vs. ) CASE NO. 90-5000
Respondent. )
On April 3 and 4, 1991, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in New Port Richey, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.
For Petitioner: Alan J. Leifer, Esquire
David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services Room 412, Larson Building
For Respondent: Thomas J. Zandecki, Esquire
The issues for determination in these proceedings are whether the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), should discipline the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, for any of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. The Administrative Complaint charges in seven counts essentially that the Respondent, or employees of his corporate insurance agency, took insurance premium money from seven customers, represented to the customers and others that insurance coverage had been obtained when in fact it had not been, converted the premium money to the Respondent's own use and failed to keep and make available to the Department the proper books, accounts and records, in violation of 626.561(1), 626.561(2), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), 626.621(2) and
626.734, Florida Statutes (1989).
At final hearing, the Department dropped Count VII of the Administrative Complaint. On the remainder of the Administrative Complaint, the Department called 14 witnesses, and one testified by deposition (Petitioner's Exhibit 58). The Department had the following exhibits admitted in evidence: Petitioner's Exhibits 1-13, 15-20, 27-36, 38, 43-44 and 50-61. The Respondent testified in his own behalf and had Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 13 admitted in evidence.
The Department ordered the preparation of a transcript of the final hearing, which was filed on May 1, 1991. Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact in the parties' proposed recommended orders may be found in the attached Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 90-5000.
The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent.
The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida.
The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency.
After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts.
The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal.
In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before.
With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately
$150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500
to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900.
At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage.
As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all.
Judy Nelson (Count V).
Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business.
Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated.
Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage.
Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her.
On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990.
Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security.
Fred J. Miller (Count VI).
On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage.
A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt.
It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account.
Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card.
On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed.
Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990.
Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy.
Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV).
Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.)
On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business.
On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance.
The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security.
Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III).
Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security.
In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly.
On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing.
One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle.
At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/
Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs.
John Stuiso (Count I).
On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250.
It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied.
In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing.
In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate.
When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund.
The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250.
Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check.
The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa.
After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.).
Wanda Mae Riley (Count II).
In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business.
The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business.
Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did.
Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing.
In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance.
When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent violated one or more of the following sections of the Insurance Code: 626.561(1), 626.561(2), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), 626.621(2) and 626.734, Florida Statutes (1989). These provisions provide as follows:
626.561 Reporting and accounting records.--
All premiums, return premiums, or other funds belonging to insurers or others received by an agent, solicitor, or adjuster in transactions under his license shall be trust funds so received by the licensee in a fiduciary capacity; and the licensee in the applicable regular course of business shall account for and pay the same to the insurer, insured, or other person entitled thereto.
The licensee shall keep and make available to the department books, accounts, and records as will enable the department to determine whether such licensee is complying with the provisions of this code. Every licensee shall preserve such books, accounts, and records pertaining to a premium payment for at least 3 years after the making of such payment; provided, however, the preservation of records by computer or photographic reproductions or records in photographic form shall constitute compliance with this requirement. The 3-year requirement shall not apply to insurance binders when no policy is ultimately issued and no premium is collected.
* * *
626.611 Grounds for compulsory refusal, suspension, or revocation of agent's solicitor's, or adjuster's license or . . . permit.--The department shall deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent, solicitor, or adjuster
. . . and it shall suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of
any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or permittee any one of the following applicable grounds exist:
* * *
(5) Willful misrepresentation of any insurance policy or annuity contract or willful deception with regard to any such policy or contract, done either in person or by any form of dissemination of information or advertising.
* * *
(7) Demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance.
* * *
Fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license or permit.
Misappropriation, conversion, or unlawful withholding of moneys belonging to insurers or insureds or beneficiaries or to others and received in conduct of business under the license.
* * *
(13) Willful failure to comply with, or willful violation of, any proper order or rule of the department or willful violation of any provision of this code.
* * *
626.621 Grounds for discretionary refusal, suspension, or revocation of agent's, solicitor's, or adjuster's license or service representative's supervising or managing general agent's or claims investigator's permit.--The department may, in its discretion, deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any
agent, solicitor, or adjuster . . . and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or permittee any one or more of the following applicable grounds exist under circumstances for which such denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal is not mandatory under s. 626.611:
* * *
(2) Violation of any provision of this code or of any other law applicable to the business of insurance in the course of dealing under the license or permit.
