STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,
Petitioner,
vs.
BARRY HOWARD SMALL,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 02-1620PL
)
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice a final hearing was held on June 25, 2002, in West Palm Beach, Florida, before Florence Snyder Rivas, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: David J. Busch, Esquire
Department of Insurance
200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
For Respondent: Barry Howard Small, pro se
3200 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 103D
Palm Beach, Florida 33480 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 25, 2002, Petitioner, the Department of Insurance (Petitioner or Department), filed a two-count complaint against Respondent Barry Howard Small (Respondent or Small), a licensed insurance agent, alleging that Respondent had violated certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and related provisions of the Florida Administrative Code.
Respondent timely asserted his right to an administrative hearing. He also sought leave to present his case by telephone, which request was granted on May 16, 2002, by Administrative Law Judge Larry J. Sartin.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of William "Darryl" May and Julie G. Sills, together with Exhibits numbered 1-19, which were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Robert John Bowen and Richard Scalesse, as well as Exhibits A through Z, and 1-71, all admitted into evidence.
A transcript of the final hearing was filed on July 7, 2002. The parties timely submitted proposed recommended orders, which have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
On August 28, 2002, Small filed a Motion to Quash and Opposition to DOI Illegal Amending of DOI Flawed
Administrative Complaint. Although this pleading is unauthorized, it has been reviewed and considered, and does not affect the outcome.
Throughout this Recommended Order, all references to Chapters and Statutes are to the numbered provisions of the Florida Statutes. Similarly, references to Rules are to referenced provisions of the Florida Administrative Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to this case, Respondent is licensed as a life insurance agent and as a life and health insurance agent.
Respondent operated through his agency listed as Tax Saving Concepts, Inc., 1003 10th Lane, Lake Worth, Florida 33463-4354.
Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626.
This case was initiated by an anonymous complaint submitted by fax on August 23, 1999, to a Department office.
The anonymous complainer faxed a copy of a newspaper ad from that day's edition of The Palm Beach Post. The ad reads as follows:
LEGAL SAVINGS per Florida Statute 626.572 PERSAVE (sic) $1,000’s. Call 800-2-save-75.
www.lifeinsurancediscounts .com Tax Saving Concepts Since 1986”
The web page advertisement reads:
90% OFF 2ND-TO-DIE LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONS LEGALLY!
YOU CAN SAVE $100,000+ IN YOUR POCKET!
Save 90% off your 2nd-to-die life insurance commission costs legally when you sign your application in Florida with Tax Saving Concepts, Inc., a registered legal rebating broker since 1986.
Our tax-free rebates can save you
$100,000+. References from our happy clients will prove to you that you too will save thousands of dollars on your 2nd-to-die life insurance commission costs.
We also offer deep discounts on term life insurance.
Tax Saving Concepts, Inc. Of Florida America’s Oldest & Deepest Discount Life Insurance Broker Since 1986™
Registered Legal Rebating Broker Since 1986 We have never had a consumer complaint Email us: since 86@gate.net
561-439-6974
“Palm Beach agent Barry H. Small offers a 90%
commission rebate. ”
The Wall Street Journal March 25, 1993
By letter dated August 31, 1999, the Department, through an authorized representative, requested that
Respondent get in touch to discuss the newspaper ad and website.
Respondent answered by letter dated September 9, 1999, wherein he stated, “ABSOLUTELY NO life insurance companies are mentioned at my seminar.” He further stated, “I have not and do not intend to run this Palm Beach Post listing again.”
After receiving this non-response, the case was referred to William Darryl May (May) of the Department’s Bureau of Agent and Agency Investigations for follow-up.
May initiated the Department's investigation with a call to Small on January 26, 2000. May was successful in making telephone contact, but the conversation was unproductive due to Small's distrust of the Department's staff and unwillingness to provide information.
Small believes himself to be the victim of a conspiracy between the Commissioner of Insurance and insurance agents who do not rebate commissions; he therefore felt justified in refusing to cooperate with May in answering questions concerning whether and to whom he had rebated commissions to customers, saying only, “You know the companies I am licensed with.”
More specifically, Small would not provide the names of any customers he had rebated commissions to. Small feared
adverse impacts upon his relationship with any customers state investigators might choose to contact.
Small elaborated on his fears in a letter to May dated October 15, 1999 which states in part:
I am writing the following facts from a consciousness that I can be killed at any moment.
There is a contract on my life to have me killed, taken out by business competitors. On 6 occasions in the last 3 years, mafia hitmen, paid for by these business competitors have tried to kill me.
