STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND ) TREASURER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5458
)
PURITAN BUDGET PLAN, INC., )
)
Respondent. )
) DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND ) TREASURER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5459
)
GIBRALTAR BUDGET PLAN, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Following notice to all parties, Don W. Davis, a Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a final hearing in the above-styled case on September 12, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Alan Liefer, Esquire
Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
For Respondent: Steven M. Malono, Esquire
Cobb, Cole & Bell
131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether Respondents have violated provisions of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, through payment of alleged monetary inducements to insurance agents for the purpose of securing contracts which finance insurance premiums.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 22, 1994, Petitioner issued a Notice And Order To Show Cause against each Respondent, charging them with violations of Section 627.837 and Section 627.832, Florida Statutes, as the result of alleged payment by Respondents of monetary inducements to insurance agents to secure contracts financing insurance premiums.
On September 13, 1994, counsel for Respondents requested formal proceedings with regard to the allegations contained in each Notice And Order To Show Cause.
By letters dated September 28, 1994, both of the above-styled cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal administrative proceedings.
By separate responses, each dated October 20, 1994, to the initial orders issued in these cases, the parties indicated there were no related cases and requested final hearing be set in January, 1995.
Subsequently, the parties requested consolidation of the two cases and vacation of one of the previously set hearing dates. The motion for consolidation was granted, with final hearing scheduled for February 21, 1995.
Various continuances were subsequently requested by the parties and granted by the undersigned until the matters were eventually heard at the September 12, 1995 final hearing.
Upon commencement of the hearing, Petitioner's counsel announced the consented amendment to the Notice And Order To Show Cause previously issued against each Respondent to eliminate all allegations with the exception of violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, which proscribes payment of monetary inducements to any person in exchange for obtaining insurance premium financing contracts.
At the final hearing, the parties presented eleven (11) joint exhibits.
Respondents also presented two (2) additional exhibits. Respondents' exhibit 1, was not admitted, pending future ruling on admissibility by the undersigned. At this time, admissibility of exhibit 1, is denied. Respondents' exhibit 2, was admitted at the final hearing. Respondents also presented testimony of two (2) witnesses. Petitioner presented no testimony in its case-in-chief, relying instead upon the stipulated facts of the parties. Petitioner did call one (1) rebuttal witness.
A transcript of the final hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 23, 1995. The parties requested and were granted leave to submit proposed recommended orders twenty days after the final hearing, thereby waiving provisions of Rule 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been reviewed and are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department).
Respondents are Puritan Budget Plan, Inc., and Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., (Respondents).
Findings contained in paragraphs 3- 23, were stipulated to by the parties.
Stipulated Facts
Common shares in Respondents' corporations were sold to insurance agent/shareholders for between $500.00 and $2,500.00 per share, depending on date purchased.
Presently, and for the purposes of this litigation, marketing and/or administrative fees paid by Respondents to agent/shareholders range from $1.00 to $13.00 per contract produced, depending on the number of payments made, and the amount of the down payment.
Each per contract marketing and/or administrative fee paid by Respondents to agent/shareholders is completely unrelated to the number of contracts produced by that agent/shareholder, and is based upon the characteristics of each contract, pursuant to the terms of the shareholder purchase agreement.
Perry & Co., pursuant to a written agreement, manages the day to day activities of Respondents, including solicitation of new shareholder/agents.
Alex Campos is currently President of Perry & Co.
Perry & Co., Dick Perry or Alex Campos have no equity ownership, either direct or indirect, in Respondents corporations. No shareholder of Perry & Co. is also a shareholder in either Respondent, and no shareholder of the Respondents is a shareholder in Perry & Co.
No officer or director of Perry & Co. is an officer or director of either Respondent, and no officer or director of either Respondent is an officer or director of Perry & Co.
The individual management agreements between Perry & Co. and Respondents are terminable with proper notice by either party.
Respondent Puritan Budget Plan, Inc., was originally licensed by the Department as a premium finance company in 1984, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. Puritans' principle office is located at 2635 Century Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30345.
Respondent Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., was originally licensed by the Department as a premium finance company in 1984, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. Gibraltar's principle office is located at 2635 Century Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30345.
Customers of Respondents are typically financing automobile insurance premiums.
There is little if any variation among licensed premium finance companies in the State of Florida as to the interest rate charged to customers.
In 1988, the Department inquired of Respondents' activities in relation to agent/shareholder compensation arrangements. After several meetings with representatives from Respondents, the Department closed the matter without taking any action.
