The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., or its sureties are indebted to Petitioner, Suwanee Farms, for corn sold to Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based upon consideration of the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence, the following relevant findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Suwanee Farms, is a producer of agricultural products in Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, was licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as a dealer of agricultural products. During the period between September 20, 1994 and October 12, 1994, inclusive, Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, was bonded by Co-Respondent, General Accident Insurance Company of America. Between October 13, 1994 and October 29, 1994, inclusive, Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, was bonded by Co-Respondent, Armor Insurance Company. Petitioner sold corn to Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, between the period September 20, 1994 and October 29, 1994. Respondent was given a Bill of Lading for each order of corn it received. Petitioner sent an invoice to Mo-Bo Enterprises for each shipment of corn that was delivered to Mo-Bo Enterprises. The amount of each invoice represented the price of the corn to which Petitioner and Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, had agreed. Petitioner received a complaint from Mo-Bo Enterprises regarding corn which Petitioner had shipped to Mo-Bo Enterprises on October 4, 1994. Based on this complaint, Petitioner reduced the price of the corn by seventy-five cents (.75) per crate. As a result of this reduction, the adjusted total price for the shipment of corn reflected on Invoice No. 002392 is $1050.00, rather than the $1,200.00 shown. The terms of payment are set forth on the face of the invoice and require payment within thirty (30) days of the invoice date. The total amount of the invoices for shipments of corn sold and delivered to Mo-Bo Enterprises by Petitioner between September 20, 1994 and October 12, 1994, is $23,950.00. The total amount invoiced by Petitioner to Mo-Bo Enterprises, for corn sold and shipped to Mo-Bo Enterprises between October 13, 1994 and October 29, 1995, is $13,716.00. Despite repeated demands by Petitioner, Mo-Bo Enterprises has refused to pay for any of the shipments of corn. As of the date of the formal hearing, the invoice for each shipment of corn made between September 20, 1994 and October 29, 1994, remained due and owing and unpaid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order (1) requiring Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., or its surety Co-Respondent, General Accident Insurance Company of America, to pay Petitioner $23,950.00, and (2) further directing Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., or its surety, Co-Respondent Armor Insurance Company, to pay Petitioner $13,716.00. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1899 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Don Bieda, Esquire Legal Department General Accident Insurance Co. 436 Walnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1109 Joseph S. Hall & R. P. Wight Suwanee Farms Route 2 Box 3641 O'Brien, Florida 32071 Mark J. Albrechta, Esquire Legal Department Armor Insurance Company P.O. Box 15250 Tampa, Florida 33684-5250 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Bill Reinhardt, Esquire Rob Reinhardt, Esquire P.O. Box 1287 Tipton, Georgia 31793 Charles Barnard, Esquire 200 SE 6th Street Ste. 205 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Bradford A. Thomas, Esquire Suite 900 Brickell Centre 799 Brickell Plaza Miami, Florida 33131-2805 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Timothy Michael Crowley, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on September 14, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat. Respondent Timothy Michael Crowley was, at the times relevant, licensed in Florida as a life and health (2-18) agent, and a general lines, property and casualty agent. Mr. Crowley’s license number is A058537. Mr. Crowley, who is 61 years of age, has been an insurance agent for approximately 30 years. At the times relevant to this matter, Mr. Crowley was employed by Insurance Center of South Florida (hereinafter referred to as “Insurance Center”). Insurance Center is located in Coral Springs, Florida. At all relevant times, Mr. Crowley transacted commercial lines of insurance for Insurance Center. Count I; Xiaoqu Ma and Q-Nails. The Department has abandoned the charges of Count I, involving Xiaoqu Ma and Q-Nails, in Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. The evidence concerning Count I failed to prove the factual allegations necessary to support the charges of Count I. Count II; Charles Rosenthal and Cer-Tax, Inc. On or about December 15, 2004, a letter and three forms were faxed from Mr. Crowley on Insurance Center letterhead to Cer-Tax, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Cer-Tax”), an accounting business owned and operated by Charles Rosenthal. Insurance Center had been providing office general liability insurance coverage to Cer-Tax for several years. Mr. Crowley’s letter was sent to Cer-Tax because it was time for Cer-Tax to renew its insurance. Mr. Crowley stated, in part, the following in his letter, which was dated December 10, 2004, to Cer-Tax: We are pleased to offer the following quote for the renewal of your expiring office general liability policy. North Point Insurance Company $300,000 General Liability Policy Aggregate $300,000 General Liability Per Occurance [sic] $100,000 Damage to Rented Property of Others This policy is for premises liability only. Total annual premium $582.00 This quote is based on the imformation [sic] provided, subject to loss history verification, a satisfactory inspection and compliance with all recommendations. In order to bind the coverage we will need a check in the amount of $582.00 and the enclosed forms signed. You can fax the forms back to me and then please mail the originals with your signature. Please be sure to read the attached notice of terrorism insurance coverage. This notice is required by Federal Law and must be signed at the time of binding. Please feel free to call in the event you should have any questions regarding your coverages or the renewal process. The three forms attached to the December 10, 2004, letter for Mr. Rosenthal’s signature included: a “Notice-Offer of Terrorism Coverage and Disclosure of Premium” form; an “Applicant Information Section”; and a document titled “Nation Safe Drivers Enrollment Application” (hereinafter referred to as the “Nation’s Application”). While Mr. Crowley’s letter clearly indicates that all three forms, including the