The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's licenses as a general lines agent (2-20) and Florida Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriters Association (FRPCJUA) agent (0-17), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2001)?
Findings Of Fact Facts Admitted by Answer Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, you Jennifer L. Faloon, currently are licensed in this state as a general lines (2-20) agent and a FRPCJUA (0-17) agent, and were so licensed at all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referenced herein. Your license identification no. is A080736. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Department of Financial Services has jurisdiction over your licenses and appointments. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referenced herein you, Jennifer L. Faloon, were employed with Beck Insurance, in Jacksonville, Florida. Additional Facts Established by Responses to Requests for Admissions Respondent was licensed as a general lines (2-20), and a Florida Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriters Association (0-17) agent, in Florida, from June 25, 2001, until and including the present time. From June 25, 2001, until and including February 19, 2002, Respondent was employed with Beck Insurance, in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent signed the insurance application on February 19, 2002, to bind coverage for Ms. Wilson (Danyetta Wilson). Respondent signed the insurance application on January 21, 2002, to bind coverage for Mr. Appling (Marc Appling). Respondent signed the insurance application on January 22, 2002, to bind coverage for Ms. Brown (Laura Brown). Anna Michelle Mack transacted insurance business with Laura Brown on January 22, 2002. Respondent signed the insurance application on June 25, 2001, to bind coverage for Mr. Henderson (William Henderson). Respondent's Duties at Beck Insurance Respondent began her employment with Beck Insurance, in September 1996. She began as an unlicensed person. While working with Beck Insurance she obtained her (4-42) license allowing limited customer service related to the sale of automobile insurance. She subsequently obtained her (2-20) insurance agent license related to property and casualty, which would allow the sale of automobile, homeowners, and commercial insurance. Prior to this case Respondent has had no complaints filed against her in her capacity as insurance agent. In addition to selling insurance at Beck Insurance, Respondent is familiar with ancillary products offered through that agency. In particular, she is familiar with the sale of contracts involving towing a disabled car operated by a party who has contracted for those services. Respondent is also conversant with rental car contracts sold at Beck Insurance. The rental car contract allows for the customer to rent a car when the customer's personal car is unavailable. During the years 2001 and 2002, the years in question in this case, Respondent served as a supervisor at Beck Insurance in her capacity as a licensed (2-20) agent for persons employed by Beck Insurance, both unlicensed and licensed. The licensed agents that she had supervisory responsibility for were (4-42) limited or unlimited customer service licenses for automobile insurance and (4-40) full customer service agents. Respondent also was expected to deal with issues of underwriting for the insurance policies sold. As few as five and as many as ten agents were employed with Beck Insurance in the relevant time frame. This included another supervising (2-20) agent named Lon Woodward. Both Respondent and Mr. Woodward supervised the licensed (4-42) and (4-40) agents at Beck Insurance, who could not conduct business without supervision from the licensed (2-20) agent. The office hours in the relevant time period were from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. In any given month in excess of 100 customers might be served. Not all activities in providing service were in relation to writing insurance policies. Beck Insurance, at times relevant to the inquiry, represented numerous insurance companies involved with the sale of automobile insurance. The clientele that purchased automobile insurance from Beck Insurance was principally constituted of persons with problematic driving records, including suspensions, DUIs, lapses in coverage, as well as persons who only intended to pay the minimum amount necessary for a premium to obtain insurance that would allow that person to operate a motor vehicle in Florida. As a non-standard agency, the majority of Beck Insurance customers are persons who would not be provided insurance by the standard insurance companies such as State Farm, AllState, and Nationwide. Typically, when a customer initially contacted Beck Insurance by telephone they wanted the best price. In response, the Beck Insurance employee would consider the price structure among the 35 insurance companies represented by Beck Insurance to choose the most economical policy. When telephone inquiries were made about purchasing automobile insurance through Beck Insurance no mention was made of the All World towing and rental plan. Beck Insurance trains its employees in the manner those employees will serve the customers. Respondent was included in that training, having received training and provided training in those approaches. Ordinarily when a customer inquired concerning the purchase of automobile insurance at Beck Insurance, he or she was asked about the type coverage he or she was interested in purchasing. Information was gathered concerning the automobile to be insured. A questionnaire was completed. Within that document is a reference to towing and rental car reimbursement coverage, as well as information about the automobile insurance itself. The questionnaire which was used at times relevant to this case sought information about the customer and the use of the automobile that was being considered for coverage with blanks being provided to the left of the questions for initialing by the customer and blanks to the right for an affirmative or negative response. By contrast to other items, item 11 within the questionnaire was declarative in nature. It had a space for the initials of the customer, but not one to declare acceptance or rejection of what was described. By its terms it stated: "Motor Club - I am aware that towing and rental car reimbursement is optional. I want to carry this coverage. (This coverage can only be renewed by coming into the office, as it is not written with your auto carrier)." The parenthetical reference within item 11, was by smaller type, unlike the interrogatories that were found within the questionnaire. The statement in item 11 has an internal contradiction. In its initial sentence, it talks about the optional opportunity to obtain towing and rental car reimbursement, but it is followed by a sentence which says that the customer wants to carry the coverage with no apparent opportunity within the document to decline that coverage. Moreover, at the bottom of the questionnaire, there was the opportunity for the customer to say that he or she did not want to carry and was rejecting bodily injury liability, uninsured motorist, medical payments, comprehensive and collision, and custom or special equipment coverage, by initialing the blank provided with each category of coverage, but there was no similar opportunity to reject the towing and rental car reimbursement that was described earlier in the document. The insurance coverages were referred to as optional, as was towing and rental. An example of the text within the document, aside from its execution, is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. The execution of that document will be discussed subsequently in relation to the customer Danyetta Wilson. According to Respondent, the typical customer for automobile insurance at Beck Insurance is told "In this price we are also giving you towing and rental reimbursement." The nature of the plan for towing and rental is described. For example, if it is Plan 3, the customer is told "you will receive free tow reimbursements for six months for $100.00 each. You will also receive -- -- if you are involved in an automobile accident with another vehicle and you have to have your vehicle in a shop for repair, you will receive $25.00 a day reimbursement for five days. These claims have to be filed through our agency. You bring us the receipt within 60 days, we file it." The towing and rental services being sold by Beck Insurance, which are the subject in this dispute, are offered through All World All Safe Drivers (All World), part of Beck Insurance. Once more specific discussion is entered into concerning the automobile insurance policy applied for, the Beck Insurance employee also returns to the discussion of the All World towing and rental products. Beyond the presentation of the information concerning the purchase of the insurance coverage that has been chosen, Respondent testified that during the time in question the customer would be told "this is your towing and rental reimbursement contract." The details concerning the towing and rental in the contemplated agreement between Beck Insurance and the customer are as set forth in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 28, a form application for towing and automobile rental reimbursement through All World. The form application which constitutes the basis for providing the coverage makes no mention concerning the charge for the various plans offered to the customer for the towing and rental. The terms set forth in the application bundle the reimbursement plan for automobile rental and towing services, as opposed to separate coverage for automobile rental reimbursement and towing reimbursement. Notwithstanding the lack of explanation within the form application for All World rental reimbursement and towing service reimbursement, concerning the costs for the various plans described, Respondent indicated in her testimony that those packages are $35, $60, and $75, in costs. The discussion of the amount charged for towing and rental is included in the price breakdown that also pertains to the costs for the automobile insurance purchased. Approximately 50 percent of the customers solicited purchased All World towing and rental contracts in the time in question. Customarily, the application for automobile insurance is signed by an appointed licensed (2-20) agent at Beck Insurance who has authority to review the application to make certain that it has been correctly executed. When the transaction is complete between a customer and the Beck Insurance employee, there is but one receipt provided to the customer. That receipt sets out the aggregate charges and then breaks out individual charges for the automobile insurance policy, All World, and the motor vehicle report (MVR) fee that some insurance companies charge. As the receipt suggests, the amount tendered at the time that the automobile insurance is purchased and towing and rental reimbursement is purchased is a single amount that would have cost components for the automobile insurance, towing and rental, and a MVR fee. Another form is provided to customers with Beck Insurance. An example is found as Respondent's Exhibit numbered 27. That form outlines automobile insurance coverage by providing explanations about the types of coverage and advice on making certain that the insurance company pays claims made by the customer. There is a reference within this form to a subject other than automobile insurance, namely a reference to towing and rental-car reimbursement wherein is stated: "Reimbursement for towing charge when your covered vehicle is unable to safely proceed under its own power. Reimbursement for rental car when your covered vehicle has been involved in an accident. This coverage is optional. Consult individual plans for different payment amounts and certain restrictions that may be applied to each optional plan." As anticipated by law, persons who work for Beck Insurance, other than the licensed (2-20) agent, may take information supporting the application for automobile insurance sold through Beck Insurance. Count II Danyetta Wilson Danyetta Wilson was interested in purchasing automobile insurance in February 2002. She called Beck Insurance and spoke to Respondent concerning that purchase. After receiving a telephone quote, Ms. Wilson immediately went to Beck Insurance to transact business. The date was February 19, 2002. Before arriving at Beck Insurance, Ms. Wilson had told Respondent what she wanted in the way of automobile insurance coverage, and Respondent indicated that everything necessary to conclude the transaction would be prepared in advance before Ms. Wilson arrived at Beck Insurance. Of course, the application for insurance had not been executed, but pertinent information had been written down by Respondent on scratch paper. Essentially Ms. Wilson told Respondent in the telephone call that she wanted a minimum down-payment and low monthly payments, without discussing the amount of the deductible. When Ms. Wilson arrived at Beck Insurance, she saw Respondent. Both the Respondent and Tracy Laroe assisted Ms. Wilson in the transaction. Ms. Laroe was employed by Beck Insurance. Her application to become a licensed (4-42) limited customer representative was authorized by Petitioner on December 11, 2001. Petitioner issued license no. EO10041 (4-42) to Ms. Laroe on March 8, 2002, as recognized by Beck Insurance on March 29, 2002. As of July 1, 2002, Ms. Laroe's license was inactive based upon cancellation by Beck Insurance as the appointing entity. On February 19, 2002, Respondent was responsible for Ms. Laroe as supervisor at Beck Insurance, in relation to Ms. Wilson's transaction with Beck Insurance in purchasing automobile insurance through Progressive Insurance and automobile rental and towing reimbursement through All World. Most of the activities involved with the transaction occurred between Ms. Wilson and Ms. Laroe when addressing the purchase of automobile insurance on the date in question. During the transaction at Beck Insurance, Ms. Laroe, while assisting Ms. Wilson, did not suggest possible interest in buying the motor club also referred to as a towing and rental contract. Nor was there mention of All World as the company to provide that ancillary product. What was established in discussion was the amount of down-payment and the monthly payments for the automobile insurance. The down-payment was made by cash. Ms. Wilson was told that the down-payment would be $332, which is the amount that she paid. Ms. Wilson completed and was provided copies of certain documents in the transaction. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 2 is the application for the automobile insurance questionnaire that was completed by providing answers and initials in relation to the underwriting information that was requested in the application form. Ms. Wilson signed the application on February 19, 2002. She did not read the document carefully because she was, as she describes it, "in a rush." The completed application was counter-signed by Respondent as producing agent on February 19, 2002, at 1:41 p.m. On February 19, 2002, Ms. Wilson was provided a receipt indicating a total amount of $332. The receipt reflected that $269 was a down-payment for Progressive Insurance, an amount of $60 as related to All World rental and towing, and $3 for a MVR fee. Ms. Wilson did not examine the receipt at the time it was provided to her. The receipt was filled out by a cashier at Beck Insurance, a person other than Respondent and Ms. Laroe. No explanation was made concerning its several parts. In addition to the questionnaire associated with the application for insurance coverage pertaining to the Progressive Insurance policy, Ms. Wilson executed the Beck Insurance questionnaire which described automobile insurance generally and the All World towing and rental. That questionnaire is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5 creates the impression that towing and rental is an integral part of the purchase of automobile insurance. It was signed by Ms. Wilson on February 19, 2002, and initialed in its numbered parts. Those parts included the reference to the motor club at number 11 where it stated, "Motor Club - I am aware that the towing and rental care reimbursement is optional. I want to carry this coverage. (This coverage can only be renewed by coming into the office, as it is not written with your auto carrier.)" Again, while the towing and rental car reimbursement was stated as being optional, the quoted material was ambiguous as to its optional nature, and there was no opportunity in the latter portion of the questionnaire to specifically decline this ancillary product. In connection with the rental and towing service through All World, Ms. Wilson signed as applicant for the product. This application which formed the basis for charging Ms. Wilson $60 for rental and towing is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. It is in the manner described earlier as to its form, in which no indication is made concerning the amount charged to purchase Plan 3. Ms. Wilson did not read Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4, which described the automobile rental and towing reimbursement offered through All World. She signed her name by a red "X" on the application line. The document which described the nature of the reimbursement plan offered through All World was not specifically explained to her. Ms. Wilson was not told that there was an additional charge for the towing and rental. She had no interest in towing and rental, having been provided similar services through her cell-phone plan. In this process, Respondent came over to the location where Ms. Wilson was seated and pointed out certain places in the insurance application to check-off and initial.1 Respondent did not sit at the desk with Ms. Wilson when the transaction took place. During the transaction, Ms. Laroe told Ms. Wilson that the questions she was asking would have to be directed to Respondent, in that Ms. Laroe could not help Ms. Wilson by providing the answers. Ms. Laroe mentioned that her participation was part of the customer service. Ms. Wilson also was involved with a sheet which was informational in nature describing the various types of insurance coverage. Respondent showed Ms. Wilson that form. It is Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1, which was signed by Ms. Wilson on February 19, 2002. It indicates that Ms. Wilson declined uninsured motorists and medical payments coverage. Zeros are placed next to those explanations. Within the document is a reference to towing and rental reimbursement, wherein it is stated: Towing and Rental Car Reimbursement. Reimbursement for towing coverage when your covered vehicles are unable to safely proceed under its own power. Reimbursement for rental car when your covered vehicle has been involved in an accident and is being repaired. This coverage is optional. Consult individual plans for different payment amounts and certain restrictions that may be applied to each optional plan. The towing and rental had a dash placed by that item together with the balance of the items on the information sheet that described insurance coverage. Respondent saw Ms. Wilson place the marks by the side of the forms of coverage and the information about towing and rental reimbursement, which is not part of automobile insurance coverage as such. The overall expectation within Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 is to generally describe available products. It does not serve as an application. The status of the document is not changed by having Ms. Wilson sign the document. Respondent saw Ms. Wilson initial item 11, concerning the motor club found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. Ms. Wilson did not ask any questions of Respondent concerning Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. Respondent was present when Ms. Wilson signed the application for towing and rental, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. Respondent in relation to that document asked if there were any questions. Ms. Wilson did not indicate that she had questions. In relation to Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4, Respondent recalls the nature of the explanation that she gave to Ms. Wilson as: "What this is, is this is your towing and rental contract. It gives you three tows per six months, $100.00 reimbursement on every tow, on each tow with a limit of three per six months. The rental benefit is $25.00 a day for five days if you are involved in an automobile accident and you need reimbursement. All claims have to be brought here to the office within 60 days in the form of receipts. We file the claims for you. Now, I need you to sign there." Nothing in that explanation indicates that there was an opportunity to decline to participate. The explanation did not establish the cost for the plan. Respondent indicated hat Ms. Laroe in her participation in the transaction with Ms. Wilson was there to listen and learn. Count III Marc Appling On January 21, 2002, Marc Appling purchased automobile insurance from Beck Insurance. He wanted full coverage for his car. The amount quoted for the insurance as a down-payment was $288. On January 21, 2002, $200 was paid. On January 24, 2002, the additional $88 was paid. Of the $288 paid, $222 was a down- payment for automobile insurance through Superior American Insurance Company (Superior), $60 was for All World automobile towing and rental reimbursement, $3 for a MVR fee, and $3 for some unexplained charge. The receipt provided Mr. Appling when he paid the initial $200 reflects $222 for down-payment to Superior, $60 for All World, and $3 for a MVR fee. That receipt is Exhibit numbered 9 to the Appling deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 16. On January 21, 2002, Mr. Appling primarily dealt with Lance Moye, an employee of Beck Insurance who gave him a price quotation for the purchase of insurance through Superior. Mr. Moye explained to Mr. Appling the details, to include the amount of payment per month beyond the down-payment. Michelle Mack, an employee for Beck Insurance was sitting next to him. If Mr. Moye experienced problems in carrying out the transaction, he would ask Ms. Mack her opinion. Mr. Moye has never been licensed by the Petitioner in any capacity. During 1991 and 1993, he had applied for a (2-20) general lines property and casualty license. On the date in question, Michelle Mack, known to Petitioner for licensing purposes as Anna Michelle Mack, was licensed as a (4-42) limited customer representative agent. Mr. Appling executed the Beck Insurance questionnaire and acknowledgement form that has been previously described, to include initialing item 11, related to the motor club which says: "I am aware that the towing and rental car reimbursement is optional. I want to carry this coverage. (This coverage can only be renewed by coming into the office as it is not written with your auto carrier.)" This form that was signed and initialed and answered yes or no in various places was Exhibit numbered 8 to the Appling deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 16. Mr. Moye told Mr. Appling that "you pay," addressing Mr. Appling, "X amount of dollars for rental car coverage and everything like that." However, Mr. Appling was not satisfied with the explanation. The questionnaire Exhibit numbered 8 to the Appling deposition, describing towing and rental car reimbursement as optional, did not create below that statement the specific opportunity to decline that option as would have been the case as items such as uninsured motorist and medical payments. Mr. Appling was left with the impression that the motor club was part of the insurance policy that he purchased and that the $288 down-payment included the motor club. Because Mr. Appling was interested in full coverage, he believed that the automobile insurance itself would cover rental reimbursement. Notwithstanding that the form questionnaire, Exhibit numbered 8 to the Appling deposition referred to towing and rental car reimbursement as an optional item, Mr. Appling did not understand that it was an optional purchase. Had he been persuaded that it was a separate item he would not have purchased the motor club. Exhibit numbered 7 to the Appling deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 16, is the application for All World towing and rental reimbursement. The automobile insurance application through Superior is found as Exhibit numbered 5 to the Appling deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 16. It was executed and signed by Mr. Appling on the date in question, then was marked as bound and signed by Respondent on that date. Although Respondent signed the Appling application for automobile insurance with Superior, she had no specific recollection of the event and was not otherwise involved in the transaction. Count IV Laura Brown On January 21, 2002, Laura Brown purchased automobile insurance through Beck Insurance. She dealt with Valerie Lynn Webster and Anna Michelle Mack, employees at Beck Insurance. At various times in 2002 and 2003, Ms. Webster had applied to Petitioner to be licensed as a (2-14) life, including variable annuity agent and a limited customer representative (4-42). No licenses were issued to Ms. Webster. Before arriving at Beck Insurance, Ms. Brown had obtained a preliminary quotation by telephone from the agency related to the purchase of automobile insurance. Ms. Brown was interested in obtaining full coverage for her car. The nature of the discussion once Ms. Brown arrived at the agency was about the purchase of automobile insurance, not about a towing and rental contract, motor club membership or the All World plan. A down-payment was made with installments to follow, associated with the automobile insurance. Ms. Brown thought that the entire amount of the down-payment was for the insurance premium. No explanation was made to the effect that the motor club was separate from the automobile insurance policy. When Ms. Brown left the Beck Insurance agency, she did not realize that she had purchased anything other than automobile insurance. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 12 is the automobile insurance application through Superior, executed by Ms. Brown on the date in question. It was signed by Respondent, noting that the policy was bound. Respondent had no other direct involvement in the transaction. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 13 is a receipt dated January 22, 2002, issued to Ms. Brown by Ms. Webster and Ms. Mack, totaling $247 that Ms. Brown paid on that date. It is broken out as $184 for Superior, $60 for All World, and $3 for a MVR fee. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 14 is an executed application for All World automobile reimbursement and towing service reimbursement executed by Ms. Brown for the period January 22, 2002, through June 22, 2002, under Plan 3 in the form that has been previously described. As reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 15, Ms. Brown executed the Beck Insurance questionnaire in the form that has previously been described that contains item 11, relating to the motor club stating, "I am aware that the towing and rental car reimbursement is optional. I want to carry this coverage. (This coverage can only be renewed by coming into the office, as it is not written with your auto carrier.)" The questionnaire additionally sets forth that the towing and rental car reimbursement is optional but without the opportunity to decline that option that is specifically described for other optional coverage in the form, such as uninsured motorists and medical payments. In an affidavit containing Ms. Brown's statement prepared on May 23, 2002, Ms. Brown stated, "I knew that I had purchased towing or rental reimbursement policy for my policy 1/22/2002/2003 because I saw the form and I asked questions about it. The lady in picture number 10 (Ms. Mack depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17) told me I would get so many tows for free, she also told me it was from Beck Insurance." But in that affidavit Ms. Brown goes on to state, "I did not know that I paid an additional $60 for the towing policy. I thought this was just something I got with the car insurance policy." Again, nothing in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 14, the application for All World towing and rental, reflects the cost of Plan 3. That was made known in the receipt, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 13. Count V William Henderson On June 25, 2001, William Henderson purchased automobile insurance from Beck Insurance. He dealt with Daphne Ferrell, a person Respondent claims was a licensed agent at the time. No proof has been presented to contradict Respondent's position, and it is found that Ms. Ferrell was a licensed agent when the transaction took place. On the date in question, Mr. Henderson was interested in purchasing full coverage for his automobile. He executed an application with Atlanta Casualty Company (Atlanta Casualty) to purchase the automobile insurance. That application is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. Respondent's involvement in the purchase was the signing of the application in the place indicated for the agent's statement vouching for the application's correctness. The automobile that was covered by the purchase was inspected by Ms. Laroe as evidenced in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. The inspection was not a function that required a licensed person to perform. Mr. Henderson paid Atlanta Casualty $306 on June 25, 2001, for automobile insurance. That payment is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8, a copy of the check written to Atlanta Casualty. The money that was paid was acknowledged by a receipt from Ms. Ferrell dated June 25, 2001, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 9. That receipt reflects $306 down-payment for the automobile insurance to Atlanta Casualty and $75 for a rental contract involved with All World, for a total of $381. Whether Mr. Henderson paid the $75 for towing and rental, aside from the $306 check written for the insurance to Atlanta Casualty, is not clear from the record. Mr. Henderson had made application on the form related to All World for auto rental reimbursement and towing service reimbursement, which has been previously described. The specific application by Mr. Henderson is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 10, relating to Plan 3. Mr. Henderson executed the Beck Insurance questionnaire form that has been previously described setting forth item 11, the motor club, which states: "I am aware that the towing and rental car reimbursement is optional. I want to carry this coverage. (This coverage can only be renewed by coming into the office, as it is not written with your auto carrier.)" While Mr. Webster initialed item 11 on the form, as other customers had done in the circumstances addressed in the Administrative Complaint, the form he executed, as with other customers, did not create an opportunity to opt out of the motor club. While the form at item 11 spoke of the optional nature of the motor club, it was followed by a statement that made it appear that the opportunity to decline the coverage had already been determined, when it said: "I want to carry this coverage." The reference to the optional nature of the towing and rental car reimbursement in the latter portions of the form was not followed by an opportunity to specifically decline the motor club, as allowed in reference to other forms of optional insurance coverage pertaining to such items as uninsured motorist and medical payments, for example. The executed questionnaire is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11. In completing the Beck Insurance questionnaire, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, his instructions were to initial where the solid arrow runs from items 1 through 14, at the top of the page, and by the Xs at the bottom of the page. The arrow and the Xs were placed by someone other than Mr. Webster. Only a brief explanation was given to Mr. Webster concerning the questionnaire. Mr. Webster has no recollection of someone specifically reading item 11, related to the motor club. During the transaction at issue, Mr. Webster remembers a discussion of towing and rental. He indicated that he was not interested in rental reimbursement. He did want towing. Mr. Webster, like the other customers who have been discussed, did not carefully read the documents presented to him for his consideration in purchasing the automobile insurance and in relation to the motor club. Mr. Webster has a vague recollection of someone placing an "X" on the applicant's signature line in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 10 and signing that application for the All World motor club, but he thought that he was only purchasing towing not rental. The application covers both rental and towing.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of those provisions within Count II that have been referred to, dismissing the others within that count, dismissing Counts III through V; suspending Respondent's licenses for nine months, placing Respondent on two years' probation and requiring attendance at such continuing education courses as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed as a General Lines Insurance Agent at all times material hereto. He generally wrote insurance for the various insurance companies he represented through General Agents such as Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc. and Amalex, Inc. The Respondent operated his insurance agency under the corporate name Pennington Insurance Agency, Inc. The Respondent was owner and President of Pennington Insurance Agency, Inc. and exercised supervision and control over its employees, and in particular the employee Earnest L. Middleton. All funds collected from insured pertinent to this proceeding were premium payments and represented trust funds held by the Respondent in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of his General Agent or the insurance companies whose policy contracts generated the premiums. From August through December, 1981, the Respondent engaged in negotiations with representatives of Amalex, Inc. and specifically, Mr. Walter Gibson, President of Amalex, Inc. and Mr. Larry Durham of Durham and Company Insurance Agency. These negotiations ultimately led, in November of 1981, to the Respondent becoming an employee-agent of Amalex, Inc. The Respondent was to be paid a salary which was to be an advance upon commissions earned at the rate of 75% on new policies and 60% on "renewals." This commission-salary arrangement was entered into pursuant to an oral agreement between the Respondent and Walter Gibson of Amalex. There was never any written contract between the Respondent and Amalex, Inc. delineating the employment arrangement or the compensation which Respondent was to be provided by Amalex, Inc. in return for his "brokering" business for Amalex, Inc. There was never any written contract concerning the method of forwarding of premium payments to Amalex, Inc. This oral agreement was modified at the behest of Amalex, Inc. on or about March 19, 1982, so as to reduce the compensation of the Respondent. The Respondent's new compensation under the modified arrangement provided for a 60% draw against commissions for new business and a 50% draw against commissions on renewal business. The Respondent received payments from Amalex, Inc., totaling $5,980 as advances on commissions for times pertinent to the allegations in the Complaints. The regular course of business practice established by Amalex, Inc. with the Respondent, required the Respondent to forward premium collections within 45 days of receiving a statement or bill from Amalex, Inc. During the period August, 1981, until December, 1981, numerous discussions and negotiations were had between the Respondent and Mr. Gibson in an effort to work out the details of the employment terms between Respondent and Amalex, Inc. Additionally, these negotiations hinged somewhat upon a proposed merger of Durham and Company and Amalex, Inc., which never occurred. In any event, the Respondent held the good faith belief that during the period of time from August, 1981, through December, 1981, until their business relationship got successfully started, that he had been authorized by Mr. Gibson to retain all premiums on commercial lines policies written by his office. In his testimony, Mr. Gibson disagreed with the Respondent's version of their arrangement concerning business insurance premiums. There was clearly a disagreement between Gibson and Respondent as to what the terms of the Respondent's compensation were to be. In fact, the Respondent received notice no later than March 19, 1982, in a letter from Gibson to the Respondent, that indeed there was a dispute as to his compensation arrangement and the manner in which he was to remit premium payments to Amalex, Inc. In a letter to Mr. Gibson of May 27, 1982, the Respondent reveals his recollection of the oral agreement and states it to be his belief that he was authorized to retain commercial account premiums only from September 1, 1981, through December, 1981. The letter reveals, by its content, that he was aware that Amalex, Inc. opposed his retention of commercial policy premiums, at least after December, 1981 (Respondent's Exhibit 5, in evidence). The Respondent was clearly not permitted by Amalex to retain all premiums collected on commercial policies sold by him during the entire period of their business relationship. Indeed, many of the commercial accounts were, in fact, paid when collected, in whole or in part, by the Respondent during the business relationship with Amalex which extended through most of 1982. One account, the American Legion Policy Account, eventually was paid in full by Respondent to Amalex. The Respondent's testimony and that of his former employee, Ernest Middleton, is at odds with that of Mr. Gibson, the president of Amalex and the Respondent's own testimony, in different portions of the record, is to some extent, inconsistent. At one point the Respondent indicated that he was authorized to retain all commercial premiums for coverage of his office operating expenses. At another point, both he and Middleton testified there was an allowance of $1,200 a week from Amalex for expenses to run the office. At still another point, by way of an exhibit (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 in evidence), the Respondent appeared to be of the belief that the expense allowance from Amalex was to be $400 per week for operating his office. In any event, by his letter of May 27, 1982, to Amalex and Mr. Gibson, the Respondent clearly reveals it to be his belief that the authorization to retain all commercial account premiums did not extend beyond December, 1981, which arrangement is more logical since it was, in the Respondent's own words, an arrangement to cover expenses until the business "got rolling." Thus the Respondent knew no later than May 27, 1982, by his own admission, that he was expected, after December, 1981, to forward all premium payments, both on personal lines and commercial lines policies to Amalex or the policies would be cancelled. This letter, the letter of March 19, 1982, from Mr. Gibson to the Respondent, portions of the Respondent's testimony, as well as the testimony of Mr. Gibson and his employee Mary Stratton, taken together, belies the Respondent's assertion that he could retain the commercial premiums to cover his own office expenses without accounting for them and forwarding them to Amalex. Such was clearly not the case after December 31, 1981, at the very latest. The Respondent additionally had agency contracts with Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc., a General Agent, for which concern the Respondent wrote insurance policies. These contracts required him to forward premium collections within 30 days of receipt of them from the insured. On or about March 20, 1984, the Respondent sold to Ollie Rodgers an automobile insurance policy and collected $211 from Mr. Rodgers as a down payment and also received $428 from National Premium Budget Plan for financing the balance of the premium payment over time. Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint involves solely the Ollie Rodgers policy. That policy was brokered through Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc. This only count concerning the MacNeill business arrangement with the Respondent does not charge a general failure to remit premiums to MacNeill in violation of the agency agreements and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Thus, although evidence is of record concerning the Ollie Rodgers incident and several thousand dollars in disputed other premium amounts MacNeill maintains the Respondent owes it, the charge in the Administrative Complaint concerning MacNeilles and the Respondent's business arrangement, and the question concerning the withholding of premiums due MacNeill, only concerns the Ollie Rodgers' policy and account. The alleged failure of the Respondent to remit several thousand dollars in premiums owed to Frank MacNeill contained in the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses at hearing, specifically Joe McCurdy, the secretary- treasurer of Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc., is not the subject matter of any charge or allegation in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. McCurdy testified that the Respondent had ultimately paid all monies due Frank MacNeill except for $734.23 in court costs and attorneys fees. He was the only witness testifying concerning the Frank MacNeill business arrangement and none of his testimony linked the premiums paid by Ollie Rodgers to the Respondent with any delinquent premium amount actually owed Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc. There was no testimony tying the account balance which Pennington ultimately paid MacNeill, after litigation ensued, with the Ollie Rodgers account and premium amount paid to the Respondent by Rodgers. There is no specific proof that the Ollie Rodgers account itself was unpaid by the Respondent. From March 4, 1982, to November 9, 1982, the Respondent received premium payments from one Irving Herman in the amount of $7,161 on a commercial insurance premium account. The Respondent forwarded some of these funds to Amalex, Inc., but an outstanding balance of $2,353 remains which has not been paid by the Respondent to Amalex. The Respondent has asserted that he could lawfully retain this balance because it was a commercial account and he was authorized to keep all premiums for commercial insurance to pay his office expenses. For the reasons found above, the Respondent was not authorized to retain any commercial premium funds in his own account and in his own business after December, 1981, as he admits himself in his letter of May 27, 1982, to Gibson of Amalex, Inc. The Respondent was required to forward all the premium payments attributable to the Herman policy, and in this instance, he forwarded only some of them, without accounting to Amalex as to why he retained the balance of the Herman premiums. The Respondent also collected $799 in premium payments from Irving Herman on an individual insurance policy. The Respondent forwarded most of this premium to Amalex, Inc. but retained $95 of it. The business practice of Amalex was to send a monthly statement to the Respondent detailing amounts payable on new business. When a policy was sent to the Respondent for coverage he had written, an invoice was included. Additionally, Amalex and its president, Mr. Gibson, sent numerous letters to the Respondent requesting payment of the large amount of past due accounts. The premium amounts paid by Mr. Herman for his individual policy and his commercial policy to Respondent was received on behalf of his General Agent, Amalex, a substantial amount of which he failed to remit. Since the above amounts were not remitted to Amalex, Inc. by the Respondent, it can only be inferred that he used the unremitted funds for his own purposes. On September 23, 1982, or thereafter, the Respondent collected premium payments from Joseph S. Middleton on behalf of his company, Florida Lamps, Inc., in the amount of $1,467. The Respondent remitted a portion of this to Amalex, but retained $917.55. This premium, for insurance for that business, was collected for insurance written well after the Respondent was on notice from Amalex that he was not authorized to retain premiums collected on commercial lines or business insurance, as found above. A monthly statement, invoice, as well as numerous letters were directed from Amalex to the Respondent requesting payment of this past due amount, to no avail. Thus, the above- referenced balance of the premiums related to the Florida Lamps, Inc. insurance policy and account were retained by the Respondent for his and his agency's own benefit and use rather than remitted to Amalex, the entity entitled to them. The Respondent failed to properly account to Amalex regarding the use of or the whereabouts of these funds. On or about October 20, 1982, the Respondent received from Eric Gunderson, on behalf of Eric's Garage, $182, which represented the premium down payment on a garage liability policy, a type of commercial-lines insurance. About the same time, the Respondent also received $438 as the remaining balance., on the premium on this policy from the Capitol Premium Plan, Inc., a premium financing company. This premium payment was received by the Respondent well after notice by Amalex, his General Agent, that it was not acceptable for the Respondent to retain commercial account premiums on policies written for companies for whom Amalex was General Agent. None of this premium payment was ever forwarded to Amalex, even after repeated demands for it. Rather, the premium funds were retained by the Respondent and used for other purposes. On March 3, 1982, the Respondent sold to Citiweld Welding Supply, a package business policy including workers' compensation coverage issued by the Insurance Company of North America through Amalex, Inc., as its General Agent. The Respondent collected a total of $2,162.62 in premium payments from Citiweld. He collected those payments in six monthly installments following a down payment of $500. The Respondent made monthly payments of $163 to Amalex, Inc., and then later monthly payments of $153. The Respondent collected a total of $2,162.62 which was $80.62 in excess of the actual premium due on the policy. This policy was not financed by a financing agreement, which might be characterized by an additional financing fee, thus the Respondent collected $80.62 in excess of the amount of premium due on the policy. The Respondent ultimately remitted to Amalex a total of $1,275. Thus, $807 is still due and owing to Amalex by the Respondent. The Respondent, according to his own former employee, Earnest Middleton, was collecting an additional $20 a month service charge on the Citiweld account. There is no evidence that he was authorized to collect the additional $20 per month service charge, and no portion of that service charge was ever forwarded to Amalex. It was retained by the Respondent. The fact that the Respondent was making periodic monthly payments to Amalex during this period, without the existence of a financing agreement with the insured, corroborates the position of Amalex, established by Mr. Gibson and Ms. Stratton, that there was no authority to withhold commercial account premium payments at this time, and that premiums due Amalex from the Respondent were to be paid pursuant to monthly statements or billings sent to the Respondent. Ms. Stratton's and Mr. Gibson's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the letter of March 19, 1982, to the Respondent from Gibson (in evidence), wherein he was informed that such commercial insurance business and related premiums should be billed and paid for on a monthly basis. On or about August 31, 1981, Respondent sold a package workman's compensation policy to B & L Groceries, Inc. to be issued through Amalex, Inc., who represented the insurance company for whom the policy was written. The Respondent received approximately $3,350 from B & L Groceries, which represented the premium on the above policies. The premium payments were not forwarded in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. On or about December 17, 1981, the Respondent sold to B & L Seafood Restaurant, Inc., a package commercial insurance policy and endorsement also issued through Amalex. The Respondent collected $2,112 premium on that policy. That premium was not forwarded in the regular course of business to Amalex. On September 1, 1981, the Respondent sold to Parker's Septic Tank Company, a general liability and business automobile insurance policy, also issued through the General Agent, Amalex, Inc. He collected from that business approximately $2,542 as premium payment on the insurance policies. The automobile policy was cancelled thereafter, such that a total net premium of $1,056 remained due and owing to Amalex, which the Respondent failed to forward in the regular course of business. These policies sold to B & L Groceries, B & L Seafood Restaurant and Parker's Septic Tank Company, were sold during the time when the Respondent believed that he was authorized by Amalex, Inc., and its president, Mr. Gibson, to retain premiums on all such commercial or business insurance policies to cover his office expenses, and thus it cannot be found that he willfully retained and misappropriated those premiums, although Amalex's entitlement to those premiums was later the subject of a civil action between the Respondent and Amalex, Inc., such that Amalex did demand payment of those premiums, which the Respondent failed to do. On or about March 4, 1982, the Respondent sold to The Cypress Gallery a package business insurance policy and endorsement issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected at least $883 from The Cypress Gallery, representing the earned premium on that policy which was cancelled on July 22, 1982. He failed to forward the earned premium in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. On March 16, 1982, Respondent sold to Eurohouse Custom Builders, Inc., fire, general liability, automobile and builder's risk policies together with several endorsements issued through Amalex, Inc. He collected premium payments on those policies in the earned amount of $1,197, although the policies were later cancelled after that amount of premium was earned by the insurance company and Amalex. He failed to forward the $1,197 earned premium to Amalex in the regular course of business. On July 9, 1982, the Respondent sold to Byron Hood, a package commercial insurance policy and automobile policies issued through Amalex, Inc., on which the Respondent collected a total premium amount of $1,430 from IMAC, a premium finance company. The Respondent failed to forward this premium amount in the regular course of business to Amalex, Inc. On May 14, 1982, the Respondent sold to Jeanes Swap Shop, a package commercial insurance policy with an endorsement which was issued through Amalex, Inc., and upon which the Respondent collected and received a $314 premium. The Respondent forwarded most of the premium to Amalex, but failed to forward $39 of it. On or about March 31, 1982, the Respondent sold to Lawns Unlimited a commercial policy issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected and received from Lawns Unlimited $816, which represented the premium payment for that policy. This premium payment was never forwarded to Amalex in its entirety and an earned premium of $242 is still due Amalex as General Agent. On or about July 2, 1982, the Respondent sold to Robert Lewis a package commercial insurance policy issued through Amalex. The Respondent received $500 from Lewis as a premium payment for that policy. The Respondent failed to forward $150 of that premium to Amalex. On or about April 1, 1982, the Respondent sold to Joe Strickland a homeowners and boat insurance policy issued through Amalex, Inc. He collected a premium from Mr. Strickland in the amount of $353 which he failed to forward in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. This was a personal homeowners and marine insurance policy issued to Mr. Strickland, and the $353 premium could not possibly have been the subject of any misunderstanding concerning Respondent's retention of it for coverage of office expenses. On April 30, 1982, the Respondent sold to "Pop-a Top Lounge" a general liability and fire insurance policy issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected a premium of $647 on that policy and failed to forward it in the regular course of business to Amalex, the party entitled to it as General Agent. Near the end of 1982, the Respondent sold to Arnold Construction Company various endorsements on its existing business insurance coverage so as to add coverage for additional motor vehicles. That policy and the endorsements were issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected from Arnold Construction Company a premium payment in the amount of $1,302 and failed to forward it in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. Numerous requests were made of the Respondent by Amalex, Inc. for the payment of the delinquent premiums the Respondent owed it on all outstanding accounts beginning in March, 1982. In October, 1982, Amalex began requiring cash remissions with applications for insurance written by the Respondent. The Respondent has failed to pay the outstanding account balances representing premium trust fund payments due to Amalex, Inc., such that in excess of $18,000 in outstanding premium payments have not been remitted to that firm. It is true that two of the amounts billed and depicted on Exhibit No. 12 as constituting that approximate $18,000 outstanding premium payment amount, represent $1,368 and $174 for business written in November and December of 1981, during which time the Respondent was under the genuine belief that he had an agreement with Amalex, Inc., to retain in his office all business insurance premium payments. Even though that is the case, and the B & L Groceries, B & L Seafood and Parker Septic Tank Co. premiums are attributable to this time period, the fact remains that the greater portion of the disputed approximate $18,000 amount remains outstanding and has never been paid by the Respondent to Amalex, Inc., the entity entitled to the funds. The amounts collected and not remitted by the Respondent on the insurance accounts delineated above constitute trust funds held in a fiduciary capacity by the Respondent on behalf of the General Agent, Amalex, Inc., who is General Agent for the insurance companies for whom the Respondent wrote the policies.1 The Respondent thus misappropriated these trust funds by failing to remit them in a timely fashion to the General Agent, Amalex, Inc., in the regular course of business. Although the Respondent clearly failed to properly account for and deliver the subject funds, there is no evidence to show that the Respondent was guilty of faulty record keeping in his own agency. In fact, Petitioner did not adduce any competent, substantial evidence to indicate what manner of record keeping the Respondent engaged in, good, bad or indifferent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, John Wayne Pennington's General Lines Insurance Agent's license be suspended for a period of two years, in accordance with Section 626.641, Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986.