Also in 1988, the Department proposed the adoption of Rule 4-18.009, which in part would have explicitly made payment of processing fees or stock dividends a violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, but later withdrew the proposed rule.
Again in 1994, the Department proposed a rule which would have explicitly made payment of processing fees or stock dividends a violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes. After a hearing and adverse ruling by the hearing officer, the Department withdrew proposed Rule 4-196.030(8).
Financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for the production of premium finance contracts may result in the unnecessary financing of contracts, and the Department believes Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, was intended to make such conduct illegal.
Financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for the production of premium finance contracts may result in insurance agents adding or sliding unnecessary products to make the total cost of insurance more expensive and induce the financing of additional contracts, and the Department believes Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, was intended to make such conduct illegal.
An "inducement" is presently defined as "an incentive which motivates an insurance purchaser to finance the premium payment or which motivates any person to lead or influence an insured into financing the insurance coverage being purchased; or any compensation or consideration presented to a person based upon specific business performance whether under written agreement or otherwise." Rule 4-196.030(4), Florida Administrative Code (July 27, 1995). This rule is currently effective but presently on appeal.
There is no evidence that Respondents unnecessarily financed any premium finance contracts or engaged in any "sliding" of unnecessary products to induce the unnecessary financing of contracts.
Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit the payment of corporate dividends based on stock ownership to shareholders who are also insurance agents.
According to the Final Bill Analysis for H.B. 2471, in 1995 the Legislature amended Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, relating to rebates and inducements. This section was amended to clarify that this statute does not prohibit an insurance agent or agents from owning a premium finance company. The statute, as amended, is silent on the issue of how owner-agents may be compensated.
Other Facts
Approximately 80 percent of Respondents' insureds will turn to the shareholder/agent to handle premium mailing and collection. When a shareholder/agent provides these valuable services and labor to Respondents through the servicing of the premium finance contract with an insured, payment for those services and/or recoupment of the expenses involved with their provision is made, at least in part, in the form of the marketing and administrative fees paid by Respondents to the shareholder/agent.
The marketing and administrative fee payment by Respondents to shareholder/agents is made from the net profit of the corporation and represents
payment of ownership interest (dividends) to shareholder/agents in addition to payment for shareholder/agent services or expenses.
Respondents generally finance "non-standard" private passenger automobile insurance. Such insurance generally covers younger drivers and drivers with infraction points against their license.
The average non-standard premium is $500 per year. Thirty percent of non-standard insureds will cancel their insurance prior to the renewal date.
Cancellation of policies and financing arrangements by non-standard insurers require the agent to return unearned commissions, about $30 generally.
In contrast, payment of an insurance premium in cash guarantees an agent his/her entire commission, an average of $90 per non-standard policy. Consequently, the financial interest of most agents is best served by cash sale of auto insurance as opposed to financing the insurance.
The average amount generated by 95 percent of all premium finance contracts executed in Florida would yield an agent/shareholder approximately six dollars per contract.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Department is charged with regulation of the business of insurance premium financing and takes the position that the payment of the marketing and administrative fees by Respondents to shareholder/agents constitutes an "inducement" in violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
No premium finance Company, or employee thereof, shall offer to pay or allow in any manner to any person, either as an inducement to the financing of any insurance policy with the premium finance company or after any such policy has been financed, any rebate, or shall
give or offer to give any valuable consideration or inducement of any kind directly or indirectly, other than an article of merchandise not exceeding
$1 in value which has thereon the advertisement of the premium finance company.
This section does not prohibit the ownership of a premium finance company by a licensed insurance agent or agents.
Section 627.832(1)(b), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the license of a premium finance company deemed to have violated the proscription contained in Section 627.837, Florida Statutes.
Since such sanctions are penal in nature, the Department must prove the alleged violation by "clear and convincing evidence." Ferris v. Turlington,
510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). Evidence that is clear and convincing must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact the firm belief or
conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established. Evans Packing Company v. Fla. Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), quoting, Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
The parties have stipulated that financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for production of premium finance contracts may result in unnecessary financing of contracts, the very goal that the Department believes is proscribed by Section 627.837, Florida Statutes. At the same time, the Department has stipulated that no evidence exists that these Respondents unnecessarily financed any premium finance contracts or engaged in any "sliding" of unnecessary products to induce the unnecessary financing of contracts. A potential for violation cannot be considered a present violation sufficient to support imposition of penal sanctions. A violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, necessarily requires a finding that Respondent has engaged in conduct which the parties stipulate has not occurred in this case.