Taking Small up on his implicit suggestion that the state deal directly with companies with whom Small had contractual relationships, May sent identical letters to the insurance companies for which Small was then authorized, or appointed, to sell insurance.
May later received responses from companies, as follows: Banner Life Insurance Company, responded on
January 26, 2000, through its legal department, with a letter to Small, which stated in pertinent part:
We are in receipt of the enclosed newspaper advertisement and Internet website advertisement from the Florida Department of Insurance. Since these advertisements could potentially result in the sale of Banner Life Insurance Company products, they should have been submitted to our company for prior approval. We have thoroughly reviewed our records and advertising logs, and have determined that you never received permission from us to use the enclosed advertisements.
Furthermore, if these advertisements had
been submitted, they would not have been approved for use.
First Colony Life Insurance Company, through its law department, wrote to May on December 15, 1999, and stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements; did not authorize Small to rebate commissions; and had no record of a rebate schedule filed by Small.
Unum Life Insurance company, through its customer relations manager, wrote to May on December 14, 1999, and stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements; did not authorize Small to rebate commissions, and had no record of a rebate schedule filed by Small.
Lincoln Benefit Life Company, through its Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, by letter to May dated December 14, 1999, stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements and did not authorize Small to rebate commissions. The letter also stated that Lincoln Benefit's file research revealed a letter from Small to a general agent for Lincoln Benefit detailing his rebating schedule, but did not supply any details regarding that document.
Transamerica Life Companies, through a compliance officer, wrote to the Insurance Commissioner on December 7, 1999, stating that it had not approved the newspaper or web site advertisements, and further noting that ". . . when Mr.
Small was recontracted as a producer in June 1999, the company had him sign a document acknowledging [its strict anti- rebating policy].”
Midland National Life Insurance Company, through its Consumer Affairs Associate, wrote to May on February 2, 2000. The letter stated that Small had produced little business for the company and that the company was in the process of terminating Small's appointment. It further stated that the company had not approved either of the advertisements. Finally, the letter made reference to its cooperation in a prior investigation of Small arising out a 1993 advertisement, and noted that it had been informed by the Department in August 1996 that that investigation was being closed.
Sun Life of Canada, through its markets [sic] compliance office, wrote to May on November 2, 1999, stating that the company affirmatively requires that ads "used to promote Sun Life products" are subject to review and approval, and that the company does not permit rebating.
Hartford Life, through its legal office, addressed a December 17, 1999, letter to May which stated that neither Respondent individually, nor through the Tax Savings Concepts entity, ever sought permission to rebate commissions with that company and no such authorization was ever granted.
At a minimum, the language of the advertisements published by Small to readers of The Palm Beach Post and to the entire world via the Internet, demonstrates that Small promotes his business by advertising to the public his willingness to grant rebates. Yet, he feels well justified in his unwillingness to cooperate with regulatory authorities by providing information which would facilitate a determination as to the bona fides of his advertisements, and the details of his rebating practices. Rather, Small insists that the regulators find out what they can from the companies with whom he is authorized. In this case, that procedure compels the conclusion that with the possible exception of Lincoln Benefit, Small has not filed rebate schedules at any time material to this case.
AS TO THE COUNT I ALLEGATIONS
Respondent’s newspaper advertisement is, when viewed in the light most generous to Small, unclear, ambiguous, and misleading. "85% off commissions" in the context of the entire advertisement doesn't tell the prospective purchasers what he is saving, if anything.
Small's representation that the prospective customer will enjoy “Legal Savings per Florida Statute 626.572” is false with respect to at least eight of the companies he represented at all times material to this case. As to these
companies, clear and convincing evidence establishes that he was not authorized to rebate pursuant to that statute.
In his untimely and unauthorized Motion to Quash, Small asserts that the baffling expression “PERSAVE $1,000’s” is there due to an error by The Palm Beach Post. It should have read, he contends, "You Save $1,000's." Thus, by Small's own admission, the suggestion to readers was intended to be that they stood to realize thousands of dollars in savings by doing business with Small.
AS TO THE COUNT II ALLEGATIONS
The web site advertisement is similarly unclear to the point of being intentionally misleading.
Small is not a "Palm Beach agent." His office is located within his home in Lake Worth, a municipality within the greater Palm Beaches area. Palm Beach is one of the best known playgrounds of some of the world's wealthiest people, and carries a cachet which the truth--that Small never leaves his home in Lake Worth--does not. It suggests to readers that Small's clientele includes the rich residents of Palm Beach, whom he makes richer.
