STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
THE SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY OF )
LINCOLN NEBRASKA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 97-1132RU
) DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings held a formal hearing on April 14, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Carolyn S. Holifield, Administrative Law Judge.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Sharon A. DiMuro, Esquire
Granger, Santry, Mitchell, and Heath, P.A.
2833 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308
For Respondent: David Busch, Esquire
Tom Valentine, Esquire Division of Legal Services Larson Building, Room 612
200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether all or part of two statements challenged in the petition of Security Mutual Life Insurance Company violate Section 120.56(4)(d), Florida Statutes, requiring the agency to
immediately discontinue all reliance on the statements as a basis for agency action.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 11, 1997, Petitioner, Security Mutual Life Insurance Company, filed a Petition seeking an administrative determination (1) that three statements of the Department of Insurance and State Treasurer (Department) were agency statements which constitute rules that have not been adopted by the rulemaking procedures provided in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes; and (2) that these statements were being used by the Department in violation of Section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes. By its action, Petitioner seeks an order directing the Department to immediately discontinue reliance on the statements as a basis for agency action.
On April 9, 1997, Petitioner filed a Request for Judicial Notice and Motion for Official Recognition as to twenty-two (22) single annuity policy contracts issued by the Petitioner which had been approved, deemed approved, or simply acknowledged as "filed" in twenty-two (22) other states. The Motion was granted on April 14, 1997, as a matter preliminary to the hearing. However, the contracts were not admitted into evidence on the basis of relevancy.
The parties entered into prehearing stipulations which limited the necessity to establish certain facts at formal hearing. Prior to the presentation of any testimony, a
stipulation was entered regarding one of the three statements challenged as a non-adopted rule. Pursuant to the stipulation, Petitioner withdrew its allegation that the Department had failed to adopt a rule requiring annuity contracts to contain a table of guaranteed values. In return, the Department agreed to advise annuity insurers that their refusal to provide such tables would not serve as a basis for form disapproval.
At hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Linda P. Ziegler. Petitioner had eleven exhibits admitted into evidence, including the deposition transcripts of Ms. Ziegler and Frank P. Dino, Respondent's designated party witnesses. Respondent, Department, presented the expert testimony of its actuaries, Linda P. Ziegler and Frank P. Dino, and had eight exhibits in evidence. A transcript was filed on April 24, 1997, and the proposed final orders were filed by both parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 11, 1997, Petitioner filed a Petition seeking an administrative determination of whether certain agency statements constitute rules. Specifically, Petitioner listed three agency statements and alleged that each constituted a rule pursuant to Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which had not been adopted by the rulemaking procedures provided by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
The challenged statements which remain at issue in this proceeding are: (a) The Department disapproves contract forms
labeled as "single premium annuity" contracts which permit additional contributions after the initial contribution is made; and (b) The Department requires that annuity contracts include a demonstration of compliance with Actuarial Guideline 33 to avoid forms/rates denial.
The Department, through its Bureau of Life and Health Forms and Rates (Bureau), has been delegated the task of reviewing annuity forms (contracts) and rendering approval or disapproval of such forms prior to their being sold in Florida.
As part of its actuarial review of a company's initial product filing in Florida, the Bureau is concerned with (1) whether the policy form title misrepresents the true nature of the policy and (2) whether the form is in compliance with the standard valuation law (CARVM).
SINGLE PREMIUM STATEMENT
A single premium fixed annuity policy" is an annuity policy that requires one single premium payment. If an annuity policy has contract provisions which allow for additional contributions, it is not a single premium contract."
"Single premium contract" is a common generic name in the insurance industry. However, there is no insurance term of art that would allow the word "single," as used in reference to the number of premium payments in such annuity contracts, to mean more than one. This is consistent with the common usage of that
term. In common usage, the term “single” is inconsistent with “multiple”.
Since at least December 1993, the Department has disapproved all contract forms entitled or labeled "Single Premium Annuity" which contain provisions permitting additional contributions after the initial contribution is made. These forms are not approved unless the policy title is modified to accurately reflect the nature and terms of the policy or the provision allowing additional contributions is deleted.
It is misleading to present to an annuity purchaser a policy labeled "single premium annuity," which requires only one premium payment but permits discretionary contributions during the first six months of the policy term.
