STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE UNDERWRITERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0715RP

)

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

FINAL ORDER

A final hearing was held in this case in Tallahassee, Florida on March 28, 1995, before Suzanne F. Hood, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Austin Neal, Esquire

McConnaughhay, Roland, Maida & Cherr Post Office Box 229

Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0229

For Respondent: A. Kenneth Levine, Esquire

Department of Insurance 645A Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination at final hearing was whether proposed rule 4-

1. constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

   
   

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   Section 624.4095(4), Florida Statutes, sets forth the following kinds of insurance, together with their respective adjustment factors, to be used in calculating an insurer's adjusted gross and net premiums written to surplus ratios:

   
   

   1. For property insurance, 0.90.

   2. For casualty insurance, 1.25.

   3. For health insurance, 0.80.

   4. For all other kinds of insurance, 1.00.

For each kind of insurance, an insurer's adjusted ratio cannot exceed 10 to

1 for gross written premiums or 4 to 1 for net written premiums. Section 624.4095(1), Florida Statutes.

On January 7, 1995, Respondent published notice of proposed rule 4-138.032, "Premiums Written; Adjustment Factors," in Volume 21, Number 4, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice states that the purpose and effect of the rule is:

[t]o define "line of business" for purposes of applying the adjustment factors in Section 624.4095(4), Florida Statutes, used in calcu- lating an insurer's gross and net premiums written to surplus ratios.

The proposed rule determines which factors of subsection 624.4095(4), Florida Statutes, apply to various lines of insurance business. These factors are multiplied against an insurer's gross and net premiums, producing a statutorily "adjusted" ratio to aid the Department in examining an insurer's solvency.

Before publishing the proposed rule, Respondent did not conduct a workshop or prepare an economic impact statement. However, on March 8, 1995, Respondent held a public hearing to discuss the proposed rule.

This proceeding challenges the validity of the proposed rule pursuant to Section 120.54(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner Florida Automobile Underwriters Association, Inc. (Petitioner), filed its challenge on February 17, 1995. By Order dated February 24, 1995, the undersigned set the case for final hearing on March 20, 1995. Petitioner moved for a continuance on March 10, 1995. After a telephonic hearing, the undersigned granted the motion and rescheduled the case for final hearing on March 28, 1995.

The original notice listed Sections 624.4095, 624.603, 624.604, and 625.605, Florida Statutes, as the law implemented. Respondent filed a notice of technical change with the Bureau of Administrative Code on March 6, 1995, adding Section 624.6012, Florida Statutes, to the statutory authority portion of the proposed rule's history note. The next day, Respondent filed a motion for summary final order, with an accompanying affidavit. The undersigned denied this motion by Order dated March 27, 1995. Prior to hearing, the parties filed a Stipulation stating that Petitioner has standing to prosecute the instant rule challenge. It also sets forth the Petitioner's specific cause of action.

During the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of one (1) witness and offered one (1) exhibit into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of two (2) witnesses and offered two (2) exhibits into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed to submit proposed recommended orders within fifteen (15) days of filing of the transcript.

A transcript of the proceeding was filed on April 7, 1995. Both parties filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 24, 1995. The Appendix to this Final Order contains specific rulings on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, an association of automobile insurers, has standing to prosecute the instant challenge on behalf of its members.

   
   

2. Insurance is classified into the following "kinds" of insurance: life, health, property, casualty, surety, marine, and title. Section 624.6011,

   Florida Statutes. The kinds of insurance at issue here are health, property, and casualty insurance.

   
   

3. In the broadest sense, health insurance protects named beneficiaries against bodily injury, disablement, or death resulting from an accident or sickness. Section 624.603, Florida Statutes.

   
   

4. Traditional property insurance protects the real or personal property of named insureds against loss or damage to that property. Section 624.604, Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. Casualty insurance historically gives liability protection to the named insured or beneficiary for loss or damage to the person or property of others. However, by statutory definition, a casualty insurance policy may also provide benefits to the named insured or beneficiary for certain losses or damage to person and property irrespective of liability. Section 624.605, Florida Statutes.

   
   

6. The various kinds of insurance are not mutually exclusive. Section 624.601, Florida Statutes. Some insurance policies provide benefits which may be classified as more than one kind of insurance.

   
   

7. Casualty insurance is statutorily divided into "types" of insurance including, but not limited to, vehicle insurance. Section 624.605(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. For purposes of this challenge to the proposed rule, vehicle insurance includes two "lines of business" for private passenger automobiles: automobile liability and automobile physical damage.

