vs. ) CASE NOS. 83-181
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in these cases on July 6 and 7, 1983, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The hearing officially closed September 2, 1983. 1/ Pursuant to leave, the parties here granted through September 2, 1983, to submit proposed findings of fact and Recommended Orders supportive of their respective positions. Petitioner has submitted a proposed Recommended Order which has been considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order. 2/
For Petitioner: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire,
William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire &
R. Terry Butler, Esquire Department of Insurance Suite 413-B, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondents: Carlton P. Maddox, Esquire &
On December 6, 1982, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr. On or about January 10, 1983, Peter Baranowsky, Jr. through his attorney, Carlton P. Maddox, Esquire, filed an answer and petition for Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
On December 22, 1982, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Walter David McCoy. On or about January 17, 1983, Respondent McCoy (a/k/a William David McCoy) through his attorney, Carlton P. Maddox, Esquire, filed an Answer and petition for Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
On January 5, 1983, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Ricky Dale Williams. On or about February 1, 1983, Respondent Williams, through his attorney, Carlton P. Maddox, Esquire, filed an Answer and Petition for Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
On or about April 5, 1983, Carlton P. Maddox, as attorney for each of the above-referred Respondents, filed a Motion for Consolidation and Continuance.
On April 12, 1983, the undersigned Hearing Officer entered an Order granting the continuance and consolidation in the above-styled cause. On April 25, 1983, the undersigned filed an Amended Notice of Hearing scheduling the final hearing in these consolidated cases for July 6, 7 and 8, 1983.
24 documents into evidence. Each Respondent testified on his own behalf and, in addition, called one witness. Respondents introduced 4 documents into evidence.
The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondents' licenses and eligibility for licensure as insurance agents should be revoked or lesser penalties should be imposed based on allegations set forth more particularly hereinafter in detail and as set forth in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
(Peter Baranowsky, Jr.-Case No. 83-181)
At times relevant herein, Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr., was licensed as a general lines insurance agent by the Respondent, Florida Department of Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) At times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Baranowsky, was the general lines agent of record for Okeechobee Insurance Agency located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) In addition to Respondent Baranowsky, unlicensed sales persons were employed at this agency to take insurance applications and perform related clerical duties. In dealing with the public in the business of insurance, unlicensed sales people were acting under Respondent Baranowsky's license and were under his supervision and control. Insurance applications originating at the agency located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida, bear the name of Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr. as agent. Respondent stipulated that witnesses Sandra Frye, Scott Sheer, Deborah Jo Grams, Frances Lemont, Susan Maccarone (Adel), Micaela Estevez (Shorrock), Stephen B. Atkinson, Robert Rigdon, and Georgelyn Hazen all purchased auto insurance at the Okeechobee Insurance Agency - said insurance being purchased under Respondent Baranowsky's general lines license.
Sandra Frye went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida in January, 1982, to purchase full coverage insurance for her 1979 Chevrolet Blazer vehicle. She was interested in purchasing insurance coverage to satisfy the requirements of Ford Motor Credit Company, the company that had loaned funds to finance her vehicle. Ms. Frye did not want to nor did she request to purchase accidental death and disability (AD & D) insurance coverage. Mrs. Frye was sold an AD & D insurance policy with Fortune Life Insurance Company and was charged a premium of $100 for this coverage without her knowledge. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Composite Exhibit 6)
Scott Sheer went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on October 12, 1981 for the purpose of purchasing minimum liability and personal injury protection (PIP) automobile insurance. In addition to the coverage requested by Sheer, he was sold an AD & D policy and was charged a premium of $100 for the AD & D coverage. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 14) When Mr. Sheer became aware that the AD & D coverage was included in the insurance transaction, he informed the sales person who waited on him that he did not desire to purchase AD & D coverage because he had a considerable amount of such insurance through the company that he worked for. Mr. Sheer was informed that the AD & D coverage was free or at no extra charge.