The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specifically at issue in this proceeding are the proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009 which restrict, under certain circumstances, compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and which require premium refunds to some purchasers of credit insurance.
Findings Of Fact Credit insurance is a form of group insurance marketed and sold to consumers by creditors or, in the case of motor vehicle financing, by vehicle dealers. The insurance can be purchased by a debtor at the time the debtor enters into a loan agreement. Credit insurance is purchased by debtors as protection against risk of loss caused by unexpected events occurring during the term of the insurance contract. Credit insurance provides for the payment of the balance of the debt upon the death or disability of the insured debtor. Otherwise stated, the benefit of such insurance to the debtor is the assurance that, if the debtor becomes unable, due to death or disability, to make the required periodic payments, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. Sellers of credit insurance products are compensated in the form of commissions paid to sellers by insurers. Additional compensation is periodically paid by some insurers to sellers based upon the profitability of each seller's line of business. Beginning in late 1990, the Department of Insurance ("Department") proposed amendments to administrative rules relating to credit life and credit health and accident insurance products. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of the proposed rule restricting the level of compensation paid to the sellers of credit insurance products and requiring insurers to make "experience refunds". As set forth in the Department's Notice of Change, published in the November 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 17, No. 48), the proposed rule amendment provides in relevant part as follows: 4-7.009 Determination of Reasonableness of Benefits in Relation to Premium Charge General Standard. Under the Credit Insurance Law, benefits provided by credit insurance policies must be reasonable in relation to the premium charged. In determining whether benefits are reasonable in relation to premium, the Department shall consider loss experience, allocation of expenses, risk and contingency margins, and policy acquisition costs. This requirement is satisfied if the premium rate charged develops or may be reasonably expected to develop a loss ratio of not less than 1. (a) 55% for credit life insurance and 2. (b) 50% for credit accident and health insurance, and either the insurer does not pay compensation in excess of 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011, or the insurer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that payment of compensation in excess of said 30% is actuarially sound. "Compensation" means money or anything else of value paid by the insurer and/or by any reinsurer to any agent, producer, creditor, or affiliated body. On the basis of relevant experience, uUse of rates not greater than those contained in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 ("prima facie rates") shall be deemed currently reasonable premium rates reasonably expected to develope the required loss ratio, subject to a later determination of experience refunds, if any, as described herein. An insurer may only file and use rates with such forms which are greater than the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 upon a satisfactory showing to the Department Commissioner that the use of such rates will not result on a statewide basis for that insurer of a ratio of claims incurred to premiums earned of less than the required loss ratio. Furthermore, the extent to which an actual rate is greater than that set forth may not exceed the difference between (a) claims which may be reasonably expected and (b) the product of the required loss ratio and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 for the coverage being provided. (2) The Department Commissioner shall, on a triennial basis, review the loss ratio standards set forth in subsection (1), above, and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 and determine therefrom the rate of expected claims on a statewide basis, compare such rate of expected claims with the rate of claims for the preceding triennium, determined from the incurred claims and earned premiums at prima facie rates reported in the annual statement supplement, and adopt the adjusted actual new statewide prima facie rates for Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 to be used by insurers during the next triennium. The new rates will be set at levels that would have produced the loss ratios set forth in subsection (1), above. To make this comparison and redetermination, insurers shall report in the annual statement supplement format, each year, claims and earned premiums, separately, for business written with premiums based on Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. * * * Insurers will calculate a dollar amount of loading each year based upon the insurer's earned credit life and credit accident and health premium in this state for the same year. Loading will be calculated as 45% of earned premium for life insurance and 50% of earned premium for credit accident and health insurance. For this calculation, earned premium shall be based on the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. Insurers shall calculate an Experience Refund Amount each year for credit life and credit accident and health insurance written in this state after the effective date of this rule. Experience Refunds can be positive or negative. Positive Experience Refunds are to be refunded in the following manner: Experience refunds are to be allocated to accounts which have positive Experience Refund Amounts in proportion to the ratio of each account's refund amount to the total of all positive refund amounts. For the purpose of this allocation, all individual policies are to be treated as one account. The Experience Refund Amount allocated to a particular account is to be refunded to all certificate holders or individual policyholders of such account in proportion to the premiums earned for each certificate holder or individual policyholder to the total of all premiums earned for such account. Earned premiums for Experience Refund purposes are to be equal to paid premiums for the calendar year less unearned premium reserves at the end of the calendar year plus unearned premiums at the beginning of the calendar year. Unearned premium reserves are to be calculated pro rata. Credit policies issued on a non-contributory basis are excluded. Non-contributory means that individual insureds pay no part of the insurance premium. Premiums are paid by the policyholder out of policyholder funds. Individual credit policies issued on a participating basis are to be excluded. All new loans insured after the effective date of this rule are subject to the Experience Refund calculation and distribution, if any. Individual refunds of less than $10 do not have to be made. Experience Refunds are to be determined for each calendar year as follows: Earned Premium, less Loading as determined above, less Incurred claims, less The sum of any carry forwards for the three previous years. An insurer that uses rates which are 10% or more below the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 shall not be required to calculate or make an Experience Refund. The Florida Bankers Association ("FBA") is the trade association of the Florida banking industry, many of whom sell credit insurance to their customers. The Florida Automobile Dealers Association ("FADA") is a trade association of franchised new car and truck dealers, approximately 65% of whom sell credit insurance. The Florida Recreational Vehicle Dealers Trade Association ("FRVDTA") is a trade association of recreational vehicle dealers, approximately 35% of whom sell credit insurance. The FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment at issue in this case. Specifically the FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed regulation of compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and by the proposed requirement that, under some circumstances, refunds be made to credit insurance purchasers. The Consumer Credit Insurance Association ("CCIA") is a trade association of credit insurance companies, at least 50 of whom sell credit insurance in Florida. The CCIA is substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment provision related to premium refunds to some insureds. Credit insurance is priced and sold without regard to sex or age of the debtor. There is little underwriting of credit insurance risks. Due primarily to the age of the population and the effect of mandated coverages, Florida's credit insurance claims are higher than in other states. There are currently in excess of eighty million credit insurance policies in force in the United States. Credit insurance is sold under master policies issued by insurers to producers, such as banks and vehicle dealers. Producers sell the insurance product and maintain records of the credit insurance purchasers, who hold certificates issued under each master policy. Credit insurance premiums are based upon the amount financed by the debtor and are calculated according to rates established on a statewide basis by the Department. Credit insurers may not charge more than the prima facie rates for credit insurance, therefore, there is no benefit to consumers to "shop around" for credit insurance. Although credit insurers are not prohibited from charging less than the prima facie rates, there is no evidence that any insurer charges less than the Department's adopted rates. Since 1982, the Department-approved prima facie credit life premium rate was $.60 for every $100 financed. The rate was based on the Department's determination that a $.60 prima facie rate would result in insurers paying out approximately 60% of premium dollars in claims paid to insureds, and that a 60% "loss ratio" was reasonable. The "loss ratio" is the fraction of premium dollars paid out in claims. The $.60 prima facie rate did not yield a 60% loss ratio. The loss ratios for some insurers was substantially less that 60%. On September 1, 1991, the Department reduced the prima facie credit life and credit health and accident rates. In establishing new prima facie rates, the Department established a 55% loss ratio for credit life insurance and a 50% loss ratio for credit disability. The revised prima facie rates are based upon data from calendar years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Such data includes information related to paid claims, earned premium, and insurer administrative overhead expenses. The setting of such rates is an actuarial exercise intended to provide a reasonable projection of premium rates and loss ratios. There is no evidence that the revised prima facie rates result in premiums which are excessive in relationship to the amount of the loans insured. The revised prima facie rates are reasonably expected to yield the revised loss ratios. The rule provides a triennial review mechanism to ascertain whether the expected loss ratios are being met and to adjust prima facie rates if such is indicated. The review is a reasonable method of assuring that such loss ratios are met. Currently, commissions are paid by insurers to producers (i.e. banks and dealers) as compensation for selling the product. The amount of commission is determined by agreement between the insurer and producer. Commissions for the sale of credit insurance vary widely and, in some cases (generally involving the sale of credit insurance related to automobile purchases) may be as high as 60% of the premium paid by the consumer. In addition to payment of commissions, some insurers retrospectively compensate producers by periodically paying an amount based upon the profitability of each producer's business. Compensation levels largely determine which credit insurer's product a producer chooses to sell. The proposed rule limits total compensation levels, absent specific authorization by the Department, to 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates. Compensation levels have no impact on the premiums charged to consumers purchasing credit insurance. Premiums charged are based on the Department's prima facie rates. The proposed rule permits a credit insurance company to exceed the 30% compensation restriction where the insurer can establish that the payment of compensation in excess of the 30% is "actuarially sound". The determination of whether payment of commission in excess of 30% is "actuarially sound" is left to the discretion of the Department. There is no statutory, rule, or commonly accepted definition of the term, although the Department's actuary stated that a product determined to be "actuarially sound" would be a "self-supporting" product, either profitable or "breaking even". He further opined that he would consider investment income in a determination of actuarial soundness, although the proposed rule does not require such consideration. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed compensation restriction was to protect insurers from insolvency and financial instability. The commission restriction was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The commission restriction was not intended to, and will not, ensure that the loss ratios deemed reasonable by the Department will be met. In adopting a 30% compensation restriction, the Department calculated that, assuming the 55% loss ratio was met, $.55 of each premium dollar would be paid in claims. The Department assumed that $.15 of each premium dollar would cover overhead expenses and profit. According to the Department, the remaining $.30 is the most an insurer could pay as compensation to the producers without affecting the solvency of the insurer. In calculating the commission restriction, the Department did not consider the effect of an insurer's investment income on the ability to pay commission. There is no evidence that payment of commissions in excess of 30% of net direct written premiums has adversely affected the solvency of any credit insurer doing business in Florida. There is, in fact, no history of credit insurer insolvency in Florida. Nationwide, there has been little problem of insolvency in the credit insurer business, with no more than four insurers having become insolvent. In each of those cases, the insolvency resulted from poor management of assets, and was not related to payment of excess commissions to producers. The Department asserts that, absent such restrictions, insurers will pay excessive compensation in order to compete for producers, and that such excess compensation, coupled with administrative expenses and a 55% loss ratio, will threaten the solvency of the companies. The assertion is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. The proposed rule also requires insurers, under some circumstances, to make experience-based refunds to credit insurance purchasers. In determining whether a refund is required, an insurer first calculates whether the insurer has met or exceeded the 55% loss ratio for the prior year. If the loss ratio is met or exceeded, no refunds are required. If an insurer determines that the 55% loss ratio was not met, the insurer calculates the difference between targeted 55% loss ratio and the actual percentage of premium dollars paid out in claims. The insurer then identifies each producer account which had a loss ratio of less than 55%, determines the identity and location of each certificate holder (insured) in each producer's account, and makes a refund to each identified certificate holder. Individual refunds of less than $10 to an individual consumer are not required. The proposed rule permits insurers to carry excess losses forward for a period of three year, to offset years when the targeted loss ratio is not met. However, such excess losses may not be carried forward beyond the three year period. Whether a consumer receives a refund is unrelated to the premium paid by the consumer. An individual consumer ("A") purchasing a car and credit insurance at Dealer "A" may receive a refund, while a Consumer "B" purchasing the same car and credit insurance from Dealer "B" may not receive a refund, if Dealer A's line of business with the insurer meets the target loss ratio and Dealer B's line of business with the same insurer fails to meet the loss ratio. The benefit of the credit insurance is the assurance that, under certain conditions, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. If Consumer A receives a refund and Consumer B does not, Consumer A pays more than Consumer B for the same insurance protection. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed experience refund was to ensure that the 55% loss ratio would be met. However, the experience refund provision, combined with the three year limit for charging off excess losses, will eventually result in loss ratios which will exceed the 55% ratio which the Department has determined to be reasonable. There is no need for experience refunds when the prima facie rates established by the Department are appropriately set. Such rates are designed to produce an acceptable loss ratio. It is reasonable to believe that the Department's revised prima facie rates will result in acceptable loss ratios. The refund proposal was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The proposed rule provides that an insurer charging a premium based on rates at least 10% below the prima facie rates are not required to calculate the experience refund. There is no credible rationale supporting the use of 10% as the threshold under which an insurer escapes the refund calculation, although the resulting loss ratio likely approaches the 60% loss ratio suggested by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Of the actuaries testifying at hearing, one opined that a rate 10% less than the prima facie rate was viable, the other opined that it was not. Because the Department's revised prima facie rates are reasonably calculated to result in a 55% loss ratio, an insurer charging less than the prima facie rate will likely exceed the 55% loss ratio. In connection with the final version of the proposed rule, the Department did not prepare an economic impact statement. The Department did not estimate the costs of insurer compliance with the refund provisions. The expense required of insurers in order to establish experience refund payment systems is significant. Information management systems will require extensive modification to permit such data to be maintained. Substantial amounts of data, which is not currently provided to insurers, must be collected and accurately maintained to permit refunds to be made. Such costs were not included in administrative expenses considered by the Department when the revised prima facie rates were established. Presently, credit insurers maintain limited data related to insureds purchasing credit insurance in connection with installment loans. Although such data may be initially collected by producers, insurers are typically provided only with the name of the debtor and loan number. Data is transmitted to insurers either electronically or through paper files. In either case, data must be converted to usable form by insurers. In approximately seventy percent of credit insurance business, addresses of insureds are not transmitted to insurers. There is no credible evidence that current addresses of insureds are continuously maintained by either insurer or producer in installment debt insurance, since there is little need to question original data as long as periodic payments are being timely made. In a form of credit insurance known as "monthly outstanding balance" insurance, bulk accounts are received by insurers, who generally does not receive either names or addresses of insureds. Consumers whose monthly outstanding balance indebtedness is insured are more likely to provide producer/creditors with current addresses, but such data is not provided to insurers. As to credit insurers, although most insurers currently process refund checks, the additional expense of establishing or modifying systems capable of compliance with the proposed refund requirement could amount to as much as five percent of each premium dollar. One bank official estimated that, as to his bank, the expense of complying with the refund provisions would include an initial cost of $1.1 million and an annual cost of $350,000 to $500,000. A credit insurance information systems and processing executive estimated that the 31 producers writing business for his company would incur costs of $1,860,000 to comply with the rule, and that his own company's costs would be in the range of $4-5 million. The Department suggested that, rather than modify existing mainframe computer systems, such data could be maintained by insurers on personal computers and microcomputer networks. The Department asserted that such systems would be less expensive and require less modification than the process outlined by industry representatives. However, there is credible testimony establishing that significant resources would be involved in determining whether such conversion to microcomputers would be feasible or warranted. In any event, there is no evidence that such conversion could be accomplished in a timely manner permitting the insurers to comply with the proposed rule requirements. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the expenses estimated by the industry representatives are reasonable based upon the existing management information systems maintained by the industry.
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, Maria Amelia Pou (Respondent) was licensed as a general lines insurance agent. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance (Petitioner) has jurisdiction over Respondent’s insurance license and appointments. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of General Insurance Group, Inc. (GIG), located in Hialeah, Florida. GIG is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of Victoria Insurance Agency, later changed to General Insurance Group II, both hereinafter referred to as GIG II, located at 4583 NW 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. GIG II is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for the wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she knew or should have known were committed by any person, over whom she had direct supervision and control, acting on behalf of GIG II. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she committed. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained an escrow account, with account no. 008-1027286, at Republic National Bank of Miami in Miami, Florida. Respondent had joint signatory authority over the escrow account. Premiums, returned premiums, and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under Respondent's license are trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. On November 22, 1994, Carlos Vidal and his wife, Teresa Vidal, purchased a new vehicle from Ocean Mazda, a Mazda dealership located on Lejeune Road, Miami, Florida. Before leaving the dealership with his new vehicle, Mr. Vidal attempted to obtain insurance coverage for the vehicle from his insurance company, State Farm. However, when he went to State Farm's office, no one was present and it appeared to be closed. Mr. Vidal returned to the dealership and informed the dealer's salesperson, Mr. Munoz, of his problem. The salesperson called several insurance companies without success before reaching GIG II. Mr. Munoz engaged in all communication over the telephone with GIG II. Neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal spoke with GIG II. Mr. Munoz obtained a quote of $997 from GIG II for the annual premium for the insurance coverage on the vehicle and informed Mr. Vidal of the cost. Mr. Vidal requested his wife to complete a check to GIG in the quoted amount. She complied. The check was given to and accepted by Mr. Munoz. GIG II faxed an insurance binder to Mr. Munoz. He gave the binder to Mr. Vidal. The binder indicated that the insurance was to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. Having obtained the insurance binder, Mr. and Mrs. Vidal left the dealership with their new vehicle. Although the premium was paid in full, GIG II completed an insurance premium finance contract (finance contract) to finance the premium with World Premium Finance Company (WPF), dated November 22, 1994, for Mr. Vidal. Ninety-five percent of Respondent's premiums are premium financed. The finance contract reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the finance contract. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed the names of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the finance contract. Respondent signed the finance contract as the broker or agent. Also, the finance contract reflects GIG II as the agent and the insured as both GIG II and Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, with only GIG II's address as the address for both GIG II and the Vidals. Further, the finance contract reflects a premium of $907, cash down payment of $273, and three monthly payments of $225.18. The monies totaled $948.54 for the finance contract price. The $997 check was deposited into GIG II's escrow account. At all times material hereto, the money remained in the escrow account. GIG II completed an application for the insurance coverage, dated November 22, 1994, with Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. The application reflected a total policy premium of $907. Respondent signed the application as brokering agent. Also, the application reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the application. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed Mr. and Mrs. Vidal's names to the application. Approximately, two to three days after November 22, 1994, Mr. Vidal brought the vehicle to GIG II for pictures to be taken of it for insurance purposes. A Florida Motor Vehicle Preinsurance Inspection Report, dated November 22, 1994, reflects the alleged signature of Mr. Vidal. To the contrary, Mr. Vidal did not sign the Report. Regarding the premium for the insurance, Respondent utilized computer software to compute the premium. The software requires a vehicle's VIN number. Respondent's software was not current due to her not having received, at the time of the transaction, the updated software which would reflect a recent rate increase. The total premium by the software was lower than the premium should have been. It is customary in the insurance industry to use the computer software used by Respondent for the insurance premiums. Also, it is not unusual for a delay to occur for the updated software to be received by an insurance company after a rate increase is approved and effective. In the insurance industry, it is not unusual for a miscalculation of a premium to occur. No gross miscalculation occurred in this instance which would cause the miscalculation to be unusual and suspect. Due to the miscalculation of the premium, by letter dated January 12, 1995, AIB notified Mr. Vidal that an additional $120 was due on the premium. Further, the letter provided that he had three options: (1) pay the $120 by February 10, 1995; or (2) cancel the insurance policy by February 26, 1995, and demand return of unearned premiums; or (3) take no action and the insurance policy would be cancelled by February 26, 1995. Mr. Vidal decided to cancel the insurance policy. On January 30, 1995, Mr. Vidal went to GIG II and executed a Cancellation Request Form cancelling his insurance. Respondent's signature appears on the Form as the agent. At some point in time, the cancellation form was forwarded by GIG II to AIB. By notice dated February 6, 1995, WPF notified Mr. Vidal, among other things, that he had ten days to pay his monthly installment ($225.18) due on February 1, 1995, 1 plus a late charge of $10, totaling $235.18 and that, if he failed to pay, his insurance would be cancelled. The address for Mr. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By notice dated February 16, 1995, WPF notified Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, among other things, that their insurance policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of the monthly installment. The address for Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By letter dated February 14, 1995, to AIB, Mr. Vidal notified AIB that he had chosen to cancel his insurance policy and had executed a cancellation form on January 27, 1995, 2 and demanded a refund of the unearned premiums. Further, Mr. Vidal indicated in the letter that he had neither heard from AIB or received a refund and that he was notifying it of his cancellation and demand for a refund. As a result of the cancellation by Mr. Vidal, AIB issued WPF a check dated February 22, 1995, in the amount of $549.67. Subsequently, on or about March 1, 1995, WPF issued GIG II a check in the amount of $79.31 Even after Mr. Vidal cancelled the insurance coverage and Respondent had received a refund from WPF, Respondent failed to adjust her conduct to conform with the Vidals' situation which was that the insureds, the Vidals, had paid the quoted premium in full. Not having received a refund, on April 17, 1995, approximately two and one-half months after signing the cancellation form, Mr. Vidal filed a request for assistance with Petitioner. By check dated July 10, 1995, more than five months after Mr. Vidal signed the cancellation form, Respondent issued Mr. Vidal a refund in the amount of $239.33 for insurance coverage that he had in effect for a little over two months. The refund check was issued from GIG II's escrow account. The refund monies included $49 which represented the difference between what the Vidals paid for the coverage ($997) and the finance contract price ($948.54). Consequently, Mr. Vidal was assessed the interest charged on a finance contract which never should have existed in his situation as the quoted premium was paid in full. In a premium finance situation in which a refund is due an insured, it is customary in the insurance industry for a three-step process to take place: (1) the insurance company issues a check to the premium finance company for the refund and forwards the check to the premium finance company which may take at least 30 days; (2) the premium finance company issues a check to the agent for the refund and forwards the check to the agent which may take at least another 30 days; and (3) the agent issues a check to the insured for the refund and sends the check to the insured. The same refund procedure was followed in this situation but with less time involved for steps (1) and (2). Moreover, in this instance, an important factor which makes this situation different is that Respondent had in her escrow account the full premium paid by the insureds, the Vidals. After receiving Mr. Vidal's request for assistance, Petitioner conducted an investigation. At first, Petitioner determined that no violation of the Insurance Code had occurred and Petitioner closed its file. However, subsequently, Petitioner re-opened its investigation which led to the filing of the administrative complaint against Respondent. After filing of the administrative complaint and more than one year after Respondent refunded the $239.33 to Mr. Vidal, Respondent acknowledged that more monies were due Mr. Vidal. Having reviewed the computations with Petitioner, Respondent refunded the additional monies to Mr. Vidal. An individual who is not licensed by Petitioner may qualify for a license by experience. Petitioner prescribes the activities in which an unlicensed person may engage. Over the years, Respondent has had unlicensed employees who were attempting to qualify for licensure by experience. Respondent identified two unlicensed employees, Maria Cancio and Maritza Inclant, who provided premium quotes to customers. Approximately ten percent of Ms. Cancio's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. However, more than ten percent of Ms. Martiza's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. Petitioner presented no evidence as to the time periods, i.e., six months or twelve months to which the percentages were applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order Finding in Count I that Maria Amelia Pou violated Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(4), (5), (7), (10) and (13), 626.621(2) and (12), and 626.9541(1)(k)1 and (o) 1 and 2; Dismissing Count II; and Suspending the license of Maria Amelia Pou for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on either or both of them.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Eduardo Enrique Mendez ("Mendez"), at all times material to this matter, was a licensed insurance agent subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Petitioner. Petitioner issued Mendez license number A176292. Mendez is licensed as a 2-18 life and health agent and a 2-20 general lines agent for the sale of property and casualty. Mendez first started in the insurance business in 1969 while in Panamá. He came to the United States in 1988. In South Florida, he has been known as "Mr. Panama" in the insurance industry for approximately 20 years. Respondent, Insurance Resources of the Americas, Inc. ("Insurance Resources"), is and was, at all times material in this matter, a corporation registered as a Florida insurance agent subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued license number R054007. Mendez is the corporation's owner and president. Insurance Resources typically handles all kinds of property and casualty insurance, but for approximately the last six years has specialized in the used car dealer business by providing bonds for the car dealers to open their operation. Bass Underwriters ("Bass") is a managing general agent which works with insurance agents who purchase insurance for their customers. Bass has no direct relationship with the customers only with the retail agent who is responsible for collecting the premium. On January 22, 2003, Insurance Resources, as producer, and Bass signed a producer agreement which allowed Insurance Resources to sell insurance through Bass or certain carriers that Bass obtains as a wholesaler. Insurance Resources received commissions as compensation under the agreement. The agreement contained a provision which guaranteed the collection of additional premiums that might arise as a result of an audit of the insurance customers. The provision provided in relevant part: Producer shall be liable to Bass Underwriters, Inc. for the full amount of premium, fees and applicable sum taxes, less commission, including additional and/or adjustable premiums developed under audits or applicable rating plan on every insurance contract placed by Producer through Bass Underwriters, Inc. Producer shall remit Twenty Five Percent (25%) of the premium upon binding. The full amount of premium, fees and applicable state taxes, less commission is due to Bass Underwriters, Inc. not later than the 15th day of the first (1st) month after the effective date of such contract, audit, rating plan, or other adjustment. During the term of the producer agreement, three policies were issued that Bass determined additional premiums were owed by Insurance Resources. On June 29, 2005, Bass notified Insurance Resources by invoice that an additional premium was owed for the insured, L. Boulevard Café, in the amount of $6,955.00. L. Boulevard Cafe, a restaurant, obtained a Century Surety policy through Insurance Resources effective November 15, 2004. In making the application, the restaurant declared a certain amount of projected sales. The premium was based upon the total sales recorded by the customer. Century Surety did a self audit and determined that the amount of sales was significantly more than the coverage. Subsequently, the carrier went back and assessed additional premiums to make up the difference between the amount of coverage represented and the self reported amount, which totaled $6,955.00. Around August 2005, after receiving the Bass invoice with the additional premiums, Insurance Resources notified L. Boulevard Café about the invoice and explained that the additional insurance premium of $6,955.00 was owed because of the difference in the amount calculated from the audit. Mendez notified Rafael Garcia, prior owner of L. Boulevard Café, about the additional insurance premium but L. Boulevard Cafe was having financial problems. L. Boulevard Café never made the additional premium payment. On July 1, 2005, Bass notified Insurance Resources by invoice that an additional premium was owed for the insured, Winner's Circle, in the amount of $418.00. Winner's Circle obtained a XL Specialty Insurance Company policy through Insurance Resources effective May 23, 2005. An inspection was performed after the policy quote was bound and issued. The subsequent inspection concluded that the construction code of the building was different from the construction code represented on the application. The difference triggered a premium increase of $418.00. When Insurance Resources found out about the additional premium for Winner's Circle, Mendez sent an invoice explaining the increase and requesting payment. Winner's Circle refused to pay the amount because the policy was issued under a lower premium. Winner's Circle decided not to keep the policy when Respondent requested that they make payment of the additional premium amount and the balance of the premium on the policy. Payment was never made. The policy was cancelled. The account was credited and the final total owed was $160.40, which Bass became responsible for with the carrier. On July 11, 2005, Bass notified Insurance Resources by invoice that an additional premium was owed for the insured, Venecar, Inc., in the amount of $1,298.00. Venecar, a small used car dealership, obtained a Century Surety policy through Insurance Resources effective July 18, 2004. The insurance inspectors did an inspection after the policy was issued and determined that one more employee and driver than had been represented in the application existed and that employee generated a change in the rating for the premium, which Bass ultimately decided was an additional premium of $1,298.00. After Insurance Resources learned about the results of the inspection, Mendez called Bass and told Ms. Rodriguez, the accountant, that the premium increase of $1,298.00 was too high and could not be the proper rate for one driver because one driver should be around $400.00. Bass ignored Mendez's proposition. Subsequently, Mendez told Venecar about the outstanding premium amount owed and they refused to pay. Insurance Resources followed up and contacted Venecar several more times requesting the additional premium payment to no avail. Soon thereafter, Venecar closed. Mendez reported his efforts to Bass while he tried to collect the three changed premium amounts. Insurance Resources never collected the additional premium from L. Boulevard Café, Winner's Circle, or Venecar even though Mendez repeatedly sought to get the outstanding premiums from all