   
   

9. The automobile liability line of business includes, but is not limited to, no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) coverage and property damage liability coverage.

   
   

10. The property damage liability component of automobile insurance is a classic example of casualty insurance which provides coverage for insureds in the event they become liable for damage to property of others arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. Section 627.7275, Florida Statutes.

    
    

11. Pursuant to Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, PIP coverage provides benefits to:

    
    

    the named insured, relatives residing in the same household, persons operating the insured's motor vehicle, passengers in such motor vehicle, and other persons struck by such motor vehicle

    and suffering bodily injury while not an occupant of a self- propelled vehicle, . . . for loss sustained by any such person as a result of

    bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle . . . .

    
    

12. PIP is not a traditional component of vehicle insurance. It was created by the Florida legislature as part of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law (Sections 627.730 through 627.7405, Florida Statutes) in the early 1970's.

    PIP provides medical, surgical, funeral, and disability benefits, irrespective of fault, so that covered persons could reap those benefits, without resort to litigation.

    
    

13. PIP is a hybrid form of insurance which provides benefits directly to the named insured and liability coverage for injury to other persons, i.e., passengers and by-standers. As an integral part of the no-fault law, PIP is not traditional health insurance. It cannot be issued without automobile property damage liability coverage. Section 627.7275(1), Florida Statutes. PIP is casualty/vehicle insurance which currently is creating increased losses in the insurance industry.

    
    

14. The automobile physical damage line of business includes comprehensive and collision coverage for property damage to the insured's vehicle. Automobile comprehensive insurance coverage ordinarily protects the insured vehicle from risks and perils such as broken glass, theft, or a rock hitting the car. Automobile collision insurance coverage generally protects the insured vehicle from its collision with another vehicle or object.

    
    

15. An automobile insurance contract is a liability insurance contract because of its property damage liability component. All coverages under an automobile policy are incidental to and issued as a part of the property damage liability component. Only those insurance carriers licensed to write automobile insurance may provide these coverages. Accordingly, the proposed rule correctly requires premiums for all automobile insurance coverages to be reported as casualty insurance on the automobile liability and automobile physical damage lines of business.

    
    

16. Approximately 1,100 property and casualty insurers must regularly report their financial condition to Respondent. Some of these insurers are authorized to do business only in the state of Florida. Others hold certificates of authority to do business in multiple states or nationally.

    
    

17. Every insurer authorized to do business in the state of Florida, whether domestic or foreign, currently reports its financial condition on annual and quarterly statements approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). These reports allow Respondent to review the financial solvency of insurers.

    
    

18. The NAIC quarterly statement (Page 18) lists lines of business and requires the insurer to report information relating to loss experience (Part 1) and direct premiums written (Part 2) for each line of business including, but not limited to, auto liability and auto physical damage. This schedule does not list any other line of business pertaining specifically to automobile insurance, whether commercial or private.

    
    

19. The NAIC annual statement (Page 8) lists lines of business and requires the insurer to report information relating to recapitulation of all premiums (Part 2A) and premiums written (Part 2B) for each line of business including, but not limited to, auto liability and auto physical damage. This schedule does not list any other line of business pertaining specifically to automobile insurance, whether commercial or private.

    
    

20. All insurers doing business in the state of Florida must file an additional state schedule (Page 14) with their annual report relating to premiums and losses for business transacted in Florida. This schedule lists lines of business including, but not limited to, private passenger auto no-fault

    (PIP), other private passenger auto liability, and private passenger auto physical damage. This form does not list any other line of business pertaining specifically to private passenger automobile insurance.

    
    

21. Section 624.6012, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to classify "kinds" of insurance into "lines of insurance" consistent with the reporting requirements of the NAIC. The proposed rule lists auto liability and auto physical damage as the only lines of business pertaining to automobile insurance consistent with NAIC's quarterly statement (Page 18) and annual statement (Page 8).

    
    

22. As to automobile insurance, NAIC's quarterly statement (Page 15) and annual statement (Page 8) are the only reporting schedules that are appropriate for use in determining the adjusted ratios of gross and/or net written premiums to surplus pursuant to Section 624.4095(4), Florida Statutes. The schedule for reporting premiums written in the state of Florida alone (Page 14 of the NAIC annual statement) is not appropriate because the adjusted ratios apply to a company's gross and net premiums regardless of the state in which they were written. To require insurers to include information on the Florida only schedule for premiums written in every state would require a report not authorized by Florida law or NAIC.