The legitimate ownership, pursuant to Section 627.837(2), Florida Statutes, of Respondents by shareholder/agents, the stipulation of the parties, and the evidence presented, demonstrates that the Department has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that these Respondents are in violation of Section 627.837(1), Florida Statutes.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaints.
DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 28th day of November, 1995.
DON W. DAVIS, 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 28th day of November, 1995.
APPENDIX
In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties.
Petitioner's Proposed Findings
1.-11. Accepted to extent included within stipulated facts, otherwise rejected for lack of citation to the record.
12. First sentence is rejected as not substantially dispositive of the issues presented. Remainder rejected for lack of record citation if not included within stipulated facts.
13.-15. Rejected to extent not included within stipulation, no citation to record.
Incorporated by reference.
Rejected, no record citation, legal conclusion. 18.-19. Rejected, not materially dispositive.
20. Rejected, no record citation.
21.-23. Rejected, not materially dispositive.
Rejected, record citation and relevancy.
Rejected, weight of the evidence.
Incorporated by reference.
Respondent's Proposed Findings
1. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 2.-3. Accepted, not verbatim.
4. Rejected, unnecessary.
5.-7. Accepted, not verbatim. 8.-9. Rejected, unnecessary.
10. Accepted per stipulation. 11.-12. Rejected, unnecessary.
13. Accepted per stipulation. 14.-16. Accepted, not verbatim.
Rejected, hearsay.
Rejected, relevance.
Rejected, unnecessary.
20.-22. Accepted per stipulation.
23. Rejected, unnecessary.
24.-57. Incorporated by reference. 58.-60. Rejected, unnecessary.
61.-62. Rejected, subordinate and not materially dispositive.
63.-67. Rejected as unnecessary to extent not included in stipulated facts.
Accepted per stipulation.
Rejected, unnecessary.
Accepted per stipulation. 72.-76. Rejected, unnecessary.
77. Accepted per stipulation.
78.-79. Incorporated by reference. 80.-87. Accepted per stipulation.
88. Incorporated by reference. 89.-90. Accepted per stipulation. 91.-95. Rejected, subordinate.
96. Accepted.
97.-101. Rejected, unnecessary.
102. Incorporated by reference.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Alan Liefer, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333
Steven M. Malono, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell
131 N. Gadsden St. Tallahassee, FL 32301
Bill Nelson
State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner
Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Dan Sumner
Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 08317-93-C(AJL) GIBRALTAR BUDGET PLAN, INC. DOAH CASE NO. 94-5458
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned Treasurer of the state of Florida, acting in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner, for consideration and final agency action. On August 22, 1994, a Notice And Order To Show Cause was filed
against Respondent, GIBRALTAR BUDGET PLAN, INC., charging violations of Sections 627.837 and 627.832, Florida Statutes. Respondent timely filed a request for formal proceeding in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The proceedings were consolidated with those relating to an identical charging document filed by the Department of Insurance against Puritan Budget Plans, Inc. The consolidation was at the request of the parties and by Order of the Hearing Officer. Pursuant to notice, a consolidated Final Hearing was held on September 12, 1995 before the Honorable Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings. Petitioner and Respondents each timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders.
On November 28, 1995, after consideration of the evidence presented at the Final Hearing, the stipulations of the parties, and Proposed Recommended Orders, the Hearing Officer issued his Recommended Order (Attached as Exhibit A). The Hearing Officer recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing all charges against the Respondents. On December 13, 1995, Petitioner filed its Exceptions to Recommended Order. Neither Respondent filed exceptions. Pursuant to Rule 4- 121.075(2), Florida Administrative Code, the Department affords ten (10) days from the issuance of the Recommended Order for either party to file exceptions. Petitioner's exceptions, not having been filed within ten (10) days of issuance of the Recommended Order, shall not be addressed herein and were not considered in the preparation of this Final Order. The final disposition of the charges against the two Respondents will be dealt with in separate but identical Final Orders. This Final Order applies only to Respondent GIBRALTAR BUDGET PLAN, INC.
Upon careful consideration of the record in this matter, the Department does find that the Hearing Officer erred in his Conclusions of Law paragraphs 35 and 36. In paragraph 35 the Hearing Officer concludes that a "violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, necessarily requires a finding that Respondent has engaged in conduct which the parties stipulate has not occurred in this case." The conduct to which the Hearing Officer refers is the unnecessary financing of insurance contracts or "sliding" of unnecessary products for the purpose of inducing unnecessary financing of insurance contracts. (Recommended Order Paragraph 35) This proposition is unfounded.
