making authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7);

    3. The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7);

    4. The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or

    5. The rule is arbitrary or capricious.

       
       

19. As challenger, the burden is upon Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Humana, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Agrico Chemical

    Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. den. 376 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1979).

    
    

20. Petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed rule lacks any rational basis; this standard of review is highly deferential to the agency's decision embodied in the rule's text. Florida League of Cities v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 603 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Generally, an agency's interpretation of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Maclen Rehabilitation Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 588 So.2d 12, 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Woodley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Moreover, an agency's interpretation of a statute need not be the sole possible interpretation or even the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

    
    

    Holding Public Hearings

    
    

21. Petitioner contends that there is no authority for Respondent to hold public hearings on rate filings. Proposed Rule 4-166.051, Florida Administrative Code, provides that its specific authority is derived from Sections 624.308 and 626.9611, Florida Statutes, and cites Sections 624.307, 624.313, 624.315, 624.316, 624.321, 624.324, 626.9541, 626.9641, 627.062, and 627.351(5), Florida Statutes, as the law implemented.

    
    

22. Section 624.0308(1), Florida Statutes, confers upon Respondent the general authority to adopt rules:

    
    

    The department may adopt reasonable rules necessary to effect any of the statutory duties of the department. Such rules shall not extend, modify, or conflict with any law of this state or the reasonable implications of such laws.

    
    

23. Section 626.9611, Florida Statutes, is found in Chapter 626, Part X, Florida Statutes, referred to as the "Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act." Section 626.9611 specifically authorizes Respondent to promulgate rules dealing with the Act:

    
    

    The department may, in accordance with chapter 120, promulgate reasonable rules as are necessary or proper to identify specific methods of competition or acts or practices which are prohibited by s.

    626.9541 or s. 626.9551, but the rules shall not enlarge upon or extend the provisions of ss. 626.9541 and 626.9551.

    
    

    Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes, defines unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and Section 626.9551, Florida Statutes, concerns the coercion of debtors and the act of requiring a consumer to favor a particular agent or insurer. There is no specific authority for the holding of hearings on rate filings in Sections 626.9611, 626.9541, or 626.9551, Florida Statutes.

24. None of the enabling statutes specifically authorize Respondent to hold hearings on rate filings. However, Section 624.324 authorizes Respondent to hold hearings for a purpose "within the scope" of the insurance code:

    
    

    The department may hold hearings for any purpose within the scope of this code deemed to be necessary.

    
    

25. Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, is referred to as the "Rating Law." Section 627.031, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that the purpose of the Rating Law is:

    
    

    1 . . .

    1. To promote the public welfare by regulating insurance rates as herein provided to the end that they shall not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

       * * *

       (d) To authorize cooperation between insurers in ratemaking and other related matters.

       1. It is the purpose of this part to protect policyholders and the public against the adverse effects of excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory insurance rates, and to authorize the department to regulate such rates. If at any time the department has reason to believe any such rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory under the law, it is directed to take the necessary action to cause such rate to comply with the laws of this state.

       2. Nothing in this part shall be construed to repeal or modify the provisions of part X of chapter 626, relating to unfair trade practices.

       
       

26. Section 627.062, Florida Statutes, entitled "Rate standards," proscribes excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory rates for all classes of insurance. Moreover, the statute mandates specific factors for consideration by Respondent in making a determination as to whether a rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory [Section 627.062(2)(b), (c) and (d)] and mandates specific standards, after consideration of the factors, in accordance with generally accepted and reasonable actuarial techniques, as the basis for determining whether a rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

    
    

27. Determining whether a rate filing is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory is within the scope of the insurance code. Additionally, Respondent has deemed it necessary to hold hearings on rate filings. A rational basis exists for holding a hearing on rate filings. Moreover, residential property insurance is a class of insurance for which Respondent may hold hearings.

    
    

    Rate Increase Threshold

    
    

28. Petitioner contends that the rate increase threshold in the proposed rule is vague on its face. Under the proposed rule, Respondent would hold a public hearing when the increase of a rate filing is "25 percent or more and the aggregate amount of such rate increase is $2,000,000 or more, or a rate increase of 50 percent or more." Even though no method for the calculation is provided

    in the proposed rule, Petitioner presented no evidence to contradict Respondent's contention that insurers, using the present methods employed in rate filings, would have no difficulty in determining whether the threshold has been met to trigger a public hearing. 4/ Under the circumstances, the failure of the proposed rule to provide a method of calculation does not cause the proposed rule to be vague on its face. Moreover, the threshold was established as a result of Respondent's experience under a prior emergency rule on the same subject, which had a lower threshold, and of Respondent's attempt to minimize the impact on the insurance industry. Consequently, the threshold established bears a reasonable relationship to the enabling legislation. Importantly, again, the public hearing can only address whether such insurance rates are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

    
    

    Rate Standards

    
    

29. Petitioner contends that the subjects set forth in the proposed rule bear no reasonable relationship to the standards set forth in Section 627.062, Florida Statutes. The mandated rate factors and standards to be used by Respondent in reviewing a rate filing to determine if it is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory are unambiguous and specific. Moreover, the statute allows for no deviation from the factors and standards, except for the factor expressed in Subsection 627.062(2)(b)13 which provides that "other relevant factors which impact upon the frequency or severity of claims or upon expenses" shall be considered and in accordance with generally accepted and reasonable actuarial techniques. Respondent, through the proposed rule, seeks to deviate from those unambiguous and specific rate factors and standards. For instance, a rate filing may have a detrimental effect upon policyholders but not be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory as determined by the statutory rate factors and standards. Petitioner has demonstrated that the subjects set forth in the proposed rule bear no reasonable relationship to the statutory rate factors and standards for determining whether a rate filing is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.