The potential harm is that the consumer reviewing a policy labeled as a "single premium annuity" might reasonably believe that the contract requires and allows him to make only one premium payment. Thus, the consumer may be encouraged to make a larger contribution than he might otherwise have made if the payments were made over time. Notwithstanding the fact that the consumer is allowed to withdraw his investment, the potential problem is not cured because of the penalty surrender charge imposed on the consumer.
The Bureau has not adopted or published as proposed, a rule which specifically prohibits the inclusion of additional subsequent contributions after an initial contribution is made as
to any annuity contract entitled "single premium" or requiring a contract title modification where the additional contributions provision is not deleted in order to avoid form/rate review disapproval. However, on May 15, 1996, the Department adopted a rule which provides that filing will be disapproved for inconsistencies or ambiguities which are misleading. Rule 4- 149.023(1), Florida Administrative Code.
The provisions of Rule Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the filing procedures to be followed for a complete filing. These requirements are delineated in great detail in Rule 4-149.023 (1), Florida Administrative Code.
The Petitioner was denied rates and forms approval by the Department's Bureau on a single premium annuity contract because the form was misleading. Although the form submitted by Petitioner was titled or labeled as a single premium annuity policy, the contract language allowed policyholders to make additional discretionary contributions after the first contribution.
In denying Petitioner rate and form approval, the Department's decision was based on the misleading nature of its document title, not whether the option provided in the contract, though not included in the title, was a contract benefit or restriction to the policy holder.
GUIDELINE 33 STATEMENT
From the first quarter of 1996 to the present, the Department has routinely and consistently required that annuity contracts include a demonstration of compliance with Actuarial Guideline 33 to avoid forms denial.
Actuarial Guideline 33, adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in March 1995, is published in the 1996 Financial Examiners Handbook, and provides guidance for complying the standard valuation law, commonly referred to as CARVM.
By letter dated February 13, 1997, the Department advised Petitioner that actuarial information previously submitted as to its form filing, did not comply "with the Standard Valuation Law as described in Actuarial Guideline." The letter further advised Petitioner that the contract had not been amended and the description thereof was misleading and in contravention of Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes. The Department determined that the policy provisions were inconsistent with the policy title.
In a letter dated February 20, 1996, the Department advised Petitioner that actuarial information previously submitted as to its Form Number 1807-5/95-FL "did not disclose the assumptions to be used in establishing reserves" and that the "reserve statement did not appear to address testing of the
annuitization options." The letter requested that Petitioner verify compliance with Actuarial Guideline 33.
The Petitioner was denied rates and forms approval by the Bureau a single premium annuity contract filing for failure to provide a demonstration of compliance with the Standard Valuation Law as described in Actuarial Guideline 33. Without rates and forms approval, the Petitioner may not market or sell its single premium annuity contract in Florida.
On March 20, 1997, between the filing of the Petition and the date of the formal hearing in this matter, the Department amended Rule 4-138.001, Florida Administrative Code. The rule amendment essentially incorporated by reference the 1996 Financial Examiners Handbook by reference into the rule. The amended version of the rule became effective April 9, 1997, five days before the final hearing.
Department actuaries who wrote the February 13 and 20, 1996 letters to Petitioner were unaware of the Department's proposed amendment of Rule 4-138.001, Florida Administrative Code, at the time the disapproval letters were written. These actuaries work in the Bureau of Life and Health Forms and Rates and that bureau has not adopted or proposed such a rule.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this
proceeding. Sections 120.54, 120.56 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner has standing to challenge the alleged agency statements at issue in this proceeding. Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part the following:
(a) Any person substantially affected by an agency statement may seek an administrative determination that the statement violates s. 120.54 (1)(a). The petition
. . . shall state with particularity facts sufficient to show that the statement constitutes a rule under s.
120.52 and that the agency has not adopted the statement by the rulemaking procedure provided by s. 120.54.
Standing is determined by whether the Petitioner has been substantially affected by suffering harm or whether the Petitioner will be harmed in the future by being subjected to the direct or collateral effect of regulatory authority on a particular issue. Televisual Communications, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 667 So.2d 372, 374 (FL 1st DCA 1995). In order to have standing, a person's substantial interests may affected by the lack of rule as well as by the implementation of a rule. Federation of Mobile Home Owners, Inv. V. Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., 21 Fla. L. Weekly D 2447.