* * *
626.734 Corporations, liability of agent.
--Any general lines insurance agent who is an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of an incorporated general lines insurance agency shall remain personally and fully liable and accountable for any wrongful acts,
misconduct, or violations of any provisions of this code committed by such licensee or by any person under his direct supervision and control while acting on behalf of the corporation.
The Petitioner, the Department of Insurance, has the burden of proof in these proceedings to prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). The standard of clear and convincing evidence to be used in administrative licensing cases was outlined by the First District Court of Appeal in Evans Packing Company v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989):
[C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the evidence must
be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact the firm belief of conviction, without hesitancy, as to be the truth of the allegations sought to be established. 550
So. 2d at 116, n.5
As reflected in the Findings of Fact, the evidence proved that the Respondent violated Section 626.561(1), Fla. Stat. (1989), on all of the counts tried except as to Wilkins (Apple Paradise), Count IV. (The evidence was not clear enough to prove what happened as to Wilkins.) However, there was no evidence presented to prove any violation of Section 626.561(2).
As to Section 626.611, Fla. Stat. (1989), the same facts referred to in Conclusion 3, above, proved a violation of Section 626.611(10). However, intentional misappropriation, conversion or unlawful were not proven.
The evidence proved that the Respondent himself was involved in willful misrepresentation and deception as to Nelson (Pedals 'N' Presents) and Miller--Count V and VI, respectively. In addition, while there was no proof of involvement by the Respondent himself, Security issued false or deceptive certificates of insurance in the case of Stuiso and Riley (Custom Plumbing)-- Count I and II, respectively--and false or deceptive proof of insurance identification cards in the case of Harry's Painting and Enterprises and Riley-- Count III and II, respectively. In view of the manner in which he was operating Security, the Respondent was culpably responsible for these violations as well. Section 626.734, Fla. Stat. (1989). This evidence established violations of Section 626.611(5).
The same facts referred to in Conclusion 5, above, also establish violations under Section 626.611(9) and (13), Fla. Stat. (1989). Under Section 626.611(9), the evidence proved dishonesty (especially with respect to Nelson and Miller (Counts V and VI) but not fraud.
In view of the facts referred to in Conclusions 3 through 6, above, and in view of the Respondent's loss of the ability to supervise and control the operations of Security, it must be concluded that the evidence demonstrated the Respondent's lack of fitness or trustworthiness under Section 626.611(7). However, the evidence does not prove that the Respondent intentionally set out to misappropriate or convert insured premiums or inflict financial harm on his insureds.
In view of Conclusions 3 through 7, above, it must likewise be concluded that the Respondent violated Section 626.621(2), Fla. Stat. (1989).
Under Section 626.611, (as opposed to 626.621), Fla. Stat. (1989), suspension or revocation of the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure is mandatory in this case. An administrative penalty in lieu of suspension or revocation is not authorized under Section 626.681, Fla. Stat. (1989), and probation in lieu of suspension or revocation is not authorized under Section 626.691, Fla. Stat. (1989).
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months.
RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1991.
1/ The evidence on this point is confused. Harry seems to think that his meeting with the Respondent occurred in July, 1989, but the Respondent places the meeting in September, 1989, which is more consistent with the date of the refund check. Harry thinks he was claiming a refund of the automobile insurance renewal premium money on the Progressive American insurance that never issued.
But the evidence is not clear exactly what the $640 refund was for. At some point, Harry replaced the coverage intended to be purchased through Security with Allstate insurance coverage. Harry thinks he purchased the Allstate insurance in July, 1989, after the refund, but his version does not square with the date of the refund check.
2/ Actually, Riley already knew what had happened. Much earlier, a Department investigator had told her that she had no insurance but asked that she not contact the Respondent until the investigation was complete. Neither Riley nor the investigator told the Respondent about the Custom Plumbing error. He discovered it himself.
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.
1.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.
15. Rejected as not proven as to the Quail Ridge certificate. It refers to some other policy, and no clear evidence was presented concerning that policy. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated.
16.-21. Accepted and incorporated.
25.-26. As reflected in the Findings of Fact, the evidence is confused as to what the two checks were for and as to whether they were for the same insurance reflected in the insurance identification cards.
27.-47. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 48.-50. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.
53.-54. Accepted but subordinate to facts found.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
e.-f. (e. [sic]) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.
Alan J. Leifer, Esquire David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services Room 412, Larson Building
Thomas J. Zandecki, Esquire 7619 Little Road
ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER CONCERNING ITS RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER.