Nation’s Application, had to be signed on behalf of Cer-Tax and a total payment of $582.00 had to be made “[i]n order to bind the coverages,” described in the letter as “general liability” coverages, the Nation’s Application had nothing to do with the office general liability coverage Cer-Tax desired and Mr. Rosenthal thought he was renewing. In fact, the Nation’s Application was for an ancillary insurance coverage or product that provided accidental death benefits and membership in a motor club. Insurance Center had begun selling the Nation Safe Drivers product after Mr. Crowley became employed by Insurance Center. In addition to having no direct relationship to the office general liability coverage Cer-Tax desired and Mr. Rosenthal was told by Mr. Crowley in his December 10, 2004, letter Insurance Center was renewing, there was a separate charge for the Nation Safe Drivers product. The charge was $100.00 and it was included in the $582.00 charge Mr. Crowley told Cer-Tax was the total annual premium for Cer-Tax’s renewal of its office general liability policy. The actual cost of the office general liability insurance policy was $482.00, a fact which was not explained by Mr. Crowley to Mr. Rosenthal. Even if Mr. Rosenthal had paid more attention to the documents he was told to sign, it is unlikely that Mr. Rosenthal or any other reasonable person would have concluded that he was paying for anything other than the renewal of Cer-Tax’s office general liability insurance policy. Nor should Mr. Rosenthal, given Mr. Crowley’s explanation, have reasonably concluded that the Nation Safe Drivers product was a policy separate from the one he thought he was purchasing. As instructed in the December 10, 2004, letter from Mr. Crowley, on or about December 16, 2004, Mr. Rosenthal signed the three documents where they had been marked with an “x” in a circle. Mr. Rosenthal also included his birth date on the Nation’s Application. The forms and a check for $582.00 payable to Insurance Center were returned to Insurance Center. Insurance Center, while informing Mr. Rosenthal and Cer-Tax that it was selling Cer-Tax an insurance product from North Pointe Insurance Company, actually sold two separate products: an office general liability policy from North Pointe Insurance Company; and a Nation Safe Drivers product providing accidental death benefits and membership in a motor club. The latter product was not one which Cer-Tax was aware it was purchasing or one that it desired. While Mr. Rosenthal is an educated accountant, authorized to represent clients before the Internal Revenue Service, he is not an insurance agent. Mr. Rosenthal, given the representations in Mr. Crowley’s December 10, 2004, letter, acted reasonably in following Mr. Crowley’s instructions and in not inquiring further about the Nation’s Application. Count III; Selma Schevers and Realty Unlimited, Inc. On or about December 10, 2004, a document and three forms were faxed by Mr. Crowley to Realty Unlimited, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Realty Unlimited”), and Selma Schevers, the owner of Realty Unlimited. Mr. Crowley stated, in part, the following in the document: Insurance Company: National Insurance Company---Rated A+ by A.M. Best Co. Business Personal Property Business property - $25,000.00 per location #1 & #2, Location #3 $40,000 special form including theft valued on a replacement cost basis. $500 deductible Theft sublimt [sic] $25,000 Including wind/hail 2% deductible or $1,000 whichever is greater Any other peril deductible - $1,000 Business income $100,000 per location payable 1/3 over 90 days Commercial General Liability Coverage General Aggregate: $2,000,000 Per Occurrence: Products and Completed $1,000,000 Operations: $Excluded Personal Injury: $1,000,000 Advertising Injury: $Excluded Fire Damage Leagal [sic] Liability: $100,000 Medical Payments: $5,000 Deductible $500 per claim – Occurrence Basis Professional Liabilty General Aggregate: None Included in General Liability Total Annual Premium $5190.00 . . . . Please sign the two applications, terrorism form, and the Nations enrollment form. Please fax back to me with your check and be sure to mail the original signatures to me. Also please sign this form and return the original to me to authorize me to sign your name to the premium finance agreement. X I will bind your coverages as soon as I receive your check and the faxed signed forms. I will then send you a certificate of insurance showing all the coverages are in effect. Please call should you have any questions about your coverages or what needs to be signed. One of the forms sent to Ms. Schevers was a Nation’s Application identical to the one sent to Cer-Tax. While Ms. Schevers could not remember seeing the Nation’s Application, she did identify her date of birth written on the application as being in her handwriting. While Mr. Crowley’s letter, unlike the one sent to Cer-Tax, identifies the Nation’s Application, his letter only describes the insurance Realty Unlimited was interested in purchasing, which was business general liability insurance, and fails to explain what the Nation’s Application is for. Mr. Crowley indicates in the document that he will “bind your coverages as soon as I receive your check and the faxed signed forms,” which included the Nation’s Application. Mr. Crowley also suggested in the document that the “Total Annual Premium” of $5,190.00 was for the business general liability insurance. He failed to inform Realty Unlimited that the $5,190.00 premium included an additional charge of $200.00 for Nation Safe Drivers coverage, coverage which had not been requested by Realty Unlimited and was unwanted coverage. While Ms. Schevers, on behalf of Realty Unlimited, signed some of the forms sent to her by Mr. Crowley, she did not sign the Nation’s Application. She returned the signed forms on or about December 10, 2004, with a down payment of $1,480.00, which Mr. Crowley had indicated was acceptable. The down payment from Realty Unlimited was divided by the Insurance Center, with $1,280.00 being applied toward the business general liability insurance desired by Realty Unlimited and $200.00 applied in full payment for Nation Safe Drivers coverage despite the fact that Ms. Schevers had not signed the Nation’s Application. Insurance Center, while informing Ms. Schevers and Realty Unlimited that it was selling Realty Unlimited an insurance product from National Insurance Company, actually sold two separate products: a business general liability insurance policy from National Insurance Company; and a Nation Safe Drivers product providing accidental death benefits and membership in a motor club. The latter product was not one which Realty Unlimited was aware it was purchasing, one that it desired, or one for which