    
    

30. Also, Respondent contends that Section 627.031, Florida Statutes, infra, and Subsection 672.062(2)(g), Florida Statutes, which provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    The department may at any time review a rate, rating scheduling, rating manual, or rate change; the pertinent records of the insurer; and market conditions. If the department finds on a pre- liminary basis that a rate may be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, the department shall initiate proceedings to disapprove the rate and shall so notify the insurer . . . .

    
    

    authorize Respondent to use the subjects set forth in the proposed rule. Respondent's argument is not persuasive. The statutory rate factors and standards set forth in Section 627.062 are the sole criteria, the measuring stick; the information in the categories enumerated in Subsection 627.062(2)(g) must be relevant to and be measured by only those statutory factors and standards. Consequently, the information sought through the public hearing must be relevant and material to the statutory rate factors and standards; any other information is irrelevant and immaterial and to permit Respondent to request and obtain such information is impermissible.

    Group or Geographic Area Impact

    
    

31. Petitioner contends that the provision in the proposed rule that a public hearing is also triggered when a rate "appears to have a significant or disproportionate impact on any group or geographic area" is vague. Its position is predicated on the terms not being defined in the proposed rule. As pointed out earlier, a public hearing on rate filings can only be conducted to determine if the rate is excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. If the subject matter is outside of these restrictions, it cannot be considered in a public hearing on rate filings. Moreover, the statutory rate factors and standards are the sole criteria for determining whether the rates are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. To hold a public hearing under the circumstances proposed by Respondent would be adding an additional subject matter and rate factor and standard not statutorily included and is, therefore, impermissible. Petitioner has shown that no rational relationship has been shown. Accordingly, a public hearing on rate filings cannot be triggered by this proposed circumstance.

    
    

    Costs of the Public Hearing

    
    

32. Petitioner further contends that to require insurers to participate in the public hearing at their own expense, as Respondent has done in the proposed rule, is impermissible. Respondent has no statutory authority for such a provision. Section 624.307, Florida Statutes, which concerns, inter alia, bearing the cost of investigations by Respondent and Section 627.062, Florida Statutes, provide some guidance. Section 624.307 provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    (3) The department may conduct such investiga- tions of insurance matters, in addition to investigations expressly authorized, as it may deem proper to determine whether any person has violated any provision of this code or to secure information useful in the lawful administration of any such provision. The cost of such invest- igations shall be borne by the state.

    
    

    Section 627.062(2) provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    (f) In reviewing a rate filing, the department

    may require the insurer to provide at the insurer's expense all information necessary to evaluate the condition of the company and the reasonableness

    of the filing according to the criteria enumerated in this section.

    
    

    It is clear that Respondent would bear all costs when conducting an investigation. It is equally clear that Respondent may require insurers to bear the cost of providing Respondent the information required under Section 627.062 for the rate filings. Accordingly, as the public hearing would be used to obtain the necessary statutory information, a rational basis exists for Respondent to require insurers to bear the cost of providing such information.

    
    

    Four Purposes of Proposed Rule

    
    

33. Regarding Respondent's enunciated four purposes for the proposed rule, Petitioner has shown that the purposes fail to have a rational basis to the statutory rate factors and standards.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that proposed Rule 4-166.051, Florida Administrative Code, is valid

in part and invalid in part, as heretofore noted in the conclusions of law.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of December 1994.

ERROL H. POWELL

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 2nd day of December 1994.

ENDNOTES

1/ The insurance code is comprised of Chapters 624 through 632, 634, 635, 637,

638, 641, 642, 648 and 651. Section 624.01, F.S.

2/ Subsection 627.062(2)(g), F.S., provides in pertinent part that the "department may at any time review a rate, rating schedule, rating manual, or rate change; the pertinent records of the insurer; and market conditions."

3/ Section 626.9541, F.S.

4/ As indicated in the Preliminary Statement, Petitioner took the position that the issue in this case was one totally of law not of fact and, therefore, presented no witnesses or exhibits.

APPENDIX

The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 16.

2. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3.

3 and 4. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 4.

5 and 6. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 9.

7. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 10.

8 and 9. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 11.

1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 12.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 13.

3. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 14.

4. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 15.

5. Rejected as argument, or conclusion of law.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 10.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 13.

3. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 5.

4. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5.

5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 3.

6 and 7. Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant, or contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

1. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10.

2. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 11 and 12.

10 and 11. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 13.

1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 15.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5.

14 and 16. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 6 and 11.

15. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11.

1. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 12.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 15.

1. (This proposed finding of fact is listed twice. This ruling is applicable to the second proposed finding numbered 18.) Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8.

2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 3.

3. Rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

NOTE--Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas J. Jones, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT

Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Bill O'Neil, Esquire

A. Kenneth Levine Office of Legal Affairs 645A Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307

Tom Gallagher

State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Liz Cloud, Chief

Bureau of Administrative Code Department of State

The Elliot Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules Of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk Of The Division Of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court Of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court Of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Docket for Case No: 94-003474

Orders for Case No: 94-003474