Petitioner was substantially affected by the Department's disapproval of its forms/rates based on failure to
(1) amend the title of its policy or changes the provisions therein and (2) to provide a demonstration of compliance with the standard valuation law as described in Guideline 33. Without
such approval, Petitioner may not sell such policies in the state. Thus, Petitioner has standing to challenge whether the Department engaged in the use of non-adopted rule policy when it disapproved Petitioner's forms/rates for the reasons stated herein.
To prevail, Petitioner must first establish that the two alleged statements are rules within the meaning of Section 120.523(15), Florida Statutes, which provides:
(15) "Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule.
Only if the alleged statements meet this definition can they be deemed rules which must be adopted through rulemaking procedure as such.
Courts have provided guidance in determining whether an agency statement is a rule. Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 452 So.2d 976 at 977-978 (1st DCA, 1984) the Court, quoting State Department of Administration v. Harvey,
356 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), stated that,
[a]ny agency statement is a rule if it purports in and of itself to create certain rights and adversely affect others' [cite omitted], or serves 'by [its] own effect to create rights, or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law.' [cite omitted]
Once standing is established and the alleged agency statements are determined to be "rules" as defined in Section 120.(1), Florida Statutes, the burden shifts to the Department to show that one of the defenses permissible under Section 120.54(1) or (2), Florida Statutes, are applicable. Pursuant to these provisions, only two defenses may be raised by the Department. The Department may plead that rulemaking was not feasible or it may plead that rulemaking was not practicable.
Sections 120.54(1) and(2), Florida Statutes, provide:
GENERAL PROVISION APPLICABLE TO ALL RULES OTHER THAN EMERGENCY RULES.
Rulemaking is not a matter of agency discretion. Each agency statement defined as a rule by s.120.52 shall be adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided by this section as soon as feasible and practicable.
* * * * *
Rulemaking shall be presumed feasible unless the agency proves that:
The agency has not had sufficient time to acquire the knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address a statement by rulemaking;
Related matters are not sufficiently resolved to enable the agency to address a statement by rulemaking; or
The agency is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address the statement.
Rulemaking shall be presumed practicable to the extent necessary to provide fair notice to affected persons of relevant agency procedures and applicable principles, criteria or standards for agency decisions unless the agency proves that:
Detail or precision in the establishment of principles, criteria, or standards for agency decisions is not reasonable under the circumstances; or
The particular questions addressed are of such a narrow scope that more specific resolution of the matter is impracticable outside of an adjudication
to determine the substantial interest of a party based on individual circumstances.
According to the above-quoted provisions, all agency statements which come within the statutory definition of rule must be adopted by the rulemaking procedures. By the express terms of the statute, the rulemaking requirement is mandatory, not discretionary, and should proceed as soon as feasible and practicable.
Although rulemaking is presumed to be feasible and practicable, the agency may overcome these presumptions by demonstrating that (1) it has not had sufficient time to acquire the knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address a statement by rulemaking; (2) related matters are not sufficiently resolved to enable the agency to address a statement by rulemaking; or (3) the agency is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules. Section 120.54(1)(a),(b), and (c), Florida Statutes.
In order to overcome the presumption that rulemaking is practicable, the agency must prove that detail or precision in the establishment of principles, criteria, and standards for agency decisions is not reasonable; or that particular questions addressed are of such a narrow scope that more specific resolution is impracticable outside of an adjudication to determine the substantial interest based on individual circumstances. Section 120.54(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes.
SINGLE PREMIUM STATEMENT
The statement alleged by Petitioner to be a nonadopted rule policy concerns the labeling of contract forms. Specifically, Petitioner challenged the Department practice of denying approval of a contract form entitled "Single Premium Annuity," where the contract contained provisions which permitted additional contributions after the initial premium payment is made. The Department required that the contract title be altered or that the provision authorizing additional optional contributions be deleted from the contract.
The "single premium statement" which prohibits labeling a multiple premium annuity as a single premium annuity is a rule only if it meets the definition of rule in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the single premium statement does not implement or interpret law. However, it is here where the parties' views of the single premium statements differ. Petitioner's position appears to be that the single premium statement prescribes law or policy, and consequently, it should be promulgated as a rule. However, Petitioner also contends that the Department is currently without authority to promulgate a rule in the area of single premium annuities.