Ms. Schevers even signed an application. Nor was it one, assuming Ms. Schevers saw the Nation’s Application, Ms. Schevers should have realized was not part of the insurance product she wished to purchase. Counts IV and V. The Department has abandoned the charges of Counts IV and V at hearing and in Department’s Proposed Recommended Order. No evidence concerning Counts IV and V was presented at hearing to support the charges of these Counts. Aggravating/Mitigating Factors; Prior Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Crowley. In addition to this disciplinary matter, an Administrative Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “1997 Administrative Complaint”) was issued against Mr. Crowley on or about April 2, 1997. The charges of the 1997 Administrative Complaint, which included allegations of wrong-doing similar to those at issue in this case, were resolved by a Consent Order issued pursuant to a Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order. Among other things, the Consent Order ordered that Mr. Crowley cease and desist from using any methods or practices in the business of insurance which would constitute the act or practice of “sliding.” Aggravating/Mitigating Factors; Reimbursement of Premiums. The premiums paid by Cer-Tax and Realty Unlimited have been refunded by Mr. Crowley and Insurance Center.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Timothy Michael Crowley violated the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, described, supra; dismissing all other charges; and suspending his license and appointment for a period of twelve months. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 27th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Alan Fox, Senior Attorney Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jed Berman, Esquire Infantino and Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether one or more grounds exist for suspending, or imposing other discipline against, Respondent’s license, where Petitioner charges that Respondent engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business as a licensed health insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Big Picture 1. Gonzalez is, and at all times material was, a Florida- licensed health insurance agent whose conduct qua licensee is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department. 2. From April 1997 until January 25, 1999, Gonzalez worked as a sales representative for Foundation Health, a Florida Health Plan, Inc. (“Foundation”) at its offices in Dade County, Florida. Foundation paid Gonzalez a base salary and car allowance plus commissions and bonuses tied to production. 3. As an agent of Foundation, Gonzalez’s job was to solicit applications from Medicare recipients for membership in Foundation’s Senior Value Medicare Plan, a health maintenance organization (“HMO”) that, through managed care, provided a broader spectrum of benefits than otherwise was available under traditional Medicare coverage. For each Medicare recipient enrolled in the Senior Value Medicare Plan, Foundation received a monthly payment from the federal Health Care Financing Administration (“HCFA”). 4. On January 14, 1999, Gonzalez, as Foundation’s representative, signed an application for enrollment in the Senior Value Medicare Plan that had been filled out for an applicant named “Doris Simpson.” Included in the application were numerous identifying data such as Ms. Simpson’s address, phone number, date of birth, social security number, and Medicare number. Gonzalez submitted Ms. Simpson’s January 14, 1999, application to Foundation, initiating the enrollment process. 5. The Doris Simpson who fit the application’s description had died on or around July 1, 1998. The fact of her death was discovered in short order by HCFA during the ordinary course of the enrollment process. HCFA naturally rejected the bogus application and notified Foundation of the problem on or around January 20, 1999. 6. On January 22, 1999, Foundation suspended Gonzalez for three days, effective immediately, pending the outcome of its investigation into the Doris Simpson matter. 7. Gonzalez resigned his employment with Foundation on January 25, 1999. Thereafter, on February 1, 1999, Gonzalez began working for Physicians Healthcare Plans, Inc. as a sales representative, a job he has held ever since. Mistake or Misconduct? 8. The foregoing facts are largely undisputed; those that follow mostly are, hotly. Getting to the bottom of whether Gonzalez made an honest mistake, as he maintains, or submitted a fraudulent application, as the Department has charged, is facilitated by a careful scrutiny of Gonzalez’s conflicting explanations of what happened. 9. Gonzalez’s most contemporaneous account of the Simpson affair appears to be contained in an undated handwritten document, entitled simply “Statement,” that Gonzalez himself indisputably prepared and signed. The full text of this paper follows: STATEMENT Prospect: Doris Simpson Ss# 075-22-6675 Agent: George J. Gonzalez Ss# 263-92-7916 To whom it may concern: To the best of my recollection I arrived at 20879 N.W. 9th Ct #107 (Walden Ponds Community) during the morning of (on or about) 11 a.m. 14th Jan.—through the gate system. Ms. Simpson agreed to my visit & let me in. Ms. Simpson opened [the] door and throughout my presentation produced a Medicare card and then proceeded to verification. Verification person was “DAWN.” Throughout the whole process everything proceeded to a normal sit down “application-to-verification” prospect call. P.S. She is blind, African-American. {Signed] George J. Gonzalez 10. Gonzalez’s manager at Foundation, Sergio Rumie, testified that sometime between January 20 and January 22, 1999, Gonzalez personally had handed him this Statement, which, according to Mr. Rumie, constituted Gonzalez’s written explanation of what had occurred with the Simpson application. Mr. Rumie recalled that in a discussion between the two of them, Gonzalez had told him that he (Gonzalez) had met with someone (obviously not Doris Simpson) in the Simpson household on January 14, 1999, who had held herself out as Ms. Simpson and signed the application. Mr. Rumie believed Gonzalez. 11. Although the Statement is not dated, two details in Gonzalez’s handwritten memorandum strongly suggest that the events of January 14, 1999, were its intended subject. The first of these telltale details is the date itself. The controversial Simpson application is dated January 14, 1999. The Statement refers to a meeting between Gonzalez and Doris Simpson on January 14. No imagination is required to connect one to the other. 12. The second common denominator linking the Statement to the phony Simpson application is the verifier’s name, Dawn. Before going on, however, some additional background must be provided, so that the significance of this datum may be understood. 