STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ED MORSE CHEVROLET OF SEMINOLE, ) INC., and GENERAL MOTORS )

CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-3523

) JIM QUINLAN CHEVROLET, INC. and ) DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY and ) MOTOR VEHICLES, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on May 1-4, 1989, at Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Dean Bunch, Esquire

101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Vasilis C. Kastafanas, Esquire Post Office Box 1873

Orlando, Florida 32802

William J. Whalen, Esquire New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232

For Respondents: Joseph H. Letzer, Esquire

Robert H. Rutherford, Esquire 3000 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35202

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Ed Morse Chevrolet should be granted a license to establish a new Chevrolet dealership in Seminole, Florida. If existing Chevrolet dealers are not providing adequate representation in the relevant territory or community the application should be granted.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated January 14, 1988, the Director, of Florida Division of Motor Vehicles requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to provide a Hearing Officer for a Chapter 120 hearing. Forwarded therewith was the application of Ed Morse Chevrolet of Seminole, Inc., for a license as a franchised motor vehicle dealer for the Chevrolet division of General Motors Corporation (GM) together with letter from Ross Chevrolet, Inc. (Ross), and Jim Quinlan Chevrolet Company (Quinlan) protesting the issuance of a new Chevrolet dealer license for Ed Morse Chevrolet of Seminole (Morse) and each requested a Chapter 120.57(1) proceeding to determine whether a motor vehicle dealer license should be issued. Subsequent to filing the protest Ross was sold, and the purchaser, Mahan, did not pursue the protest.

The case was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer who scheduled a prehearing conference to establish a time frame for the completion of discovery, to prepare for the forth coming hearing, and to establish a date certain for the hearing. At the request of the parties, the initial date of hearing was continued until May 1, 1989 at which time it was held.

Between the prehearing conference and the final hearing, numerous motions pertaining to discovery were resolved as was Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, in which it was alleged that Morse Chevrolet had not timely petitioned for a hearing as required by Rule 221-6.16, Florida Administrative Code. By Order dated October 7, 1988, the motion was denied.

These proceedings were initiated by Ross and Quinlan requesting a hearing to challenge the granting of a license to Morse and not by Morse petitioning for a hearing. Although this allegation of lack of jurisdiction is listed as an issue in Respondent's proposed recommended order, that issue was resolved by Order entered October 7, 1988.

At the hearing, expert witnesses' direct testimony was prepared and filed before the hearing; this testimony was adopted by the witnesses at the hearing; and cross-examination followed. During these proceedings, Petitioner called three witnesses, including Respondent Quinlan, Respondent called eight witnesses, Petitioner called two rebuttal witnesses and Respondent was allowed to call one surrebuttal witness. Petitioner's Exhibits GM1-17 were admitted and Respondent's Exhibits R1-37A were admitted into evidence.

Proposed findings have been submitted by the parties. Treatment accorded those proposed findings is contained in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Morse's application seeks a motor vehicle license for a new Chevrolet dealership at 8350 Park Boulevard, Seminole, Pinellas County, Florida.

   
   

2. Quinlan and Ross, each a licensed dealer at the time of the filing of the application, separately filed letters of protest to the application and the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing. When Ross was purchased by Mahan, that protest was dropped.

   
   

3. The Tampa Bay area is a Multiple Dealer Area (MDA) with each of the existing eight Chevrolet dealers/franchises covering all of Pinellas County and large portions of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. Four of these dealers, Quinlan, Ross (now Maher), Tarpon and Dimitt are located on U.S. 19 in Pinellas

   County. Tarpon is located at approximately 21.8 miles north, Dimitt is located approximately 12.4 miles north, Quinlan is located approximately 6.4 miles north, and Maher is located approximately 7 miles southeast, respectively, of the proposed Morse location.

   
   

4. It is appropriate to consider the contractual area assigned to multiple dealers, the Tampa MDA, in determining which area they should attempt to service. Since no one from GM ever informed any representative of these dealerships that they would be judged by looking at an area smaller than the Tampa MDA, Respondent contends it would now be unfair to consider other than the entire area in which they contracted to serve to determine whether GM was being adequately represented.