Mr. Sheer filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner's office relative to his insurance purchase from the Okeechobee Insurance Agency. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14)
Deborah Jo Grams went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard on October 27, 1981 for the purchase of automobile insurance desiring to purchase only the minimum insurance required by law. Ms. Grams was sold an AD & D coverage policy without her knowledge and was charged the premium of $100 for the AD & D coverage by Okeechobee Insurance Agency. An examination of the exhibits introduced herein reveal and further corroborates the fact that the Respondent charged Ms. Grams a $100 premium for the AD & D coverage without her knowledge and/or consent. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 16)
Frances Lamont went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard on December 16, 1981 for the purpose of buying the minimum liability and PIP coverage as required by Florida law. Ms. Lamont was sold PIP and liability auto insurance coverage and was further sold an AD & D policy with a premium of $100 charged by Respondent for the AD & D coverage. An examination of the agency file introduced herein reveals that the Respondent sold Ms. Lament an AD & D policy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12)
Susan Adel Bass, a/k/a Susan Maccarone, went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on November 24, 1981 to purchase full coverage automobile insurance. Ms. Adel was quoted a premium of $553 for the full coverage automobile insurance.
Ms. Adel was told that inasmuch as she had only had a Florida drivers' license for one year, there would be a $20 additional premium and another $80 premium based on the fact that she had a high performance car. In actuality, the $100 charge was the premium for the AD & D coverage Ms. Adel was sold without her knowledge and against her will. In this regard, Ms. Adel noted that on the insurance receipt given when she made a $293 downpayment, whereas only
$193 was noted as the amount of her downpayment. Ms. Adel was offered the explanation respecting the $20 additional fee for the fact that she was a new licensee in Florida and the additional premium charge for the high performance vehicle which she was insuring. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) The explanation was not true.
Micaela Estevez (Shorrock) went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on May 9, 1889 for the purpose of purchasing automobile insurance. Ms. Estevez asked to buy PIP insurance. When she was told that due to the fact that her car was being financed, it was necessary for her to purchase full coverage. Ms. Estevez was quoted a premium of $571.
Ms. Estevez was sold both an automobile club membership and AD & D coverage and was charged premiums of $45 and $75 respectively for such coverage. Ms. Estevez was unaware that there was an extra charge for the AD & D coverage and the motorclub membership, and did not desire to purchase either the AD & D coverage or membership in the motorclub.
Karen Muscato went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on July 7, 1981 for the purpose of purchasing automobile Insurance. Ms. Muscato told the sales person at Okeechobee Insurance Agency that she wanted the minimum coverage to keep her 1967 Dodge automobile on the road. Ms. Muscato was charged a premium of $100 for a one year membership with the American Touring Association which included an AD & D benefit package. An examination of the agency file introduced herein corroborates the fact that Ms. Muscato was charged a $100 premium for the American Touring Association membership which included the AD & D insurance coverage. Ms. Muscato also made subsequent visits to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on October 23, 1981 and April 1, 1982 and, on each occasion, she was charged a $100 premium for an AD & D policy from Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (1981) and from Fortune Life Insurance Company (1982) for the AD & D coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22) Ms. Muscato neither requested nor did she desire to purchase AD & D coverage. (Testimony of Ms. Muscato)
Stephen B. Atkinson purchased auto insurance from the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard during the years 1979, 1980 and 1981. Mr. Atkinson only wanted to purchase the minimum insurance which would enable him to purchase a license plate for his vehicle. During 1980, Mr. Atkinson paid Okeechobee Insurance Agency a $90 premium for a membership in the Congressional Motor Club and $100 during 1981 for either a motorclub membership and/or an AD & D coverage policy. The evidence herein is unrefuted that the Respondent requested only PIP or "tag insurance" only. Mr. Atkinson purchased the additional coverage for the motorclub membership or the AD & D policy without his knowledge and/or consent. He was unaware of these purchases until he was contacted by a representative from the Insurance Commissioner's Office. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 24)
Robert Rigdon went to Okeechobee Insurance Agency on October 31, 1981 for the specific purpose of purchasing PIP automobile insurance. This purpose was specifically communicated to the staff person at Okeechobee Insurance and despite this specific request, Robert Rigdon was sold an AD & D policy and charged a premium of $100 to purchase the AD & D coverage. Robert Rigdon was unaware that he was purchasing this coverage and would not have paid the separate $100 premium for the AD & D coverage. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13)
Georgelyn T. Hazen went to Okeechobee Insurance Agency on December 18 for the specific purpose of purchasing only that insurance required by the State to operate a vehicle. Despite a specific request by Ms. Hazen, she was sold a policy with an AD & D coverage and was charged a premium of $50 for the AD & D coverage. Ms. Hazen would not have knowingly purchased AD & D coverage because she had plenty of life insurance. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9)
Gail Colella worked as an unlicensed sales person at the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard during the period April through October, 1981. She worked under the supervision of general lines agent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr. While working for Okeechobee Insurance Agency, she waited on customers; sold them automobile insurance including liability, comprehensive, collision and PIP. She also sold accidental death and dismemberment insurance policies. When an individual came to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency and
requested a quote for the PIP insurance or the minimum insurance required by Florida law, Ms. Colella, following office procedures, would give a combined quote including the premium for both PIP and AD & D coverages. The specific charge for the AD & D coverage would not be broken out in the quote, however it was added to the quote for the PIP coverage.
THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION
Peter Baranowsky, Jr. has been a general lines agent with Okeechobee Insurance Agency in excess of three years. Nonlicensed employees of Okeechobee Insurance Agency worked under the auspices of the Respondent's license and were subject to his supervision and control. Respondent Baranowsky instructed agents on the manner of selling insurance including the preparation of a summary sheet advising employees of coverages. Baranowsky provides general supervision for employees who are not licensed and has instructed such employees to read verbatim from the coverage summary sheet prepared by the Okeechobee Insurance Agency. For his efforts, Respondent Baranowsky receives a salary and a commission based on the AD & D policies sold through Okeechobee Insurance Agency.
Factual Conclusions
From the foregoing facts, it is herein concluded that each of the above-referred witnesses who testified at the hearing herein went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency to purchase specific types of coverages and requested quotes thereon. In each instance, the customers were given quotes for not only the requested coverage but also for either accidental death and dismemberment coverage and/or membership fees for enrollment in a motorclub. In each of the transactions, the customers relied on the staff at Okeechobee Insurance Agency in the preparation of the quotes and they were not advised that they were being sold additional coverages which they had neither requested and for a substantial fee for such coverages. The manner in which these additional coverages were sold to unsuspecting customers evinces a model of deception.
This method of operation continued over a period of approximately three years from 1979 through 1982 and reflects an extended scheme whereby the above- referred customers were misled and deceived as to the actual costs of the automobile insurance they sought to purchase.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr., was licensed as a general lines agent and was employed, during times material herein, at the Okeechobee Insurance Agency located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was the general lines agent at the subject location and was responsible for securing insurance business in that particular agency location. As such, the Respondent is subject to the disciplinary guides of Section 626.621 and 626.611, Florida Statutes. Those sections authorize the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, to suspend, revoke or otherwise discipline a licensee for any grounds listed therein. 3/ Pursuant to Administrative Complaint number
82-L-281S filed December 6, 1982, Petitioner seeks disciplinary action against Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr.
Petitioner failed to introduce evidence in support of Counts IV, VIII, IX, XII, XIV, and XVII. Accordingly, those Counts are DISMISSED.
As the general lines agent of record, Mr. Peter Baranowsky, Jr., is responsible for the acts and conduct of those persons under his supervision. Lash, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, it is herein concluded that the Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr., violated different provisions of the insurance licensing law, to wit: a) engaged in willful and deceptive acts with regard to an insurance policy in violation of Section 626.611(5), Florida Statutes; b) demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes: c) engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices in violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes; d) engaged in unfair or deceptive acts and methods prohibitive under Part 7 of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes); e) engaged in unfair methods and deceptive acts and practices involving the business of insurance in violation of Section 626.9521, Florida Statutes; f) knowingly made false or fraudulent statements or representations in or with reference to applications or negotiations for insurance in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(a), Florida Statutes; g) knowingly collected a sum as a premium or charge for insurance in excess of the premium or charge applicable to such insurance in violation of Section 626.9541(15)(b), Florida Statutes.