The "85% off insurance commissions" advertised in the newspaper is upped to 90% off for Internet readers, and again begs the question, “90% off of what?”
In this advertisement, the phrase “$100,000+” of savings “in your pocket,” made without any factual predicate, convincingly suggests an intent to mislead.
Beyond self-serving and often incoherent testimony, Respondent's only effort to rebut the Department's case was through testimony that he had once “discussed” with Richard Scalesse (Scalesse), a Hartford Life account executive, “a large insurance case of about $120,000 of annual premium.” Scalesse could not remember details of the case. Assuming the accuracy of Small's testimony, in particular the claim that this case was “a very, very large case,” it does not rebut any element of the administrative charges nor does it support any element of an affirmative defense.
The last statement in the web page ad reads: “We also offer deep discounts on term life insurance.” What other type of insurance is being offered? Did the other discounts apply only to whole life? Annuities? Universal life? The advertisement offers no concrete information upon which a consumer could make a rational decision to consider doing business with the advertising agent.
Respondent's claims that the newspaper advertisement was placed by mistake and will never be repeated is too little, too late. The advertisement is not benign in that it simply advertises a "seminar," as Small contends. The
advertisement says nothing about a seminar, and even if it did, Small, when attempting to attract customers to his insurance business, is at all times bound by the statutes and rules governing the conduct and business practices of state- licensed insurance agents, no matter what he thinks of their constitutionality, or the people whose jobs it is to enforce those statutes and rules.
Each of the false and misleading statements contained in The Palm Beach Post ad, as well as on Small's website, was, at all times material to this case, authorized by Small.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1).
The Department has the burden of proving its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Florida's insurance industry is heavily regulated in order to protect consumers from deals that sound too good to be true, because experience teaches that they usually are. There is no requirement that financial harm to a specific individual be proven in order to impose discipline upon an
individual whose actions are calculated to mislead, and which have the potential to harm consumers.
The statutory provisions which Respondent is either alleged to have violated, or are otherwise pertinent to a determination of this matter, provide in pertinent part:
Subsection 626.572(1):
626.572 Rebating; when allowed.—
No agent shall rebate any portion of his or her commission except as follows:
The rebate shall be available to all insureds in the same actuarial class.
The rebate shall be in accordance with a rebating schedule filed by the agent with the insurer issuing the policy to which the rebate applies.
The rebating schedule shall be uniformly applied in that all insureds who purchase the same policy through the agent for the same amount of insurance receive the same percentage rebate.
Rebates shall not be given to an insured with respect to a policy purchased from an insurer that prohibits its agents from rebating commissions.
The rebate schedule is prominently displayed in public view in the agent's place of doing business and a copy is available to insureds on request at no charge.
The age, sex, place of residence, race, nationality, ethnic origin, marital status, or occupation of the insured or location of the risk is not utilized in determining the percentage of the rebate or whether a rebate is available.
Subsections 626.611 (7), (9) and (13) further provide:
626.611 Grounds for compulsory refusal, suspension, or revocation of agent's, title agency's, solicitor's, adjuster's, customer representative's, service representative's,
managing general agent's, or claims investigator's license or appointment.—The department shall deny an application for, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license or appointment of any applicant, agent, title agency, solicitor, adjuster, customer representative, service representative, managing general agent, or claims investigator, and it shall suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or appointment of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or appointee any one or more of the following applicable grounds exist:
* * *
(7) Demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance.
* * *
(9) Fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the licensee or appointment.
* * *
(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.
Subsections 626.621(2), (3), and (6) provide: 626.621 Grounds for discretionary
refusal, suspension, or revocation of
agent's, solicitor's, adjuster's, customer representative's, service representative's, managing general agent's, or claims investigator's license or appointment.—The department may, in its discretion, deny an application for, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license or appointment of any applicant, agent, solicitor, adjuster, customer representative, service representative,
managing general agent, or claims investigator, and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or appointment of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or appointee 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:
* * *
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 appointment.
* * *
Violation of any lawful order or rule of the department.
* * *
(6) In the conduct of business under the license or appointment, engaging in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as prohibited under part IX of this chapter, or having otherwise shown himself or herself to be a source of injury or loss to the public or detrimental to the public interest.
Subsection 626.9541(1)(a)1. provides:
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices defined. –
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS. – The following are defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices:
Misrepresentations and false advertising of insurance policies.— Knowingly making, issuing, circulating, or causing to be made, issued, or circulated,
any estimate, illustration, circular, statement, sales presentation, omission, or comparison which:
Misrepresents the benefits, advantages, conditions, or terms of any insurance policy.