   
   

5. GM, on the other hand, points out that dealers surrounding the Tampa MDA are not included within any homogeneous, interconnected shopping area within the Chevrolet, Tampa MDA and are not part of the relevant community or territory. Further, in the Tampa MDA, a natural barrier, Tampa Bay, separates Hillsborough County from Pinellas County and there is little cross-shopping for automobiles between dealers in the areas on opposite sides of Tampa Bay.

   
   

6. The Tampa MDA is broken down into Areas of Geographic Sales and Services Advantage, (AGSSA) each representing an area where a dealer enjoys a competitive advantage over other dealers of the same line-make due to geographic locations, viz. proximity to the dealer.

   
   

7. AGSSA 1 is the northern part of Clearwater, plus eastern Pinellas and Hernando Counties, in the area of Dimitt Chevrolet. AGSSA 2 is the southern part of Clearwater in the area of Quinlan Chevrolet. AGSSA 3 is the Seminole area of Pinellas County in the area of the proposed Morse dealership. AGSSA 4 is the southern part of Pinellas County, including St. Petersburg, in the area of Maher Chevrolet. AGSSA's 5, 6, 7, and 10 are generally located in Hillsborough County. AGSSA 8 is northern Pinellas and southern Pasco County in the area of Tarpon Chevrolet. AGSSA 9 is northern Pasco County and includes Harbor Chevrolet in Hudson. AGSSA's 3 and 10 are currently open points.

   
   

8. AGSSA's are comprised of census tracts or, where census tracts cannot be used, other geographic descriptions, such as zip codes, C-towns and NTC's.

   
   

9. Based on customer buying patterns, there are three separate market areas within the Chevrolet Tampa MDA. AGSSA's 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 (St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Tarpon Springs (on the west side of Tampa Bay) is one distinct market while AGSSA's 5, 6, 7 and 10 (Tampa and Brandon) constitute a separate area. AGSSA 9 (Hudson) constitute a separate but less distinct area than the other two larger areas.

   
   

10. GM concedes that Quinlan Chevrolet and the other Chevrolet dealers in Pinellas County have complied with terms of their dealership agreement with GM; that these dealers' sales and service facilities comply with the minimum standards established by GM; and that each is adequately representing the AGSSA in which it is located. The three dealerships closest to the proposed site were each rated effective dealers by GM in 1987.

    
    

11. Respondent contends that no "identified plot not yet cultivated" exists in AGSSA 3. To support this position is the fact that only one other AGSSA in the Tampa MDA (AGSSA 7) outperformed AGSSA 3 in 1987; Chevrolet registrations in AGSSA 3 (where no dealer is located) were better than in AGSSA

    2 and 4 (where Quinlan and Maher are located); and were better than the Tampa

    MDA rate. Yet the buy-rate analysis, which refers to the number of households in an area divided by the number of registrations in that area, for AGSSA 3 shows that it takes 131 households before one Chevrolet retail registration occurs, while the buy-rate for the Tampa MDA is 113.89. This fact supports GM's position that the area (AGSSA 3) is underrepresented rather than the populace does not buy as many cars per household or that households in AGSSA 3 are adverse to buying Chevrolet automobiles.

    
    

12. Of the five AGSSA'S in Pinellas community or territory, Chevrolet is represented by a dealer located in all but AGSSA 3.

    
    

13. Vehicle registration data compiled by R.L. Polk was used by GM and Quinlan in their respective analyses and is accepted as an authoritative source of such data within the automobile industry.

    
    

14. The evidence here submitted clearly proves the proposition that statisticians and economists can, by selecting from the same pool of data, arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions and opine that their determination is the only appropriate conclusion to reach.

    
    

15. GM contends that the national average retail market penetration is the proper standard by which to compare the penetration in AGSSA 3, while Quinlan contends the Tampa MDA penetration rate is the proper standard. Without detailing the extensive testimony presented to support the opinion of the respective experts, it is sufficient to say the national penetration standard is accepted as the appropriate standard.