As a basis for its conclusion that the Department lacks such authority, Petitioner relies on the mandate of Section
120.536(1), Florida Statutes, adopted in the 1996 legislative session, which states:
(1) A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt a rule: a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement, interpret, or make specific the particular powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement statutory provision setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than the particular powers and duties conferred by the same statute.
The Petitioner argues that, unless and until the Department is delegated permission by the legislature to set parameters of “defining what optional benefits may not be included in a single premium annuity, the Department will have to cease and desist its practice of disapproving policy forms based on this policy.”
Respondent asserts that the “single premium statement” that resulted in Petitioner’s form being disapproved is, in fact, not a rule within the meaning of Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. In addition to its assertion that the statement neither implements or interprets law, the Department contends that the single premium statement does not prescribe law or policy nor does it describe any agency procedure or practice.
As authority for denying approval of insurance contract forms that contain titles which are inconsistent with the
contract provisions, the Department relies on Sections 627.411(1)(c) and 626.9541(1)(a)5. Florida Statutes.
Section 627.411(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides:
(1) The department shall disapprove any form filed under s. 627.410, or withdraw any previous approval thereof, only if the form:
* * *
Has any title, heading, or other indication of its provisions which is misleading.
Section 626.9541(1)(a)5. Florida Statutes, provides:
(1) Unfair Methods of Competition and Unfair or Deceptive Acts.-The following are defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices:
(a) Misrepresentations and false advertising of insurance policies.-Knowingly making, issuing, circulating, or causing to be made, issued, or circulated, any estimate, illustration, circular, statement, sales presentation, omission, or comparison which:
* * *
5. Uses any name or title of any insurance policy or class of insurance policies misrepresenting the true nature thereof.
In this case, the purported rule does nothing in and of itself or by its own effect. The language contained in Sections 627.411(1)(c) and 626.9541(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, is clear and unambiguous. The statutory prohibitions against using a title on a form which misrepresents its contents applies without rulemaking describing each possible example of using a title to mislead the consumer.
The Department statement relating to single premium annuities is simply the application of a general statutory prohibition. This general statutory prohibition includes this particular case and requires disapproval of forms in all other instances where the title of a contract form is inconsistent with the provisions contained therein.
The “single premium statement” does not interpret or implement law nor does it prescribe law or policy. Hence, the single premium statement is not a rule within the meaning of Section 20.52(15), Florida Statutes.
Having determined that the single premium statement is not a rule, it is unnecessary to determine whether rulemaking was feasible and practicable. Nevertheless, assuming that the single premium statement meets the statutory definition of “rule”, it would not be possible to adopt a rule which would address the specific titles and contract provisions that are misleading and misrepresent the nature of the policy.
Although it is not feasible to promulgate a rule with the specificity apparently desired by Petitioner, a rule implementing Section 627.411, Florida Statutes, is already in place. Rule 4-149,023(1), Florida Administrative Code, adopted on May 15, 1996, like the underlying statute, does not state that an annuity allowing for multiple premiums shall not be labeled “single premium”. However, the rule expressly provides “[F]iling will be disapproved for inconsistencies or ambiguities which are
misleading”. While it would be impossible for the Department to adopt a rule that addresses every conceivable form of misleading title, this rule, puts insurers on reasonable notice that titles of policy forms must be consistent with their contents.
GUIDELINE 33 STATEMENT
The second agency statement that Petitioner alleges is a rule within the meaning of Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, but has not been adopted as such pursuant to Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, involves Actuarial Guideline 33, Which allegedly requires insurers to provide a demonstration of the Standard Valuation Law using the parameters set out in Actuarial Guideline 33 as part of their rate form filings.
Based on the application of Guideline 33, the Department disapproved Petitioner’s rate and form filing, and thus, Petitioner cannot sell its annuity policies in Florida. Petitioner’s substantial interests have been affected by the Department’s application of the Guideline 33 statement.