13. At all times material, an independent contractor located in Utah performed application verification services for Foundation. The name of this contractor is not in evidence. For convenience’s sake, following the witnesses’ lead, the contractor will be referred to simply as “Utah.” 14. As part of the approved sales process, Foundation required its agents to place a telephone call to Utah, in the presence of the prospective enrollee, whenever an application had been completed. Once connected, the agent was supposed to introduce the applicant to the verifier, and then turn the phone over to the applicant. Using a script, the verifier would ask the applicant a series of questions, to confirm that he or she understood the transaction at hand. If the interview went well, the verifier would give the agent a verification number along with his or her name, both of which the agent would record on the face of the application. Foundation would not accept an _application unless it contained a verification number. 15. On the controversial Simpson application of January 14, 1999, Gonzalez wrote, by hand, a verification number and the verifier’s name, which happens to have been Dawn—the very name, recall, of the verifier who was so prominently identified (as “DAWN”) in the Statement. 16. If the story ended here, it would be difficult to find that Gonzalez had willfully submitted a false application. Rather, to this point, Gonzalez seems to have been the victim of a strange hoax, fooled by an imposter pretending (for reasons that admittedly are not readily apparent) to be the late Doris Simpson. Mr. Rumie, after all, who knew Gonzalez and was ina position to assess his character and credibility at the time of the incident, had believed this to be the case. 17. But there is more to the story. The exculpatory scenario just mentioned holds water only if Gonzalez were unacquainted with the real Doris Simpson, for if Gonzalez had known the decedent personally, then common sense would counsel that he could not have fallen for a poseur’s deceit. 18. Gonzalez testified that he had been to Ms. Simpson's home on three occasions before January 1999, and that he knew her well. Twice, he said, he had taken an application from Ms. Simpson in person, had submitted the application, which was accepted, and thereby had succeeded in enrolling her in Foundation’s HMO. Each time, however, Ms. Simpson had dis- enrolled before long. Corroborating Gonzalez’s account are two completed applications, dated March 31, 1997, and June 4, 1998, and the fact that Ms. Simpson had been a member of the Senior Value Medical Plan for brief periods following these dates. 19. Gonzalez claimed also to have taken an application from Ms. Simpson in January 1998 that was rejected. In contrast to the other two, however, no application from January 1998 was produced at hearing—indeed, no persuasive corroborating evidence of any kind was adduced in support of this supposed January 1998 application. 20. The reliability of Gonzalez's testimony that he knew Ms. Simpson personally from dealings between them that had occurred before January 1999 is high because the fact is against his interests; this much of Gonzalez's testimony, therefore, is accepted as true and adopted as a fact finding. 21. On the other hand, Gonzalez's testimony that he met with Ms. Simpson in January 1998 and took an application from her at that time is suspiciously self-serving (as will be seen) and, ultimately, not believable. Initially, Gonzalez’s failure to produce the purported application raises a skeptical eyebrow. But what sinks Gonzalez's story about meeting Ms. Simpson in January 1998 is that the tale was told in an incredible attempt to explain away the Statement (which, if intended to refer to events of January 14, 1999, cannot be squared with Gonzalez’s admission that he had by then known Ms. Simpson personally from prior dealings) as a memorandum regarding this purported January 1998 visit. Gonzalez maintained that, by coincidence, he had happened to meet with Ms. Simpson on January 14, 1998, and again on January 14, 1999, and that both times the verifier, as chance would have it, was Dawn. This contention is contrived and forced. 22. Taken as a whole, the evidence is convincing that Gonzalez wrote the Statement in January 1999 for his former employer and delivered it to Mr. Rumie between January 20 and January 22, 1999, with the intent that the Statement be understood as a description of the circumstances surrounding Gonzalez’s solicitation of the January 14, 1999, application from the putative Ms. Simpson. The contents of the Statement, 10 however, are false and misleading, as was Gonzalez's testimony at hearing about the Statement. 23. Gonzalez gave a different account of the Simpson application to the Department of Insurance in response to the Administrative Complaint in this matter. In an undated letter to the Department which the Department received on September 6, 2000, Gonzalez wrote: By recollection I believe this case involves a mail-in situation. I recall that I sent maybe two/three such invitation packages in the Spring of 1998 and one could have been for Mrs. Simpson. That practice is no longer tolerated after a new Vice-president of marketing (Medicare) was installed in the Sawgrass Headquarters late May of that same year. As 1998 was ending in December (late) I believe I received an application signed and (I believe) it was the Simpson one. I completed the data in those days that followed early in January 1999, before starting my new job did a phone verification (3 way) or gave this information to a verifying person (Utah) and the person was thus verified (I cannot be clear on this). Hearing no problems from Utah I recorded the authorization # on a call back from Utah or after the verification; if done by 3-way. I did not know of her death and in fact only found out when receiving your package of counts and allegations on August 21, 2000. I would only add that Mrs. Simpson had a family member there, perhaps her sister. During my first application for the plan with Mrs. Simpson in late 1997 I believe she helped in the signing and subsequent verification of her sister. Mrs. Simpson 11 could not sign any proper way the petitions. I believe she was blind in my recollections. 24. Ironically, one of the few unqualified representations in this letter of Gonzalez's to the Department—that he “in fact” had first learned of Ms. Simpson’s death upon receipt of the Administrative Complaint—was clearly untrue. In fact, Gonzalez undeniably had known of Ms. Simpson's death at the time of his resignation from Foundation on January 25, 1999, if not sooner, and certainly long before August 21, 2000, in any event. 