    
    

16. Chevrolet market penetration for both cars and trucks, for the Pinellas community or territory and the Tampa MDA has been substantially lower than the national average since 1986.

    
    

17. In comparison to all other Florida markets, both the Pinellas community or territory and the Tampa MDA are generally in the bottom third of all markets while over 40 markets for cars and over 35 for trucks in Florida equal or exceed the national average penetration for Chevrolet.

    
    

18. As a general rule, penetration rates are higher in single dealer areas than in multiple dealer areas.

    
    

19. Considerable evidence was submitted that Chevrolet sales, i.e. penetration, was higher in inland areas than in coastal areas where foreign imports have had the greatest impact on car sales. Since Tampa MDA is a coastal area, Quinlan contends that the penetration rate in the Tampa MDA and AGSSA 3 should be compared with other coastal areas. Quinlan selected 6 MDA's, of the

    11 having the lowest penetration rates by Chevrolet in the entire United States, to prove that the penetration rate in the Tampa MDA and AGSSA 3 is well above the average of those 6 selected and, therefore, AGSSA 3 is not underrepresented.

    
    

20. GM, on the other hand, offered the comparison of the Chevrolet penetration rate in Pensacola, which is well above the national average, to the Tampa MDA and AGSSA 3 penetration rates to show AGSSA 3 is underrepresented. Both of these examples represent extremes and confirm the validity of the national average penetration as the appropriate norm. Using this norm, Chevrolet is underrepresented in AGSSA 3.

    
    

21. GM presented evidence showing product popularity, age and income statistics of the Pinellas community compared to the nation. By dividing

    automobiles into five groups comprising subcompact, compact, mid-size, regular and high group, GM presented statistical evidence showing that the differences between the sales of these classes of vehicles in the Pinellas community and nationwide was small during the years 1986, 1987 and the first six months of 1988. Similar evidence was presented regarding truck sales. Respondent points out that the disparity in price of vehicles within each class casts doubt upon the validity of these classifications. For example, expensive sports cars are frequently classed as compact or subcompact, whereas their retail price exceeds the price of many vehicles included in the high group.

    
    

22. Statistical evidence was presented by GM comparing the age of residents of the Pinellas community and AGSSA 3 with the population age nationwide to determine if these differences could account for the low penetration of Chevrolet products in the area in question. Again, no statistical difference in resident's ages was found to account for the low penetration rate compared to the national average. Respondent contends these comparisons are invalid and irrelevant because nationwide Chevrolet sales are higher in the 16-24 and 25-34 age groups which age groups are vastly underrepresented in AGSSA 3.

    
    

23. GM also presented statistical evidence comparing the income of the residents of the Pinellas community and AGSSA 3 with the national average income. These comparisons are sufficiently close that the low penetration rate in Pinellas County compared to national average cannot be explained by income characteristics. However, those with annual income below $15,000 were omitted in the comparison. Respondent points out that many elderly residents of Pinellas County with incomes less than $15,000 annually could well have substantial savings and be economically capable of purchasing a new automobile. Neither party presented hard evidence to support their opinions regarding the validity of not including those with annual incomes of less than $15,000. However, it is noted that elderly people with substantial assets have some, if not most, of those assets producing income which, when added to social security benefits, could easily exceed $15,000 annually.

    
    

24. Between 1970 and 1988, the population of the Pinellas community comprising AGSSA's 1-4 and 8 has increased from 582,232 to 910,310. During the same period, households increased from 222,827 to 417,202. Since 1970, the number of Chevrolet dealers in this area has held steady at four.

    
    

25. The growth of these five AGSSA's have leveled off during the past few years and the area is no longer a rapid population growth area. Respondent submitted evidence that AGSSA's 2 and 4, those closest to the proposed new dealer location, have reached a near saturation point in population. However, these were opinions of individuals residing in the area and were not supported by numbers of building permits issued, changes in telephone and cable TV subscribers, etc.