Subsection 626.9541(1)(e)1., provides:
* * *
(e) False statements and entries.—
1. Knowingly:
Filing with any supervisory or other public official,
Making, publishing, disseminating, circulating,
Delivering to any person,
Placing before the public,
Causing, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, any false material statement.
The rule provisions which Respondent is either alleged to have violated, or are pertinent to a determination of this matter, state as follows:
Rule 4-150.101 Purpose.
The purpose of these rules is to provide prospective purchasers with clear and unambiguous statements in the advertisement of Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts, and to assure the clear, truthful and adequate disclosure of the benefits, limitations and exclusions of policies sold as Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts.
This purpose is intended to be accomplished by the establishment of guidelines and standards of permissible and impermissible conduct in the advertising of Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts to assure that product descriptions are presented in
a manner which prevents unfair, deceptive and misleading advertising and is conducive to accurate presentation and description of Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts to the segment of the insurance buying public through the advertising media and material used by insurance agents and companies.
Rule 4-150.105 Form and Content of Advertisements.
The form and content of a Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts advertisement shall be sufficiently complete and clear to avoid deception or the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive. Whether an advertisement has a capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive shall be determined by the Commissioner of Insurance from the overall impression that the advertisement may be reasonably expected to create upon a person of average education or intelligence, within the segment of the public to which it is directed.
Advertisements shall be truthful and
not misleading in fact or in implication. Words or phrases, whose meanings are clear only by implication or by the consumer's familiarity with insurance terminology, shall not be used.
(3)(a) An insurer shall clearly identify its life insurance and annuity contract as an insurance policy or annuity contract in its advertisements.
(b) The trade name of any policy shall be followed by or include the words "Insurance Policy" or "Annuity" or similar words clearly identifying the fact that an insurance policy or annuity is being offered through the use of the full generic name of the product; e.g., whole life insurance policy, variable life insurance policy, flexible premium life insurance policy, level term life insurance, reducing term life insurance, single premium deferred annuity, immediate annuity.
(4) No insurer, agent, broker, producer,
solicitor or other person shall solicit a
resident of this State for the purchase of Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts in connection with or as the result of the use of any advertisement which:
Contains any misleading representations, misrepresentations, or is otherwise untrue, deceptive or misleading with regard to the information imparted, the status, character or representative capacity of such person or the true purpose of the advertisement; or
Otherwise violates the provisions of these rules; or
Otherwise violates the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code.
Rule 4-150.107 Advertisements of Proceeds Payable, Premiums Payable, or Limited, Graded, or Modified Features.
Deceptive Words, Phrases, or Illustrations Prohibited
No advertisement shall omit information or use words, phrases, statements, references or illustrations if such omission or such use has the capacity, tendency or effect of misleading or deceiving purchasers or prospective purchasers as to the nature or extent of any policy or contract benefit payable, loss covered or premium payable. The fact that the policy or contract offered is made available to a prospective insured for inspection prior to consummation of the sale or an offer is made to refund the premium if the purchaser is not satisfied, does not remedy misleading statements.
Rule 4-150.114 Identity of Insurer.
* * *
(10) All advertisements used by agents, producers, brokers or solicitors of an insurer must have prior written approval or prior oral approval with subsequent written confirmation of approval by the insurer.
In Department of Insurance v. Dade County Consumer Advocate, 492 So. 2d 1032, 1035 (Fla. 1986), the Florida Supreme Court struck down the 1983 version of Sections 626.611(11) and 626.9541(1)(h)1., as being “unconstitutional under Article I, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution to the extent they prohibit insurance agents from rebating any portion of their commissions to their customers.”
The Florida Legislature then enacted another statute addressing rebating, Section 626.572, which is set forth in pertinent part above and which, at all times material to this case, has been in force. Small's argument that any effort to regulate the conduct of his insurance business in general, or to apply this statute to him, in particular, is unconstitutional is explicitly rejected. To the extent that Small may be challenging the constitutionality of any particular provision of the laws of Florida, this forum is without jurisdiction.
AS TO THE SECTION 626.572 ALLEGED WRONGDOINGS
Despite Respondent's sleight of hand -- i.e. the fact that his advertisements do not mention specific insurance companies -- there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent advertised rebates without following the procedures set forth in Subsection 626.572(1). Small advertised in order to attract customers for the purpose of selling insurance to
them. He could only sell insurance for companies with which he held appointments, and none of these companies permit rebating.