25. As for the rest of this explanation, Gonzalez essentially stuck with it at hearing, although his memory apparently had improved by then, for he seemed far more confident of the details than he had as author of the above- quoted letter. 26. In a nutshell, Gonzalez claimed that, on his own initiative, he had mailed a partially filled-out application to Ms. Simpson in June or July 1998 with note asking her to sign and return the document if she wanted to re-enroll in Foundation's Medicare HMO. He claimed to have had no further contact with Ms. Simpson until, in late December 1998 or early January 1999, he received through the mail Ms. Simpson's signed- but-undated application. According to Gonzalez, despite the delay of some five months, Gonzalez failed to call Ms. Simpson to confirm her continued interest and instead signed the 12 application on January 14, 1999, inscribing the same date next to the purported signature of Ms. Simpson. He claimed to have contacted Utah, provided the necessary information to the verifier, and in due course to have received a verification number from Dawn, which signified to him that all was in order. 27. This story is facially unbelievable and is rejected as a fabrication. Moreover, there is an out-of-place detail on the January 14, 1999, application that exposes the chicanery; namely, the designated primary care physician, a Dr. Nidal Radwan, who is specifically identified therein as Ms. Simpson's current physician. When Gonzalez was asked at hearing to point out the parts of the application that he had filled out, Gonzalez replied, making reference to the top quarter of the first page where the primary care physician information appears, that [t]he part that's my handwriting is the name, the address, the phone number, and the date of birth, and doctor selected, which was her last doctor. I put it there, I said does she [sic] want this doctor again. Transcript of Final Hearing at 193 (emphasis added). 28. At the time Gonzalez supposedly prepared this application, in June or July 1998, he had not spoken with Ms. Simpson specifically about doing so; indeed, she may well already have passed away. He certainly did not speak with her about doctors after July 1, 1998. Yet on the previous 13 application that Gonzalez had taken from Ms. Simpson just a few weeks before her death, dated June 4, 1998 (Respondent's Exhibit 4), Ms. Simpson had chosen a Dr. [Illegible] -Nunez as her primary care physician—not Dr. Radwan. 29. It is commonly known that for a genuine insurance application, the sales representative or agent will endeavor to elicit truthful, complete, and current information from the applicant and rely upon the applicant's representations in preparing the paperwork. The fact that Gonzalez's selection of Dr. Radwan as Ms. Simpson's "current" primary care physician was not based on information obtained from Ms. Simpson—aindeed, his election deviated from her last (known) written expression of intent in this regard—-exposes the act as an arbitrary choice of Gonzalez's, which in turn underscores the counterfeit nature of the January 14, 1999, application. The Charges 30. In Count I of its Administrative Complaint, based on allegations that Gonzalez had signed and presented an application for insurance in the name Doris Simpson, who was at the time deceased, the Department accused Gonzalez of having submitted an enrollment form that he "knew or should have known" contained false or fraudulent information, in violation of Sections 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Department alleged the following grounds for discipline: 14 (a) Willful misrepresentation of any insurance policy or annuity contract or willful deception with regard to any such policy or contract, done either in person or by any form of dissemination of information or advertising. [Section 626.611(5), Florida Statutes] ; (b) Demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. [Section 626.611(7}, Florida Statutes] ; (c) Fraudulent or dishonest practices in the conduct of business under the license or appointment. [Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes] ; (d) 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. [Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes] ; (e) 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. [Section 626.621(2), Florida Statutes] ; (£) 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 X 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. [Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes] ; [and] (g} 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: Misrepresentation in insurance applications.- Knowingly making a false or 15 fraudulent written or oral statement or representation on, or relative to, an application or negotiation for an insurance policy for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money, or other benefit from any insurer, agent, broker, or individual. [Section 626.9541(1) (k), Florida Statutes] [.] Ultimate Factual Determinations 31. Because the evidence does not illuminate all the particulars of Gonzalez’s scheme, it is impossible to reconstruct completely the precise course of his misconduct. The evidence is sufficient, however, to establish, clearly and convincingly, that on or around January 14, 1999, Gonzalez: (a) signed an insurance application for Ms. Doris Simpson knowing that she had neither requested the sought-after coverage, nor supplied information for that application, nor executed the application herself; (b) placed a date next to the purported signature of Ms. Simpson (which he knew was not hers) intentionally to represent, falsely, that “she” and he had signed the instrument contemporaneously (and hence, implicitly, in one another’s presence); and (c) with intent to deceive, submitted this bogus application to his employer, Foundation, for the purpose of obtaining a commission or other benefit. 16
Conclusions For Petitioner: Anoush A. Arakalian, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 For Respondent: Ignacio Siberio, Esquire 525 Northwest 27th Avenue, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33125