    
    

23. Additionally, the quarterly statement (Page 18) and the annual statement (Page 8) are appropriate because adjusted ratios may be calculated on an annualized basis, at any time during the year. The Florida only schedule (Page 14) is filed only once a year.

    
    

24. The proposed rule lists homeowners multi peril as a line of business under the property kind of insurance. It does not contain a separate listing for mobile home homeowners insurance. Under the current version of the proposed rule, mobile home property insurance which is written on an automobile physical damage policy form (mobile home physical damage coverage), is reported on the automobile physical damage line of business as casualty insurance.

    
    

25. Homeowners multiple peril is also listed as a line of business on the NAIC's quarterly statement (Page 18) and annual statement (Page 8). The state schedule (Page 14 ) lists separate lines of business for homeowners multiple peril and mobile homeowners multi peril.

    
    

26. Property insurers usually provide homeowners insurance for damage to a dwelling or a mobile home on a property insurance policy form. Consequently, they are subject to assessment for windstorm insurance risk apportionment pursuant to Section 627.351(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

27. Mobile home physical damage coverage is substantially similar to traditional homeowners insurance. The former is a limited type of homeowners insurance which protects the mobile home estate from fire and other damage to structure and contents. Carriers selling mobile home physical damage coverage are not subject to assessment for windstorm insurance risk apportionment.

    
    

28. Section 320.01(1), Florida Statutes, does not include a mobile home within the definition of a motor vehicle. Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, provides a separate definition for a mobile home for purposes of licensing and taxation. Section 627.732(1), Florida Statutes, specifically excludes a mobile home as a motor vehicle for purposes of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law.

29. The only record evidence presented at the final hearing relative to mobile home insurance indicates that it is not casualty insurance, regardless of the policy form on which it is written, and should not be reported as such. Respondent's own expert opined that mobile home physical damage coverage is property insurance rather than casualty insurance.

    
    

30. In response to confusion in the insurance industry, Respondent published the proposed rule to clarify how the premium adjustment factors of Section 624.4095, Florida Statutes, applied to various "lines of business."

    
    

31. The proposed rule lists specific lines of business for each kind of insurance. Some of the lines listed under casualty insurance have a long tail meaning that a claim may not materialize for a long time, i.e., medical malpractice. Other lines of casualty insurance have a short tail with a high loss ratio like automobile liability and automobile physical damage. Restriction of premiums written for risks with long tails or high loss ratios helps to limit the volume of losses which is directly related to an insurer's solvency.

    
    

32. Record evidence indicates that claims on automobile insurance policies do not have long tails. However, insureds often make multiple claims on their automobile coverages within the same policy period resulting in high loss ratios.

    
    

33. There is no record evidence that claims on mobile home physical damage coverage take any longer to materialize than claims on mobile home property insurance written on the traditional homeowners policy form. Moreover, there is no record evidence relative to loss ratios for mobile home insurance premiums. The only evidence presented pertaining to the risk of mobile home insurance indicates that all such coverages should be reported as property insurance and subject to assessment for wind storm risk apportionment.

    
    

34. Under Section 624.4095, Florida Statutes, a company can write less casualty insurance relative to its surplus as to policyholders than health or property insurance because casualty insurance has a higher adjustment factor.

    
    

35. Respondent did not ignore or contravene Section 624.601, Florida Statutes, or any of the statutes implemented, when it drafted the proposed rule as it relates to private passenger auto no-fault (PIP), private passenger automobile property damage liability, and private passenger automobile physical damage including comprehensive and collision coverage. However, for purposes of this proposed rule, Respondent never considered classifying mobile home physical damage coverage as property insurance rather than as casualty insurance. A plain reading of Section 624.605(1)(a), Florida Statutes, includes all coverages for private passenger automobile insurance but not coverage for mobile home physical damage.

    
    

36. Competent substantial evidence indicates that Respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it designed the proposed rule to include premiums written for mobile home estates in the automobile physical damage line of business under casualty insurance solely because it is written on an automobile physical damage policy form.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

37. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

38. Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Humana, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,

    469 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In the instant case, Petitioner must show that the requirements of the proposed rule are "inappropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act, or that the requirements proposed are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation, or that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious." Florida League of Cities v. DER, 603 So. 2d 1363, 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

    
    

39. An agency's interpretation of statutes it administers should be given deference and should not be overturned unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous. Maclen Rehabilitation Center v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 588 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Respondent's interpretation of the statutes at issue here "need not be the sole possible interpretation, or even the most desirable one but need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Florida League of Cities, at 1369.