Next, it must be established that the Guideline 33 statement is a rule within the meaning of Section 120.53(15), Florida Statutes. In applying that definition, it is concluded that Guideline 33 does not interpret or implement law. However, Guideline 33 prescribes Department policy relative to compliance with the Standard Valuation Law and is thus deemed to be a rule which must be adopted by rulemaking procedures.
Rule Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, regulates the form and content of form filing made pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The Department’s currently adopted Rule 4-149.021(1)(b)(8), Florida Administrative Code, requires a demonstration of Compliance with the Standard Valuation Law, but does not mention or require the use of Guideline 33 of the Financial Examiner’s Handbook (1996).
Having determined that the Guideline 33 statement is a rule, it must next be determined whether rulemaking was feasible and practicable. Admittedly, on May 15, 1996, the date Rule 4- 149.021(1)(b)(8), Florida Administrative Code, was adopted, it may not have been feasible to or practicable to incorporate Guideline 33 of the Financial Examiners Handbook (1996) because it had not yet been adopted by the Department in accordance with
S. 624.316(1)(c), Florida Statutes. However, if the Department now wants to require insurer to comply at the time a contract form filing, with Guideline 33, as now adopted by rule 4-138.001, Florida Administrative Code, the Department must modify rule 4- 149.021(8) to incorporate by reference the Financial Examiners Handbook (1996), which includes Guideline 33.
The Department’s contention is that Guideline 33 of the Financial Examiners Handbook (1996) has been adopted pursuant to Rule 4-138.001, Florida Administrative Code, which provides in pertinent part:
NAIC EXAMINERS HANDBOOK ADOPTED. The National
Association of Insurance Commissioners Financial
Examiners handbook (1996) is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference, with the exceptio of Part 8, Appendix A. Financial examinations by the Department shall be performed in substnatial conformity with the methodology outlined in the Handbook, so long as that methodology is consistent with statutory accounting principles and the Florida Insurance Code.
Rule Chapter 4-138, Florida Administrative Code, titled “Financial Examinations and Requirement”, and is inapplicable to form filing procedures. This chapter does not purport to address the Department’s filing requirements. Rather, those requirements are delineated in Rule Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 4-149.021, Florida Administrative Code, a rather lengthy rule that specifically and exhaustively regulates the form and content of health, life and annuity form filings made pursuant to s. 627.410, Florida Statutes, makes no mention of the Guideline 33 requirement.
The Department may engage in rulemaking to adopt Guideline 33 of the Financial Examiners Handbook (1996) by reference to Rule 4138.001, Florida Administrative Code, but it cannot incorporate the material by reference to be used in conjunction with Rule 4-149.021(10)(b)(8), Florida Administrative Code, when the 1996 version of the Handbook didn’t exist as a lawfully adopted version in Florida when Rule 4-149.021(10)(b)(8) took effect. Section 120.54(1)(I), Florida Statutes, states:
(i) A rule may incorporate material by reference but only as the material exists on the date the rule is adopted. For purposes of the rule, changes in the materials are not effective unless the rule is amended
to incorporate the changes. No rule may be amended by reference only. Amendments must set out the amended rule in full in the same manner as required by the State Constitution for laws.
The Department has failed to demonstrate that it currently is engaging in or that it intends in the future to engage in rulemaking to adopt rules incorporating Guideline 33 of the Financial Examiners Handbook (1996) as part of the Bureau of Life and Health Forms and Rates filing procedures, under Rule 4- 149.021(1)(b)(8), Florida Administrative Code, or any other section of Rule Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code.
The Department has not demonstrated that rulemaking to adopt or incorporate by reference Guideline 33 for use in the forms/rates filing process would currently be unfeasible or impracticable, as required by s. 120.54, Florida Statutes.
The Department has also failed to demonstrate that it currently is engaging in or that it intends in the future to engage in rulemaking expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules incorporating Guideline 33 of the Financial Examiners Handbook (1996) as part of the Bureau of Life and Health Forms and Rates filing procedures rule, Rule 4-149.021(1)(b)(8), Florida Administrative Code, or any other section of Rule 4-149.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED THAT:
The Petition is DISMISSED as to the single premium annuity statement.
The Petition is GRANTED as to the Guideline 33 statement and the Department shall immediately discontinue reliance on the Guideline 33 statement as a basis for agency action unless or until it is adopted by rulemaking procedures pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
The request for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee,
Leon County, Florida.
CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Sharon A. DiMuro, Esquire Frank J. Santry, Esquire
GRANGER, SANTRY, MITCHELL, et al
Post Office Box 14129 Tallahassee, Florida 32317
Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance Lower Level-26
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Bill Nelson
State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner
Department of Insurance Lower Level
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 16, 1998 | Record Returned from the First DCA filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1998 | Mandate from the First DCA filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1998 | Opinion (Denial of Fees and Costs is reversed , Remanded for an award of costs and fees, order is otherwise affirmed) filed. |
| Sep. 24, 1997 | Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out. |
| Sep. 03, 1997 | Payment in the amount of $14.00 filed. |
| Aug. 21, 1997 | Supplemental invoice in the amount of $14.00 for indexing sent out. |
| Aug. 21, 1997 | Department`s Opposition to Request to Supplement Record filed. |
| Aug. 21, 1997 | Supplemental Index sent out. |
| Aug. 21, 1997 | Department`s Opposition to Request to Supplement Record filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1997 | Request to Supplement the Record filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1997 | (Petitioner) Request to Supplement the Record filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1997 | Invoice in the amount of $82.00 for indexing sent out. |
| Aug. 12, 1997 | Index sent out. |
| Jun. 26, 1997 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (appellant is ordered to file an amended notice of appeal within 10 days) filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1997 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 1-97-1132. |
| Jun. 24, 1997 | Certificate of Notice of Administrative Cross-Appeal sent out. |
| Jun. 23, 1997 | Notice of Administrative Cross-Appeal (filed by David J. Busch, DOI) filed. |
| Jun. 19, 1997 | Certificate of Notice of Administrative Appeal sent out. |
| Jun. 19, 1997 | Notice of Administrative Appeal (filed by Sharon DiMuro for Appellant) filed. |
| Jun. 16, 1997 | NOTE: Fee`s Case Established: 97-2836F. |
| May 20, 1997 | Order Correcting Final Order sent out. |
| May 19, 1997 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held 4/14/97. |
| May 07, 1997 | Notice of Filing Supplementary Case law Cited in Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order and Memorandum in Support of Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order; Case Law filed. |
| May 06, 1997 | Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order and Memorandum in Support of Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order filed. |
| May 06, 1997 | Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order; Memorandum in Support of Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order filed. |
| May 05, 1997 | Respondent, Department of Insurance Memorandum of Law; Agency`s Proposed Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1997 | Transcript filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1997 | (Respondent) Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 09, 1997 | Notice of Filing Petitioners Amended Request for Admissions and Respondents Answers; Response to First Amended Request for Admissions; First Amended Request for Admissions filed. |
| Apr. 09, 1997 | Deposition of: Frank Peter Dino ; Deposition of: Linda Patricia Ziegler ; Notice of Filing Depositions filed. |
| Apr. 09, 1997 | (Petitioner) Request for Judicial Notice and Motion for Official Recognition; Attachments filed. |
| Apr. 03, 1997 | (Respondent) Response to First Amended Request for Admissions filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1997 | (David Busch) Notice of Appearance (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 20, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 04/14/97; 10:00a.m.; Tallahassee) |
| Mar. 20, 1997 | Order for Accelerated Discovery and for Prehearing Statement sent out. |
| Mar. 19, 1997 | Order of Assignment sent out. |
| Mar. 12, 1997 | Letter to Liz Cloud & Carroll Webb from M. Lockard w/cc: Agency General Counsel sent out. |
| Mar. 11, 1997 | Petition for Administrative Determination of Agency Statement filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 31, 1998 | Mandate | |
| Mar. 13, 1998 | Opinion | |
| May 20, 1997 | Other | |
| May 20, 1997 | Other | |
| May 19, 1997 | DOAH Final Order | Petitioner was denied approval by Department for failure toprovide compliance to Guidline 33 and to amend insurance title and policy. Department must modify Rule 149.021 or discontinue its use regarding Guideline 33 for lack of rulemaking authority. |
| May 19, 1997 | DOAH Final Order | Petitioner was denied approval by Department for failure toprovide compliance to Guidline 33 and to amend insurance title and policy. Department must modify Rule 149.021 or discontinue itsuse regarding Guideline 33 for lack of rulemaking authority. |