Based thereon, Respondent wilfully violated an Order, rule or provisions of the insurance code in violation of Section 626.611(13) Florida Statutes; circumvented the prohibitions of the insurance code in violation of Section 626.611(4), Florida Statutes and violated provisions of the insurance code in violation of Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, factual conclusions and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED
That the Respondents', Peter Baranowsky, Jr., license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida he REVOKED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
(Walter David McCoy a/k/a William D. McCoy-Case No. 83-194)
At times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein, as amended, Respondent, Walter David McCoy (a/k/a William David McCoy) was a licensed general lines agent by the Florida Department of Insurance. (Admitted in Answer and Petition for Hearing)
Respondent was the general lines agent of record for the Okeechobee Insurance Agency, Inc. d/b/a State Motorclub, Inc., doing business at 3735 South Military Trail, Lake Worth, Florida.
Suzanne Burch went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Military Trail in Lake Worth for the purpose of purchasing liability and PIP insurance
coverage on October 7, 1980. She was told by the staff person on duty at the subject agency that they could provide her with the insurance she requested and provided several blank documents for her signature. Ms. Burch executed the blank documents as requested. Despite Ms. Burch's specific request for liability and PIP insurance coverage, she was sold an accidental death and dismemberment (AD & D) insurance policy and was charged a premium of $100 for the AD & D coverage.
Ms. Burch did not request to purchase AD & D coverage when she went to the above-referenced Okeechobee Insurance agency and it was not explained to her that she was paying for AD & D insurance coverage. Likewise, Ms. Burch did not realize that she had incurred an additional $100 charge for AD & D coverage until contacted by an agent of the Insurance Commissioner's office. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 18) Ms. Burch would not have purchased the AD & D coverage had she known that she was paying to purchase such coverage.
Cindy Milling (Lawrence) was an employee of the subject office of the Okeechobee Insurance Agency in October, 1989. Ms. Milling was an unlicensed person whose duties included taking insurance applications and executing the necessary forms under the general supervision of Respondent, William David McCoy. Milling was authorized to sign Respondent's name and Respondent voiced no objection to the manner in which Ms. Milling sold insurance to Susan Burch. (TR 62-63)
On August 30, 1978, a Felony Information filed in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Columbia County, Florida, charged in Case No. 78-I85CF, that the Respondent, William David McCoy (a/k/a Walter David McCoy) did commit two felonies in the State of Florida. One felony was that of being in unlawful possession of more than five (5) grams of cannabis, in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes; the other felony was that the Respondent was unlawfully in possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Respondent McCoy was found and adjudicated guilty by a jury on both of the aforementioned felony charges and sentenced by a circuit judge in the Circuit Court of Columbia County, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1)
The pleadings throughout refer to Respondent as Walter David McCoy. An examination of the pleadings and the Respondent's admission herein leads to the conclusion that the Respondent's real name is William David McCoy and the
Respondent did not contest or otherwise claim that Walter David McCoy is someone other than himself, William David McCoy. 4/
RESPONDENT'S POSITION
Walter McCoy is a licensed 220 general lines agent and has been so licensed in excess of fifteen years. He has been licensed at the subject agency since approximately 1980.
Respondent acknowledged that he was convicted of a felony in 1978 in north Florida and specifically Columbia County Florida. However, he states that the Fraud Commission was aware of his problems and the Fraud Commission did not question him about his legal problems. Finally, Respondent acknowledged that he authorized Cynthia Milling to sell insurance under his supervision and he did not object to the manner in which Ms. Milling sold insurance at the subject office where he is the general lines agent of record for that agency.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Respondent, William David McCoy, as the general lines agent of record for Okeechobee Insurance Agency at 3735 South Military Trail, Lake Worth, Florida, is subject to the disciplinary guides of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
Section 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Petitioner to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline a licensee for engaging in acts and/or conduct violative of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
Petitioner presented no evidence in support of Counts I, III, or IV of the original Administrative Complaint filed herein and accordingly, those Counts are herein DISMISSED.
Insufficient evidence was offered herein to sustain the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Accordingly, Count V is hereby DISMISSED.