The elements of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes are as follows:
That a premium finance company or its employee
offer to pay or allow as inducement or rebate, or
give or offer to give,
any valuable consideration or inducement
to the financing of insurance premiums.
The Hearing Officer states that the Department's asserted rationale for the restriction is to prevent "the unnecessary financing of premium finance contracts or `sliding' of unnecessary products for the purpose of inducing unnecessary financing of insurance contracts." The fact that no evidence was presented by the Department to show that this result occurred in this instance is not a valid a basis for determining that no violation has occurred. The rationale for the statutory restriction is not an element required to establish a violation. If the purpose of speed limits is to prevent accidents, is there no violation if a speeder is not involved in an accident? So long as elements "a", "d", and "e" above are proven together with either element "b" or "c", a violation is established.
The Hearing Officer confuses unnecessary financing and "sliding" with the statutory elements of inducement to the financing of insurance premium. Payment of a fee for each contract produced is undoubtedly an inducement to the financing of insurance premium. The Hearing Officer finds, as a matter of fact, that agent-shareholders are paid for the production of premium finance contracts. The record evidence on this point is undisputed. The testimony of Alex Campos and Joint Exhibits #3, 4, 5, and 6 constitute competent substantial and undisputed evidence of payments by the Respondent premium finance company to agent-shareholders based solely on the production by that agent-shareholder of premium finance contracts. This is precisely the conduct proscribed by Section 626.837(1), Florida Statutes.
In Conclusion of Law paragraph 36, the Hearing Officer speaks of legitimate ownership by agent-shareholders. This legitimate ownership is not prohibited by Section 627.837(1), Florida Statutes, and the Department did not contend either in its pleadings or at the Final Hearing that agent-shareholders were prohibited or that their existence violates Section 627.837(1), Florida Statutes. In fact, the Department acknowledged that pursuant to Section 627.837(2), Florida Statutes such ownership is specifically authorized. The two paragraphs of the statute, however, must be read together and applied so as to give effect to each.
It is an established tenet of statutory construction that where two statutes deal with the same general subject matter, one should apply the interpretation of each such that they may both have a "reasonable field of operation that will preserve force and effect of each." Woodley Lane, Inc. v. Nolen, 147 So.2d 569, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Ideal Farms Drainage District v. Certain Lands, 154 Fla. 554, 19 So.2d 234, 239 (Fla. 1944); Singleton v. State,
554 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 1990); Carawan v. State, 515 So.2d 161, 168 (Fla. 1987) In State v. Parsons, 569 So.2d 437 (Fla. 1990), the court held that statutes must be hopelessly inconsistent for the court to adopt an interpretation which defeats the express language of one of the statutes. Id. at 438. That is not the case here. Both statutory provisions "can be enforced without doing any violence to the language of the other." Id. It is further generally presumed that statutes are passed with knowledge of existing laws and do not operate a repeal by implication. City of Punta Gorda v. McSmith, Inc.,
294 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla 2d DCA 1974), Palm Harbor Special Fire Control Dist. v. Kelly, 516 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1987). That certainly is the case here where Section 627.837(2), Florida Statutes was created by amendment of 627.837, Florida Statutes. Most of the plethora of cases dealing with interpretation of laws that deal with a single subject matter discuss conflict between two statutes. Here, the two statutory provisions are actually within a single statute and clearly must be read and interpreted to function together and in harmony. Ideal at 239.
In the instant case, the two provisions of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes may be interpreted in such a way as to allow them each their own field of operation by concluding that a mere ownership interest in a premium finance company by an insurance agent does not constitute an inducement to the financing of insurance premium. If, however, payments are made to the owner/agent which are for the purpose of inducing the financing of insurance contracts, those payments are in violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes. It is in fact a permissible interpretation of the statute that while an agent may own a premium finance company pursuant to Section 627.837(2), Florida Statutes, he is prohibited from placing premium finance contracts with that particular premium finance company pursuant to Section 627.837(1), Florida Statutes. The Department has, however, sought a less restrictive interpretation that still
allows each provision of the statute to have its own reasonable and effective sphere of operation. The key to the interpretation advanced by the Department and adopted herein is payment to agent- shareholder based on their individual level of production.
Upon careful consideration of the record in this matter and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is ORDERED:
The Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer are ADOPTED in full as the Department's Findings of Fact.
The Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law paragraphs 35 and 36 are hereby REJECTED for the reasons detailed above. The balance of the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are ADOPTED as the Department's Conclusions of Law. The Department finds as additional Conclusions of Law:
Payment by Respondent premium finance company to agent-shareholders on the basis
of the production of insurance premium finance contracts constitutes payment as an inducement to the financing of insurance contracts in
violation of Section 627.837(1), Florida Statutes.
The provisions of Section 627.837(2), Florida Statutes do not operate to legitimize the payment of agents, even where those agents are legitimate owners of a premium finance company, where the payment acts as a direct inducement to the financing of insurance premiums.
The Hearing Officer's recommendation that a Final Order be entered dismissing all charges against Respondent is REJECTED. In lieu of the Hearing Officer's recommendation, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner hereby finds that Respondent is guilty of the violation of Sections 627.837 and 627.832(1)(b), Florida Statutes and finds that the appropriate sanction is, in lieu of the suspension of all of Respondent's licenses under the Florida Insurance Code for a period of ninety (90) days, a one year period of probation pursuant to Sections 627.833 and 626.691, Florida Statutes. As a condition of said probation, Respondent shall strictly adhere to all provisions of the Florida Insurance Code and the Rules of the Department of Insurance and Treasurer. Additionally, and as a further condition of probation, Respondent shall cease payment of per contract fees for the production of premium finance agreements. Violation of the terms of probation shall constitute grounds for the suspension of all of Respondent's licenses under the Florida Insurance Code for a period of ninety (90) days.
ACCORDINGLY, the licenses and eligibility for licensure of GIBRALTAR BUDGET PLAN, INC. are hereby placed on probation for a period of one year.
Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333, and a copy of the same and the filing fee with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1996.
Bill Nelson Treasurer and
Insurance Commissioner
COPIES FURNISHED:
Alan Leifer, Esquire 612 Larson Building
200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Steven M. Malono, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell
131 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Don W. Davis, Esquire Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 26, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Nov. 28, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 09/12/95. |
| Nov. 15, 1995 | Florida Department of Insurance`s Proposed Recommended Order and Memorandum of Law filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (motion for parties to 11/14/95 as the filing date for the proposed recommended order is granted) |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Respondents' Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | (Respondent) Uncontested Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Oct. 23, 1995 | Transcript filed. |
| Sep. 12, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Sep. 11, 1995 | Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | Respondents' Motion for Official Recognition filed. |
| Aug. 31, 1995 | (Respondents) (5) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jun. 23, 1995 | Order Providing Notice of Final Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/12/95; 9:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Jun. 20, 1995 | (Respondent) Status Report filed. |
| May 26, 1995 | Order Denying Motion for Consolidation sent out. (motion denied) |
| May 25, 1995 | (Puritan Budget Plan & Gibraltar Budget Plan) Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Consolidation filed. |
| May 15, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion for Consolidation (with DOAH Case No/s. 94-5458, 95-1249) filed. |
| Apr. 05, 1995 | (Respondents) Consolidated Response to Request for Production; Notice of Filing Interrogatory Responses filed. |
| Apr. 03, 1995 | (Respondents) Notice of Change of Address filed. |
| Mar. 14, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance and Requiring Response From The Parties sent out. (hearing cancelled, parties are to file written status report by 6/20/95) |
| Mar. 13, 1995 | Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1995 | Notice of Response to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent; Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance and Providing Notice of New Hearing Date sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 3/24/95; 9:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Jan. 23, 1995 | Respondent`s Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 20, 1995 | Order Consolidating Cases and Electing Hearing Date sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 94-5458 & 94-5459) |
| Jan. 11, 1995 | (S. Malono) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 94-5458, 94-5459) filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1994 | Respondent`s Public Records Request and Request for Production of Documents; Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer filed. |
| Nov. 16, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Nov. 03, 1994 | Order of Prehearing Instructions; Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2-10-95; 9:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Oct. 20, 1994 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 30, 1994 | Agency Referral Letter filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1994 | Notice and Order to Show Cause; Request for Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 18, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 28, 1995 | Recommended Order | Payment of marketing and administrative fee no violation of 627.837 in view of parties' stipulation of no evidence of unnecessary financing. |
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER vs. JOHN WAYNE PENNINGTON, 94-005458 (1994)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER vs. TERRY VERNON SMITH, 94-005458 (1994)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs DANIEL LEE ALISON, 94-005458 (1994)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER vs. KENNETH EVERETT WHITE, 94-005458 (1994)