    
    

40. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, defines an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in pertinent part as follows:

    
    

    (8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative author- ity if any one or more of the following apply:

    * * *

    (c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes

    the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7);

    * * *

    (e) is arbitrary or capricious.

    
    

41. Respondent derives its rulemaking authority from Section 624.308(1), Florida Statutes, which states:

    
    

    The department may adopt reasonable rules necessary to effect any of the statutory duties of the department. Such rules shall not extend, modify, or conflict with any law of this state or the reasonable implications of such laws.

    
    

42. The original notice of the proposed rule and the notice of technical change cite the following as statutes implemented: Sections 624.4095, 624.6012, 624.603, 624.604, and 624.605.

    
    

43. Section 624.601, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: It is intended that certain insurance coverages may come within the definitions of two or more kinds of insurance as defined in this part of this chapter. The inclusion of

    such coverage within one definition shall not exclude it from being considered as any other kind of insurance, the definition of which reasonably includes such coverage.

    
    

44. Section 624.6011, Florida Statutes, names the following as "kinds" of insurance: life, health, property, casualty, surety, marine, and title.

    
    

45. Section 624.6012, Florida Statutes, requires the Respondent to divide the kinds of insurance into lines of insurance by adopting a rule consistent with the NAIC's reporting requirements.

    
    

46. Sections 624.603 and 624.604, Florida Statutes, define health and property insurance respectively in broad terms as set forth above in paragraphs three (3) and four (4).

    
    

47. Section 624.605(1)(a), Florida Statutes, defines vehicle insurance as a type of casualty insurance:

    
    

    1. Vehicle insurance.--Insurance against loss of or damage to any land vehicle or aircraft or any draft or riding animal, or to property while contained therein or thereon or being loaded or unloaded therein or therefrom, from any hazard or cause, and against any loss, liability, or

       expense resulting from or incidental to ownership, maintenance, or use of any such vehicle, aircraft, or animal. As to land vehicles, the term also includes insurance providing for medical, hospital, surgical, and disability to injured persons, and funeral and death benefits to dependents, beneficiaries, or personal representatives of persons killed, irrespective of the legal liability of the insured, while in entering, alighting from, adjusting, repairing, cranking, or being struck by a vehicle, if such insurance is issued as a part of a liability insurance contract.

       
       

48. Section 624.605(2), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:

    
    

    (2) The provision of medical, hospital, surgical, and funeral benefits, and of coverage against accidental death or injury, as part of other insurance as stated under paragraphs (a) (vehicle),

    (b) (liability), (d) (burglary and theft), (g) (boiler and machinery), or (m) (elevator) of sub- section (1) shall for all purposes be deemed to be the same kind of insurance to which it is incidental and shall not be subject to provisions

    of this code applicable to life or health insurance.

    
    

49. The proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as it relates to coverages for private passenger auto no-fault (PIP), private passenger automobile property damage liability, and private passenger automobile physical damage including comprehensive and collision. Petitioner has not met its burden of proving that Respondent's classification of these coverages as within the auto liability and auto physical damage lines of

    business for casualty insurance is clearly erroneous. By statutory definition, all components of automobile insurance may be considered casualty insurance.

    
    

50. Reviewing the entire statutory framework, as well as specific provisions cited as statutory authority, and considering the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, it is clear that Respondent's delineation of lines of business for all components of private passenger automobile insurance is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary or capricious.

    
    

51. On the other hand, Petitioner has met its burden of proving that Respondent's classification of mobile home physical damage coverage as within a casualty line of business is not supported by fact or logic. A proposed rule that is designed without thought or reason and not based on competent substantial evidence is arbitrary and capricious. Humana, Inc., v. Dept. of Health, 469 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

    
    

52. In this case, the only evidence presented indicates that mobile home physical damage coverage is still property insurance regardless of the policy form on which it is issued. To conclude otherwise is to arbitrarily place form over substance. Clearly for purposes of the proposed rule, Respondent never considered whether insurers should report mobile home physical damage coverage as casualty insurance on the automobile physical damage line of business, as property insurance on the homeowners multi peril line of business, or as a write-in for other lines of business meeting the definition of property insurance as defined in 624.604, Florida Statutes.