    
    

26. Automobile buyers today shop competitively to obtain the best price for a specific car. A 1983 survey by J.D. Power nationwide shows some 58 percent of Chevrolet buyers visited at least one dealer of another brand before buying a Chevrolet. Existing dealers in the Tampa MDA who testified in these proceedings were unanimous that there is keen competition among dealers for the new car buyer and that most buyers visit several dealers looking for the best price for the car they ultimately buy. An additional dealer will, to some extent, increase this competition between dealers.

27. However, this competition is not just between the same line-make dealers. It is between all dealers selling cars in the price range in which the buyer is looking. It is not inconceivable that GM is looking to recapture some of the market share it lost to foreign imports during the last twenty years. By consolidating some of their operations with Japanese car makers, purchasing Japanese developed engines for some GM cars, and manufacturing components overseas for GM cars assembled in this country, GM has positioned itself to compete more effectively against foreign imports. AGSSA 3 is one location that could contribute to this endeavor.

    
    

28. Respondent contends the appropriate way to measure the Tampa MDA Chevrolet dealers' performance is to compare their performance, in terms of penetration rates, against other similar MDA's. This is done through regression analysis.

    
    

29. The regression analysis performed by Respondent's expert used penetration rates in 158 MDA's nationwide. By selecting MDA's from this group and labeling them comparable to the Tampa MDA, a reasonable penetration rate for the Tampa MDA was found to be 8.51 percent in 1987 and 8.60 percent for the first six months in 1988. Selecting different "comparables" would have resulted in a different "reasonable" penetration rate. By carefully selecting the MDA's to be used as comparables almost any "reasonable" penetration rate can be found.

    
    

30. Respondent also challenges GM's use of six months registration data through June of 1988 alleging that it is flawed because seasonal factors were not considered which might influence or alter the penetration rates actually obtained by GM for the entire 1988. While this is true, no evidence was submitted to establish a seasonal pattern of car registrations in the Tampa MDA which would indicate inaccuracy in the use of such six months data.

    
    

31. Respondent contends GM should compare penetration rates in Tampa MDA with other coastal MDAs where Chevrolet penetration rates are below the national average and to correct for the penetration rates and markets where GM has manufacturing/assembly facilities for that line-make where the penetration rates are high. If this line of reasoning is followed, GM would never be able to demonstrate need for a new dealer.

    
    

32. Respondent attributed road construction along U.S. 19 to loss of business for Quinlan for the past two years this widening of U.S. 19 has been ongoing. While this widening of U.S. 19 undoubtedly disrupted customers coming to Quinlan's showrooms, the construction also affected the other dealers along

    U.S. 19. No evidence was presented to show the dollar value lost to Quinlan, or the sales drop for new Chevrolets during this construction work. The fact that this road construction slowed and inconvenienced vehicular traffic on U.S. 19 in Pinellas County is not disputed.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

33. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

34. Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, establishes the following standards for issuance of a motor vehicle dealer license:

    
    

    The department shall deny an application for a motor vehicle dealer license in any community or territory where the licensee's presently

    licensed franchised motor vehicle dealer or dealers have complied with licensee's agreements and are providing adequate representation in the community or territory for such licensee. The burden of proof in showing inadequate representation shall be on the licensee.

    
    

    No assertion has been made that existing dealers have not complied with their Dealer Sales and Services Agreements. Accordingly, the sole issue is whether the existing dealers "are providing adequate representation in the community or territory."