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order suspending Gonzalez’s health insurance agent license for a period of one year. 21 DONE AND ENTERED this 10 day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon Count 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 lot day of July, 2001.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Mr. Hannifin was licensed by the Department as a resident Life Agent, Life and Health Agent, General Lines (Property and Casualty Insurance) Agent, and Health Agent. Mr. Hannifin's license identification number is A110269. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hannifin was licensed by the State of Florida as an insurance agent. At all times material hereto, Mr. Hannifin was the president of Hannifin & Associates, Inc. He was the only insurance agent in Hannifin & Associates. An investigator with the Department investigated several complaints against Mr. Hannifin. The investigator tape recorded Mr. Hannifin's statement on September 3, 2003, after informing Mr. Hannifin of his Miranda rights and having Mr. Hannifin execute a Miranda warning card. During the statement, the investigator presented several documents to Mr. Hannifin and asked him several questions regarding the documents. The investigator testified at hearing and the tape recording was received into evidence. As to the identification of those documents, the undersigned finds the investigator's testimony credible. Mr. Hannifin made admissions during the taped statement2 (Statement). The undersigned finds the Statement credible. The undersigned took official recognition of a criminal matter involving Mr. Hannifin, regarding the issues in the Administrative Complaint, in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit: State of Florida v. Mark Dwain Hannifin, Case No. 03-0112566CFA02. In the Information filed in the court case on October 28, 2003, Mr. Hannifin was charged with two counts of misappropriation of insurance funds (Counts 1 and 2) and four counts of uttering a forgery (Counts 3-6). Pertinent to this matter, Count 2 of the Information involved Madd Dogs Installation, Inc. (Madd Dogs Install'n); Count 3 involved Double A Industries (Double A); Count 4 involved Rockwell Development Company (Rockwell Development); and Count 6 involved Royal Professional Builders, Inc. (Royal Professional Builders). Subsequently, Mr. Hannifin entered into a Pretrial Intervention Program, Deferred Prosecution Agreement on all counts, filed in the court case on April 12, 2005, in which, among other things, prosecution was deferred for a period of 12 months provided Mr. Hannifin abided by certain agreed conditions. COUNT I On or about September 20, 2001, Timothy McClure and Brett Carnahan of Madd Dogs Install'n met with Mr. Hannifin at his office.3 They sought to obtain workers' compensation insurance and commercial general liability insurance for Madd Dogs Install'n. Messrs. McClure and Carnahan agreed to obtain the workers' compensation insurance and commercial general liability insurance for Madd Dogs Install'n from Mr. Hannifin. The workers' compensation insurance was to be provided by Florida United Businesses Associations, Inc. (FUBA), and the commercial general liability insurance was to be provided by Burlington Insurance Company (BIC). On that same day, Messrs. McClure and Carnahan completed the applications for the insurance. Mr. Hannifin received from Messrs. McClure and Carnahan a partial premium payment for the workers' compensation insurance in the amount of $1,205.70 in cash; a premium payment for the commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $453.00 in cash; and an application fee for membership in FUBA in the amount of $50.00 in cash. Mr. Hannifin deposited the monies received into the business account of Hannifin & Associates. Hannifin & Associates sent Madd Dogs Install'n four invoices for monthly premiums relating to the workers' compensation insurance. Between November 2001 and February 2002, Madd Dogs Install'n, by and through Mr. McClure by check, made four monthly payments on the premiums due for the workers' compensation insurance. The payments were deposited into the business account of Hannifin & Associates. Mr. Hannifin failed to remit any of the payments from Madd Dogs Install'n to BIC, to FUBA or to any other insurance company. Mr. Hannifin never obtained the workers' compensation insurance and the commercial general liability insurance for Madd Dogs Install'n. Mr. Hannifin admitted in his Statement that, due to cash flow problems, he diverted the monies paid by Madd Dogs Install'n to his own use. Mr. Hannifin admitted in his Statement that he did not return the money to Mr. McClure.4 Among the conditions provided in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement was that Mr. Hannifin would pay Mr. McClure $8,763.60. COUNT II Mr. Hannifin issued to Madd Dogs Install'n a Certificate of Liability Insurance (Certificate). The date on the Certificate was November 28, 2001. The Certificate provided, among other things, that the insured was Madd Dogs Install'n; that the insurers were BIC for commercial general liability coverage and FUBA for workers' compensation coverage; that the policy number for the commercial general liability was B20394871; that the policy number for the workers' compensation coverage was F4673920; that the coverage period for the policy was September 20, 2001 through September 20, 2002; that the certificate holder was Rockwell Development; and that the "Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. . . ." Mr. Hannifin signed the Certificate, as the authorized representative. Madd Dogs Install'n provided a copy of the Certificate to Rockwell Development. Before permitting subcontractors to perform work on its projects, Rockwell Development requires the subcontractors to provided proof of insurance. Madd Dogs Install'n was a subcontractor of Rockwell Development. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, without the Certificate, Rockwell Development would not allow Madd Dogs Install'n to perform any work at its (Rockwell Development) projects. Mr. Hannifin knew that Rockwell Development would receive a copy of the Certificate.5 Count II contains an allegation that Mr. Hannifin furnished a copy of the Certificate to Rockwell Development. The evidence failed to demonstrate that Mr. Hannifin or anyone in his office, which would satisfy showing that he furnished the Certificate, furnished the copy to Rockwell Development. However, failure to prove this allegation is inconsequential in that the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Hannifin knew that a copy of the Certificate would be furnished to Rockwell Development whether he, or someone in his office, or Madd Dogs Install'n furnished the copy. Madd Dogs Install'n was not insured with either BIC or FUBA. Mr. Hannifin knew that Madd Dogs Install'n did not become, and was not, insured by either BIC or FUBA. He did nothing to cure the non-insurance coverage. Further, as a result, Mr. Hannifin knew that the policy numbers for coverage were nonexistent and, therefore, false. The Certificate was a false material statement. COUNT III Mr. Hannifin issued to Madd Dogs Install'n a Certificate. The date on the Certificate was March 21, 2002. The Certificate provided, among other things, that the insured was Madd Dogs Install'n; that the insurers were BIC for commercial general liability coverage and FUBA for