Respondent violated separate provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, to wit: a) engaged in deceptive acts with regard to the purchase of an insurance policy by Susan Burch in violation of Section 626.611(5), Florida Statutes; b) engaged in a dishonest practice in the sale of insurance to Susan Burch in violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes; c) willfully violated a provision of the insurance code in violation of Section 626.611(13) Florida Statutes; d) engaged in an unfair or deceptive act prohibitive under Part 6 of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes; e) engaged in a deceptive act or practice involving the business of insurance in violation of Section 626.9521, Florida Statutes; f) knowingly made false representations with reference to the Susan Burch application or negotiation for insurance in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(a), Florida Statutes; g) violated a Provision of the insurance code in violation of Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes; h) has demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent, by its agent/employee, Cindy Milling Lawrence, sold AD & D coverage to Ms. Burch without her knowledge or consent. Respondent is responsible for the conduct of his employee while she acted under his supervision. Lash, Inc.
v. Department of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982).
Competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent has been convicted of two felonies in Florida in violation of Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes and 626.621(8), Florida Statutes. 5/
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent's licenses as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be REVOKED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
(Ricky Dale Williams-Case No. 83-397)
At times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint filed herein Respondent, Ricky Dale Williams, was licensed as a general lines agent and was the agent of record for Okeechobee Insurance Agency's office located at 2723 Broadway Street, Riviera Beach, Florida.
On December 8, 1981, Carroll Knicely went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency at Broadway Street in Riviera Beach, Florida for the purpose of purchasing automobile insurance. Mr. Knicely was sold insurance directly by Respondent, Ricky Dale Williams. Mr. Knicely indicated his desire to purchase liability, bodily injury, comprehensive, collision and PIP insurance coverage. Respondent prepared notes and quoted Mr. Knicely a premium for coverage. Mr. Knicely paid the entire premium and signed several blank documents at the Respondent's request. The Respondent's agency file for Carroll Knicely (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 21) indicates that the charged premium for the automobile insurance purchased by Mr. Knicely included the AD & D coverage. Despite Mr. Knicely's request to only purchase automobile insurance, Respondent sold him an accidental death and dismemberment policy issued by Fortune Life Insurance Company and was charged a premium of $50 for the AD & D coverage.
Mr. Knicely was not aware that he was paying for AD & D coverage and would not have purchased life insurance through the Respondent's agency inasmuch as he had adequate and substantial life insurance in force. (TR 242)
RESPONDENT'S POSITION
Respondent, Ricky Dale Williams, was familiar with the Knicely insurance transaction.
Respondent acknowledges that he did not break down all costs in the summary of charges sheet - a form used by the agency and further admits that he did not interpret full coverage to include accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage. Respondent admits that AD & D coverage is separate and distinct from the automobile coverage that Mr. Knicely purchased.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The Respondent, a licensed general lines 220 agent, is subject to the disciplinary guides of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
Sections 626.611 and 626.621 authorize the Petitioner to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the insurance licensees in this State.
Competent and substantial evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent violated separate provisions of the Florida insurance code, to wit:
a) engaged in willful or deceptive practices with regard to the insurance policies sold to Carroll Knicely on December 8, 1981 in violation of Section 626.611(5), Florida Statutes; b) engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices in the sale of the subject auto insurance to Carroll Knicely in violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes; c) thereby violated a provision of the insurance code in violation of Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes; d) violated a provision of the insurance code based on the manner in which the AD & D coverage was sold to Carroll Knicely in violation of Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes; e) engaged in an unfair practice prohibited under Part 6 of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes; f) knowingly made false or fraudulent representations with reference to the Carroll Knicely application or negotiation for insurance in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(a), Florida Statutes.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED:
That the Respondent's license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of two (2) years.
RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1984.
1/ The parties waived the time requirement that a Recommended Order be entered herein within thirty days following receipt of the transcript of the proceedings.
2/ To the extent that the Petitioner's proposed findings, etc. contained in its Recommended Order are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, said proposed findings, etc. were deemed either irrelevant, immaterial or not otherwise supported by record evidence.
3/ Administrative notice was taken of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
4/ Based on this fact, the names Walter McCoy and William McCoy are interchangeably used herein.
5/ At the hearing, Respondent's counsel filed an ore tenus Motion to Dismiss Count VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint alleging that the Respondent had been convicted of two felonies in 1978 and was adjudged guilty of each and sentenced on March 26, 1979. After due consideration, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.
Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire
R. Terry Butler, Esquire Department of Insurance Suite 413-B, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Carlton P. Maddox, Esquire Lawrence Kopelman, Esquire
320 E. Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