AS TO THE SECTION 626.611 ALLEGED WRONGDOINGS
There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s conduct demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction declares the provisions of Chapter 626 relating to advertising and rebating to be unconstitutional, Small is obligated to follow them. Instead, Small either actually engages in illegal rebating, or misleads prospective customers by ads intended to cause a belief that Small rebates, and does so legally.
A reasonable reading of Small's newspaper advertisement and website is that they are naked and intentional appeals to the greed or ignorance of the unwary and unsophisticated. P.T. Barnum observed that "a sucker is born every minute," and plainly these ads are aimed at that element of society. The state, however, has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from the dishonest business practices of those it licenses to sell insurance. For the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact, the advertisements, taken in context, are clearly and convincingly dishonest.
AS TO THE SECTION 626.621 ALLEGED WRONGDOINGS
There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s violations occurred in the course of his dealing under his insurance license. Subsection 626.621(2). Small made no effort to dispute this point, nor could he. Indeed, his entire defense is predicated on the argument that he is a victim of a conspiracy led by the Insurance Commissioner, an assertion which was not supported by a scintilla of evidence in this record.
As to the closely related, yet separate charge that Respondent has engaged in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” or has otherwise shown himself to be “a source of injury or loss to the public or detrimental to the public interest,” Subsection 626,621(6), clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Small's advertisements are in fact deceptive for the reasons discussed above. Deceptive business practices are inherently injurious to the public, and cannot be justified, even if every potential victim evades deception.
AS TO THE SECTIONS 626.9541(1)(a)1 AND (e)1. ALLEGED WRONGDOING
Small seeks to evade responsibility for his conduct by not listing in his advertisements the universe of insurance products which are offered for sale. This defense is too cleaver by half. None of the companies Small represented at all times material to this case permitted rebating. In
addition, they were not asked to approve, did not approve, and would not have approved had they been asked to approve, the content of Small's advertising.
There is no plausible theory upon which Small could have offered the "savings" to consumers referenced in his advertisements. The conclusion is inescapable that Small's false advertisements were knowingly made and circulated for the purpose of enticing customers by misrepresenting the discount benefit or advantage of policies which he could actually sell to the public. Therefore there has been a violation of Subsection 626.9541(1)(a)1 as well as Subsection 626.9541 (1)(e)1.
AS TO THE ALLEGED WRONGDOING WITH RESPECT TO RULE CHAPTER 4-150
Rule 4-150.101 states the purpose of the Department’s rules with respect to the advertising of life insurance products. Specifically, advertising statements are to be “clear and unambiguous.” Small's advertising does not come close to meeting this standard, and the failure is intentional on Small's part.
Rule 4-150.105 prohibits even a “tendency” to mislead or deceive and requires that all advertisements be truthful. “Words or phrases whose meanings are clear only by implication, or by the consumer’s familiarity with insurance terminology, shall not be used.” Thus, for example, if one
assumes that “90% off 2nd-to-die life insurance commissions” is a life insurance term of art, it should not have been used at all.
Further, Rule 4-150.107 prohibits misleading statements as to premiums to be paid by the insured on their policies. For reasons set forth above, Small's advertisements are inherently misleading.
Finally, Rule 4-150.114(10) requires that “all advertisements used by agents . . . of an insurer have prior written approval or prior oral approval with subsequent written confirmation of approval by the insurer.” The only documentary evidence introduced at the final hearing pursuant to Section 624.303(3) demonstrates that Respondent had no such approval.
For all of the foregoing reasons, clear and convincing evidence supports a finding of a knowing and willful violation of each of the statutes and rules cited in the Administrative Complaint.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding the Respondent, Barry Howard Small, guilty of violating Subsections 626.572(1), 626.611(7); 626.611(9); 626.611(13); 626.621(2); 626.621(3); 626.621(6);
626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., and Rules 4-150.101;
4-150.105(1)-(4); 4-150.107(1)(a); and 4-150.114(10), and
suspending his license for a period of one year.
DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
__________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 2002.
COPIES FURNISHED:
David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Insurance
200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Barry Howard Small
3200 South Ocean Boulevard Apartment 103D
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
Honorable Tom Gallagher
State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance
The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance
The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 24, 2002 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 09, 2002 | Recommended Order | Respondent`s license to sell insurance should be suspended for one year for false and misleading advertising. |
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs ALLAN BURTON CARMEL, 02-001620PL (2002)
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER vs. FRANK JOSEPH BRENNAN, 02-001620PL (2002)
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs THOMAS ANDREW MASCIARELLI, 02-001620PL (2002)
ABRAHAM G. MAIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, 02-001620PL (2002)