workers' compensation coverage; that the policy number for the commercial general liability was B958477322; that the policy number for the workers' compensation coverage was F4673920; that the coverage period for the policy was September 20, 2001 through September 20, 2002; that the certificate holder was Double A; and that the "Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. . . ." Mr. Hannifin signed the Certificate, as the authorized representative. Before permitting subcontractors to perform work on its projects, Double A requires the subcontractors to provided proof of insurance. Madd Dogs Install'n was a subcontractor of Double A. Based on the evidence presented, an inference is drawn and a finding is made that Mr. Hannifin provided a copy of the Certificate to Double A.6 An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, without the Certificate, Double A would not allow Madd Dogs Install'n to perform any work at its (Double A) projects. Mr. Hannifin knew that Double A would receive a copy of the Certificate. Madd Dogs Install'n was not insured with either BIC or FUBA. Mr. Hannifin knew that Madd Dogs Install'n did not become, and was not, insured by either BIC or FUBA. He did nothing to cure the non-insurance coverage. Further, as a result, Mr. Hannifin knew that the policy numbers for coverage were nonexistent. The Certificate was a false material statement. COUNT IV Mr. Hannifin issued to R. K. Drywall7 a Certificate. The date on the Certificate was August 26, 2002. The Certificate provided, among other things, that the insured was R. K. Drywall; that the insurer was Florida Citrus Association (FCA), which is also FUBA, for workers' compensation coverage; that the policy number for the workers' compensation coverage was FLWC96850049; that the coverage period for the policy was August 17, 2002 through August 17, 2003; that the certificate holder was Royal Professional Builders; and that the "Certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. " Mr. Hannifin signed the Certificate, as the authorized representative. Mr. Hannifin did not forward any money to FCA for the workers' compensation coverage. R. K. Drywall was not insured by FCA. Mr. Hannifin knew that R. K. Drywall did not become, and was not, insured by FCA. He did nothing to cure the non- insurance coverage. Further, as a result, Mr. Hannifin knew that the policy number for coverage was nonexistent. The Certificate was a false material statement. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that, without the Certificate, Royal Professional Builders would not allow R. K. Drywall to perform any work at its (Royal Professional Builders) projects. Mr. Hannifin admitted in his Statement that he furnished Royal Professional Builders a copy of the Certificate. Mr. Hannifin also admitted in his Statement that he returned to R. K. Drywall all the monies paid to him. Count IV contains an allegation that Mr. Hannifin signed and furnished the Certificate to Royal Professional Builders on August 26, 2001, instead of August 26, 2002. In the proposed findings of fact of the Department's post-hearing submission, the Department again refers to the date as August 26, 2001, in spite of the evidence to the contrary; and, as supported by the evidence, refers to the year of another Certificate, showing R. K. Drywall as the insured and Badger Homes, Inc., as the certificate holder, as 2002. At no time did the Department make a request to declare the year of 2001 as a scrivener's error and to amend the Administrative Complaint accordingly. Taking into consideration that the burden of proof is upon the Department by clear and convincing evidence and taking into consideration the evidence presented at hearing and the Department's post-hearing submission, the undersigned considers the year of 2001 in the Administrative Complaint to be critical and not a harmless error. Therefore, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to show that the Certificate's date was August 26, 2001, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order: Finding that Mark D. Hannifin committed the following violations: Count I--violated Sections 626.611(7), (9) and (10) and 626.621(2) (by failing to comply with Section 626.561(1)), Florida Statutes (2001); and Counts II and III-- violated Sections 626.611(7) and (9), and 626.621(6) (by engaging in or committing the methods or acts or practices defined in Section 626.9541(1)(e)1.b. ,c., and e.), Florida Statutes (2001); and Revoking the licenses and appointments of Mark D. Hannifin. S DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of December, 2005.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the information filed against respondent be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Louis B. Guttman, III Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Robert J. O'Toole Buckeye Building 208 Southeast Sixth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the license of Allen Franklin Meredith (Respondent) should be disciplined by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Petitioner) for allegedly allowing others to use his general lines insurance agent license, and to sign his name to insurance policy applications while Respondent was not present, as more particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint issued herein on or about October 12, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed, and eligible for licensure, in the State of Florida as a life and health insurance agent, health insurance agent, and a general lines insurance agent. During April, 1989, Respondent approached Gordon Rowan, owner of Gordon Rowan Real Estate and Insurance in Winter Haven, Florida, to inquire whether Rowan would assist Respondent in obtaining a renewal of his general lines insurance agent license. Respondent was residing with his family in Georgia at the time, and told Rowan that his Florida general lines agent license was about to expire, and he needed to get licensed with a Florida company in order to apply for renewal. Rowan agreed to pay for Respondent's renewal fee, and for licensing him with a Florida Company doing business through Rowan's agency. On or about April 30, 1987, Rowan applied to National Insurance Associates for licensure on behalf of Respondent, and paid the applicable license fee. On or about May 20, 1987, Respondent was licensed with National Insurance Associates as a general lines insurance agent, and his Florida general lines license was renewed. Respondent admitted in an affidavit executed on November 16, 1987, that he did authorize Rowan to use his general lines license from the beginning of May to the end of June, 1987, while he was still living in Georgia. This authorization was in exchange for Rowan's assistance in obtaining Respondent's licensure with National Insurance Association, and renewal of his Florida license. However, at hearing Respondent testified that he never authorized Rowan to "use" his license, only to "place" his license with Rowan's agency. Rowan testified that Respondent had, in fact, told him that he could use his license and write business under it, including signing Respondent's name to policy applications, even though Respondent was not in the office and did not participate in these transactions. Rowan's assistant, May Satava, was present when Rowan and Respondent discussed their arrangement, and confirmed Rowan's testimony. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the affidavit executed by the Respondent shortly after the events involved in this matter, it is found that Respondent's uncorroborated testimony at hearing is not credible, while that of Rowan and Satava is found to be credible and consistent with statements made to Luis Rivera, the Petitioner's investigator, in October, 1987. Respondent did tell Rowan that he could use his general lines license to write business, and to sign his name to applications in exchange for Rowan's assistance in obtaining the renewal of his Florida general lines agent license. Working under Rowan's control and supervision, Satava did sign Respondent's name to approximately 48 policy applications from May through July, 1987, while Respondent actually signed only 3 additional policy applications during this period. Thus, the vast majority of business written under Respondent's license during this time was actually completed by Satava, an unlicensed person working under the control and supervision of Rowan, without any involvement of Respondent, pursuant to his agreement with Rowan that Rowan could use his license. Respondent did receive a commission payment in the amount of $200 from Rowan for June and July commissions. This represented Rowan's estimate of a reasonable payment to Respondent for the use of his license during this time when Satava signed Respondent's name to approximately 48 policy applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's general lines agent license, and eligibility for licensure, for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th Florida. day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon T. Nicol, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Allen Franklin Meredith 140 Flamingo Drive Auburndale, FL 33823 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what punishment should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent is now, and has been for approximately the past 20 years, licensed by Petitioner as a general lines insurance agent. On July 3, 1986, Petitioner received a complaint concerning Respondent from Elsa Garcia. Garcia reported that she had purchased automobile insurance through Dixie Insurance Brokers and had been given a temporary insurance binder bearing the signature of a "Paul J. Lovelace" reflecting that her coverage was to be effective March 11, 1985. According to Garcia, however, she had subsequently discovered, after having been involved in an automobile accident on March 23, 1985, that her insurance coverage had not taken effect until after the accident. Garcia's complaint was assigned to one of Petitioner's employees, Burton Powell, to review and investigate. As part of his investigation, Powell contacted Alan D. Kruger, Garcia's attorney. Kruger supplied Powell with Garcia's affidavit and other pertinent documents, including a copy of Garcia's automobile insurance application and the temporary insurance binder she had been given by Dixie Insurance Brokers. The application reflects that Garcia was seeking coverage for the period from April 2, 1985, to October 2, 1985. The binder, on the other hand, indicates that it was to be effective for one month commencing, not April 2, 1985, but March 11, 1985. Someone other than Respondent signed his name to both the application and the binder. 1/ On various occasions prior to December 18, 1987, Respondent was the general lines insurance agent of record for Dixie Insurance Brokers. 2/ On these occasions he never personally signed any insurance applications, nor did he otherwise play any role in the operation and control of the agency. By his own admission, he simply allowed the agency to use his license, without any restrictions imposed by him, in exchange for monetary consideration. In so doing, he willfully engaged in a scheme designed to circumvent the licensing requirements of the Florida Insurance Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order (1) dismissing Count I of the administrative complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of Count II of the administrative complaint; and (3) revoking Respondent's general lines insurance agent license for his having engaged in the conduct specified in Count II of the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 November, 1989.
Findings Of Fact In January 1995, Petitioner, Dubois Farms, filed a complaint with the Department. The complaint alleged that Respondent, Mo-Bo, and Respondent, General Accident, was indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $800.00 for 100 cartons of eggplant purchased from Petitioner. The Department gave notice to the Respondents that the complaint had been filed. On or about February 24, 1995, Mo-Bo responded to the complaint, denied the allegations, and requested a hearing. At hearing, Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence Exhibits numbered 1-5, subject to Respondent General Accident's hearsay objection. No other proof was offered. Since Petitioner's proof was hearsay, and not subject to any exceptions to the hearsay rule, it cannot support a finding of fact that Mo-Bo is indebted to Petitioner as claimed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the complaint filed by Dubois Farms, Inc., against Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., and its surety, General Accident Insurance Company of America. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of August, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Mike D. Bess, Qualified Representative Marketing Management Services Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association P.O. Box 140155 Orlando, Florida 32814-015 Zoe Krikorian, Esquire Brad A. Thomas, Esquire General Accident Insurance Company Brickell Centre - Suite 900 799 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2805 Don Bieda, Esquire Legal Department General Accident Insurance Company 436 Walnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1109 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1899 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Charles Barnard, Esquire 200 SE 6th Street, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