    
    

35. Although the term "community or territory" is not defined by statute, it is not unfamiliar to the courts. The District Court of Appeal has held that the "community or territory" may comprise an "identifiable plot not yet cultivated, which could be expected to flourish if given the attention which the others in their turn received. . . ." Bill Kelly Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 332 So.2d 50 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

    
    

36. Inadequacy of representation can be demonstrated either in the territory as a whole, or in an identifiable plot. If there is inadequate representation in the territory or community as a whole, there is no need to determine whether an identifiable plot exists. Days Inn Toyota v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 342 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983)

    
    

37. That portion of the Tampa MDA on the west side of Tampa Bay, (AGSSA's 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8) was held to be the relevant community or territory in Seascrest Cadillac, Inc., and General Motors Corporation v. Larry Dimitt Cadillac, DOAH Case No. 88-2252, Final Order dated May 15, 1989, although the Respondent there, as here, contended that the appropriate territory was the contractual Tampa MDA. Because of the geographical division of the Tampa MDA by Tampa Bay and the unrebutted evidence that Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties comprise two distinct automobile shopping areas, the Pinellas community or territory comprised of AGSSA's 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 constitutes the appropriate territory in which to determine whether Chevrolet is adequately represented.

    
    

38. Petitioner has the burden of proving inadequate representation in the community or territory and this proof is by the preponderance of the evidence standard. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d

    349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

    
    

39. The territory comprising AGSSA's 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 has, since 1970, nearly doubled in population and households while the number of Chevrolet dealers has remained at four. Further, Chevrolet new car registration in this territory has remained well below the national penetration average for the past two and one-half years with the Chevrolet dealers located in AGSSA's 1, 2, 4 and 8.

    
    

40. From the foregoing, it is concluded that existing Chevrolet dealers are providing inadequate representation in the Pinellas community or territory comprised of AGSSA's 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 and that a new point Chevrolet dealer should be established in AGSSA 3.

RECOMMENDATION

It is Recommended that the application of Morse Chevrolet, Inc., to establish a Chevrolet dealership at 8350 Park Boulevard, Seminole, Pinellas County, Florida, be GRANTED.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

K. N. AYERS 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 19th day of July, 1989.

APPENDIX

Treatment accorded Petitioner's proposed findings. 1-2. Included H.O.#s 1, 2.

3. Included in Preliminary Statement.

4-6. Included in H.O.#4. 7-8. Included in H.O.# 5.

1. Included in H.O.# 6.

2. Included in H.O.# 7. 11-12. Included in H.O.#8.

1. Included in H.O.#9.

2. Accepted.

3. Included in H.O.#12.

4. Included in H.O.#13. 17-18. Included in H.O.#16.

1. Accepted.

2. Included in H.O.#16. 21-22. Included in H.O.#20.

24. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.#20.

25-26. See H.O.# 14 otherwise included in H.O.# 21.

1. Included in H.O.# 22.

2. Included in H.O.#15.

3. Accepted.

4. Included in H.O.# 16.

5. Included in H.O.# 16.

6. Included in H.O.# 16.

7. Included in H.O.# 15.

8. Accepted that one track in AGSSA 3 exceeding national average is near Quinlan location.

9. Accepted.

10. Accepted.

37. See H.O.# 14.

1. Included in H.O.# 19.

2. Accepted.

40-42. Included in H.O.# 23.

43. Accepted.

44. See H.O.# 14.

1. Included in H.O.# 25.

2. Accepted.

3. Included in H.O.# 23.

48-49. Included in H.O.# 24A.

50. See H.O.# 26. 51-52. See H.O.# 14.

53. See H.O.# 14.

54. See H.O.#s 25-26.

55.-57. Accepted.

1. Included in H.O.# 15.

2. Rejected as mere testimony of witness.

3. Included in H.O.# 5.

4. Included in H.O.# 16.

5. Included in H.O.# 5.

6. Included in H.O.# 18. 64-65. Included in H.O.# 28.

66. Included in H.O.# 29.

67. See H.O.# 14.

68. See H.O.# 14.

1. Included in H.O.# 28.

2. Included in H.O.# 28.

3. Included in H.O.# 21.

4. Rejected as recitation of witness testimony.

5. Included in H.O.# 22.

6. Rejected as recitation of witness testimony. 75-76. Rejected as irrelevant.

Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings

1. Included in H.O.# 4.

2. Included in H.O.# 3.

3. Accepted as grammatically correct.

4. Rejected as opinion.

5. Accepted.

6. Rejected.

9-10. Rejected.