    
    

53. Moreover, the statutory framework does not support a conclusion that mobile home insurance is casualty insurance. Mobile homes are not defined as motor vehicles in Section 320.01, Florida Statutes, and are specifically excluded as motor vehicles in 627.732, Florida Statutes. Section 624.605(1)(a), Florida Statutes, refers only to land vehicles. Unlike PIP coverage, there is no statutory prohibition to issuing mobile home physical damage coverage on a stand-alone policy. Without more, mobile home property insurance, which happens to be written on an automobile physical damage policy form, does not become casualty insurance just because it may be issued incidentally to an insured's automobile insurance policy.

    
    

54. To the extent the proposed rule requires premiums written for mobile home physical damage coverage to be reported as casualty insurance for purposes of applying the adjustment factors of 624.4095(4), Florida Statutes, it is clearly erroneous and cannot stand. Requiring insurers to report mobile home physical damage coverage as casualty insurance is not reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation and is arbitrary and capricious.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is ORDERED: (1) Proposed rule 4-138.032 is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority to the extent it requires insurers to report their premiums for private passenger automobile no-fault (PIP), private passenger automobile property damage liability, and private passenger automobile physical damage, including comprehensive and collision coverages as casualty insurance under the auto liability and auto physical damage lines of business; (2) Proposed rule 4-138.032 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority to the extent it arbitrarily and capriciously requires insurers to

report their mobile home physical damage coverage as automobile physical damage, a casualty line of business.

DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd, day of June, 1995.

SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 2nd day of June, 1995.

APPENDIX

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact (FOF).

1 Accepted in Preliminary Statement.

2-5 Accepted pursuant to the parties' stipulation as if incorporated in FOF 1.

1. Accepted in FOF 27.

2. Accepted in FOF 24.

3. Accepted in FOF 29.

4. Rejected as argumentative and not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence relative to automobile insurance coverages. See FOFs 15, 17-

23 & 35. Accepted as to mobile home estates insurance. See FOFs 27, 29, 33, 35- 36.

10-13 Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. See FOFs 9-15.

14 Accepted in FOF 14.

15-17 Accepted as to some but not all types of liability insurance. However, whether a specific coverage has a long or short tail is not the only criteria for determining the appropriate classification under the proposed rule. See FOF 31-33.

18-19 Accepted in FOF 20.

20 Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. See FOFs 15 & 35.

21-22 Argumentative. Merely repeating testimony and not stating a fact. However, Mr. Gray's testimony on these points is more persuasive than any evidence to the contrary.

1. Accept. However both can be used to evaluate solvency.

2. Repetitious. See FOF 31-33.

3. Accepted. See FOF 20.

26-28 Accepted but not included as a finding of fact because not necessary for resolution of the case.

29 Accept but not only reason for proposed rule. See

FOF 31-33.

30-35 Accepted in part and rejected in part. See FOF 35-36.

Disagree with Petitioner's paragraph 33 re characterization of Mr. Poppell's testimony.

36 Accept. See Preliminary Statement.

37-39 Not at issue. See parties' stipulation.

40-41 Argumentative. Not a finding of fact because merely repeats testimony. Mr. Gray's testimony concerning these points is more persuasive than any evidence to the contrary.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1 Accepted in FOFs 16-20.

2-3 See Preliminary Statement.

1. Accepted in FOFs 2, 31, 34 & Preliminary Statement.

2. Irrelevant.

6-7 Accepted as modified in FOF 30.

8-9 Argumentative to the extent the proposed finding of fact repeats testimony. See FOFs 17-25 & Preliminary Statement.

10-12 Argumentative. Repeats testimony. See FOF 17-23.

1. Accepted in FOF 22-23.

2. Accepted in FOF 7.

3. Accepted in FOF 34. 16-17 Accepted in FOF 15.

1. Accepted in FOFs 13, 31-33.

2. Accept in part. See FOF 15. Reject last sentence of paragraph.

3. Accept in part and reject in part. See FOF 35.

4. Accepted in FOF 1.

5. Accepted. See parties' stipulation.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Austin Neal, Esq. McConnaughhay, Roland, et al.

P. O. Box 229

Tallahassee, FL 32302-0229

A. Kenneth Levine, Esq. Dept. of Insurance

645A Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0307

Bill Nelson

State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner

The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

Dan Sumner

Acting General Counsel Dept. of Insurance

The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. LED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 95-000715RP

Orders for Case No: 95-000715RP