1. Rejected. See H.O.# 11.

2. Included in H.O.# 11.

3. Included except for last sentence which is rejected.

4. Rejected.

5. Included in H.O.# 11.

6. Rejected.

17-18. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.# 24.

1. Rejected as irrelevant.

2. Rejected.

3. Rejected.

4. Accepted as testimony of witness. 23-24. Included in H.O.# 25.

1. Accepted.

2. Accepted.

3. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.# 26.

4. Rejected as immaterial.

5. Included in H.O.# 10.

6. Irrelevant.

7. Included in H.O.# 4. 32-33. Irrelevant.

1. Included in H.O.# 10.

2. Accepted.

3. Accepted. See H.O.#10.

4. Rejected.

38-47. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.# 20, 21 and 22.

1. Rejected.

2. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O.#s 20, 21 and 22.

3. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.# 21, otherwise rejected.

4. Rejected.

52-53. Rejected.

1. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O.# 22.

2. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

3. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

4. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

5. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

6. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

7. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

8. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

62. See H.O.# 14.

63. Rejected.

64. See H.O.# 14.

65. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

66. See H.O.# 14.

1. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

2. Rejected.

3. Accepted except for last sentence. 70-71. Included in H.O.# 3.

72. Accepted.

73 Accepted.

1. Rejected.

2. Rejected.

3. Irrelevant.

4. Irrelevant.

5. Irrelevant.

6. Irrelevant.

7. Rejected.

81. See H.O.# 14.

82. See H.O.# 14.

1. Accepted that market share fluctuations are due to many factors.

2. Accepted.

3. Accepted.

4. Rejected.

5. Rejected.

6. Rejected.

7. Rejected.

8. Rejected.

91-92. Rejected as argument - not fact.

1. Rejected.

2. Rejected. 9

5. Rejected.

1. Rejected.

2. Accepted.

98. See H.O.# 14.

1. Included in H.O.# 18.

2. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

3. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

4. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

5. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

104-105. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O.# 29.

1. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.# 19.

2. Accepted insofar as included in H.O.# 19.

3. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

4. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

5. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

6. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

7. Rejected. See H.O.# 14.

113-116. Rejected. See H.O.# 31.

117. Accepted.

118-121. Rejected as irrelevant.

122. Rejected.

1. Rejected.

2. Rejected.

3. Rejected.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dean Bunch, Esquire

101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301

Vasilis C. Kastafanas, Esquire

P. O. Box 1873 Orlando, FL 32802

William J. Whalen, Esquire New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48232

Joseph H. Letzer, Esquire Robert H. Rutherford, Esquire 3000 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35202

Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500

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

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,

ED MORSE CHEVROLET OF SEMINOLE, INC., and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

Petitioners,

vs. CASE NO.: 88-3523

JIM QUINLAN CHEVROLET, INC. and THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,

Respondents.

/

FINAL ORDER

This matter came before the Department for entry of a, Final Order upon submission of a Recommended Order by K. N. Ayers, a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department hereby adopts the Recommended Order as its Final Order in this matter,* except that the reference to Hernando County in Finding of Fact 7 is deleted as being inconsistent with the undisputed facts. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner Ed Morse Chevrolet of Seminole, Inc. be granted a license as a franchise Chevrolet dealer upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CHARLES J. BRANTLEY, Director

Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this 16th day of October 1989.

*Respondent, Jim Quinlan Chevrolet, Inc, filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. These exceptions are ruled on in the Appendix to this Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dean Bunch, Esquire

101 North Monroe Street Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Michael J. Alderman Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Neil Kirkman Building, Rm. A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504

K. N. Ayers, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 323991550

Joseph Letzer, Esquire Burr and Forman

3000 Southtrust Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

William J. Whalen, Esquire Office of General Counsel General Motors Corporation 3031 West Grand Boulevard New Center One Building Detroit, Michigan 48232

Docket for Case No: 88-003523

Orders for Case No: 88-003523