three insured customers. Despite Respondents best efforts, they never received any of the additional premiums that accrued. Bass still expected Insurance Resources to pay the additional premiums pursuant to the producer agreement. On May 1, 2006, Bass sent Insurance Resources a statement of account. The invoice statement informed Insurance Resources that the premium due for the three different accounts totaled $8,021.39. The statement outlined the amount owed from each insured. After Bass made several demands for the three accounts, Bass submitted the account to collections and the matter ultimately ended in litigation. On November 5, 2007, a final judgment was entered against Insurance Resources in favor of Bass for the principal of $8,021.39, costs of $275.00, and prejudgment interest of $1,298.14, for a total of $9,594.53. The judgment remains unsatisfied. On February 15, 2008, Insurance Resources paid $1,919.00 on the judgment. On February 29, 2008, Insurance Resources paid $640.00 on the judgment. There is a balance owed of $7,035.53. Insurance Resources also had a relationship with AAPCO, a premium finance company that financed the balance of what an insured could not pay. Respondent Insurance Resources was an authorized entity to accept premium finance contracts utilizing AAPCO premium finance. Insurance Resources had the authority to write check drafts on AAPCO's bank account for the entire premium amount owed on a customer's insurance policy and remit it to the insurer. Respondent would then submit the policy application together with the premium down payment received from the consumer to AAPCO, which would finance the rest of the policy premium. In 2009, Insurance Resources was having problems financially. Mendez approached Mrs. Blanco, AAPCO's office manager, and told her Insurance Resources sales had dropped fifty percent. Mendez, on behalf of Insurance Resources requested to make a payment arrangement.1 Blanco refused to make any type of arrangements. She insisted that Insurance Resources pay everything up front. Mendez approached her several more times but she would not negotiate. At one point, Mendez even requested that AAPCO place the $4,000.00 in producers fees owed to Insurance Resources against the monies owed and she refused to pay Respondent the $4,000.00 In 2009, Mendez submitted three checks to AAPCO's as down payments for insureds' accounts. Check number 1347 was for $10,228.47. The check was from account number 2000034377804 Mr. Panama Inc.'s account. Check number 1342 was from the same account in the amount of $2,828.15. However, check number 159 was for $3,368.44 from Insurance Resources account number 2000040742805. Checks 1347, 1342, and 159 totaled approximately $16,425.00. The funds were intended to be premium down payments on insurance policies purchased by Florida insurance consumers. Insurance policies were issued for each of the checks for down payments for insured's accounts Insurance Resources submitted. AAPCO deposited the three checks and they were submitted to the bank for negotiation. Each check was returned for insufficient funds. AAPCO attempted to collect the money for the three checks that were returned for non-sufficient funds. AAPCO demanded payment of the funds and even called Mendez in an effort to collect the funds. Mendez admitted at hearing that the three checks bounced because he had used the funds for his business operating account since the business was doing bad financially. Insurance Resources had not yet repaid AAPCO their monies owed for the three checks. AAPCO has suffered a financial loss due to nonpayment. After nonpayment, AAPCO turned the matter over to AAPCO's legal department. After an investigation, Petitioner charged Respondents with numerous violations by separate Administrative Complaints dated April 21, 2010. The Charges: In Count I of the Administrative complaint filed against Mendez, Petitioner charges Mendez with violations of sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), (9), (10), and 626.621(4), Florida Statutes, for failing to remit all premiums due to Bass. In Count II, Petitioner charges Mendez with violations of sections 626.561(1),626.611(7), 626.611(9) and (10), and 626.621(4) for submitting the three checks to AAPCO in payment of the policy down payment premiums that were returned for insufficient funds and not repaid after demand. In Count I of the Administrative complaint filed against Insurance Resources, Petitioner charges Insurance Resources with violation of sections 626.561(1),626.6251(5)(a),(d),(f),(j), and (k) for failing to remit all premiums due to Bass.2 In Count II Petitioner charges Insurance Resources with violations of sections 626.561(1), and 626.6251(5)(a),(d), (f),(j), and (k) for remitting three checks to AAPCO in payment of the policy down payment premiums that were returned for insufficient funds and not repaid after demand.
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 that: (a) finds Respondents not guilty as charged in Count I, of the Administrative Complaints; (b) finds Respondents guilty in Count II; (c) suspends Respondent Mendez's license for 12 months with reinstatement conditioned upon repayment to AAPCO; and (d) suspends Respondent Insurance Resources' license for three months with reinstatement conditioned upon repayment to AAPCO. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 28th day of February, 2011.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), General Lines, Property and Casualty Insurance (2-20), Health (2-40) and Legal Expense (2-56) agent pursuant to provisions within Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Recommendation Based on the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts I through V pertaining to his obligations as a fiduciary set forth in Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, his violation of Section 626.611(7), (9) and (10), Florida Statutes, and his violation of Section 626.621(4), Florida Statutes, in effect when the violations transpired and that the various licenses held by Respondent be suspended for six months as suggested by counsel for Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 2nd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William Franklin Outland, III 10840 Northwest 100th Street Reddick, Florida 32686 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Lower Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and 626.611(13), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Mr. Holliday, III, was a licensed Florida surplus lines (1-20) agent, a life and health (2-18) agent, a general lines (property and casualty) (2-20) agent, an independent adjuster (5-20), and agent in charge at International Brokerage and Surplus Lines, Inc. (IBSL). Mr. Holliday, III, had been associated with IBSL since its inception in 1993. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, IV, was licensed in Florida as a general lines (2-20) agent. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday, IV, were officers and owners of IBSL. Most recently, Mr. Holliday, III, was the secretary of IBSL. He handled the underwriting and risk placement for the agency. From approximately March 1993 to April 2009, Mr. Holliday, IV, was the president of IBSL. As president of IBSL, Mr. Holliday, IV's, duties included signing agreements which established IBSL's business function as that of a general managing agent and signing agreements which empowered IBSL to collect premiums on behalf of insureds. IBSL ceased doing business on May 1, 2009. In the insurance industry, a common method of procuring insurance involves a retail producer, a wholesale broker, and a program manager. A customer desiring insurance contacts its local insurance agent, which is known as a retail producer, and applies for insurance. The retail producer has a producer agreement with a wholesale broker, who has a producer agreement with a program manager. The program manager represents insurance companies. The retail producer sends the customer's application to the wholesale broker, and the wholesale broker contacts the program manager and forwards the application to the program manager. The program manager will provide a quote if the insurance company is willing to insure the customer. The quote is passed back to the customer via the wholesale broker and the retail producer. If the customer decides to take the insurance, the program manager will issue a binder to the wholesale broker, who will submit the binder to the retail producer. The wholesale broker will issue an invoice for the premium to the retail producer. The program manager pays a commission to the wholesale broker pursuant to its producer agreement with the wholesale broker, and the wholesale broker pays a commission to the retail producer pursuant to its producer agreement with the retail producer. When the retail producer sends the premium payment to the wholesale broker, the retail producer will deduct its commission. The wholesale broker sends the premium amount to the program manager less the wholesale broker's commission. If the customer is unable to pay the entire amount of the premium, part of the premium may be financed through a premium finance company. The premium finance company may pay the premium to the retail producer or to the wholesale broker. International Transportation & Marine Agency, Inc. (ITMA), is a program manager and is engaged in the business of selling, brokering, and servicing certain lines of policies of insurance written or issued by insurance companies. ITMA is a program manager for Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Association (Pennsylvania Manufacturers), an insurance company. IBSL, a wholesale broker, entered into a producer's contract with ITMA on January 4, 2008. Wimberly Agency, Incorporated (Wimberly), is a retail producer located in Ringgold, Louisiana. In 2008, Wimberly had a producer's agreement with IBSL. Carla Jinks (Ms. Jinks) is the administrative manager for Wimberly. In October 2008, R.L. Carter Trucking (Carter) was a customer of Wimberly and applied for motor truck cargo insurance with Wimberly. Wimberly submitted an application to IBSL and requested that coverage be bound effective October 28, 2008, for Carter. IBSL contacted ITMA and received a binder for a policy with Pennsylvania Manufacturers. The cost of the policy was $9,500.00 plus a policy fee of $135.00 for a total of $9,635.00. Carter paid Wimberly $2,500.00 as a down payment and financed the remainder of the cost with Southern Premium Finance, LLC, who paid the financed portion directly to Wimberly. Wimberly deducted a ten percent commission of $950.00 and sent the remainder, $8,635.00 to IBSL. The check was deposited to IBSL's clearing account. On January 22, 2009, Carter contacted Ms. Jinks and advised that he had received a notice of cancellation effective January 22, 2009, due to non-payment to Pennsylvania Manufacturers. On the same date, Ms. Jinks received a facsimile transmission from IBSL, attaching the notice of cancellation and stating: "There was some confusion with the payment we send [sic] and we are working on getting it reinstated." There were some e-mails between Wimberly and Mr. Holliday, III, concerning the placement of coverage with another company. IBSL was unable to place coverage for Carter. By e-mail dated January 30, 2009, Ms. Jinks advised Mr. Holliday, III, that she had been able to place coverage for Carter and requested a return of the premium paid on a pro rata basis. She advised Mr. Holliday, III, that the return premium should be $7,651.35. By e-mail dated January 30, 2009, Mr. Holliday, III, stated: We will tender the return as quickly as it is processed by accounting. I do sorely regret the loss of this account, and our inability to get the Travelers quote agreed on a timely basis. By February 19, 2009, Wimberly had not received the return premium from IBSL. Ms. Jinks sent an e-mail to Mr. Holliday, III, on February 19, 2009, asking that the return premium be rushed to Wimberly so that it could be used to pay for the replacement policy. As of the date of Ms. Jinks' deposition on November 16, 2009, neither Mr. Holliday, III; Mr. Holliday, IV; nor IBSL had given the return premium to Wimberly. K.V. Carrier Services, Inc. (K.V.), is a retail producer located in Medley, Florida. In 2007, K.V. and IBSL entered into a business arrangement with IBSL. Under the arrangement, K.V. was the retailer, IBSL was the wholesale broker, ITMA was the program manager, and Pennsylvania Manufacturers was the insurance company. K.V. collected the down payments for the policy premiums from its customers and sent the down payments to IBSL. The remainder of the premiums were financed by financing companies, who sent the remainder of the premiums to IBSL. IBSL was supposed to send the monies paid for the premiums to ITMA. The following customers made down payments to K.V. and financed the remainder of their premiums with a financing company. E & E Trucking Service OD Transport, Inc. Fermin Balzaldua Eduardo Bravo Carlos Ramirez Edwin Bello Janet Rodriguez UTL, Inc. Prestige Transport USA JNL Transportation, Inc. Valdir Santos DJ Express PL Fast Carrier Ysis Transport K.V. sent the down payments for these customers to IBSL. The financing company sent the remainder of the premiums for these customers to IBSL. The total amount of premiums sent to IBSL for these customers was $19,768.45. IBSL did not send the premium payments for these customers to ITMA. The policies for these customers were cancelled for non-payment. K.V. found another company that was willing to insure K.V.'s customers. K.V. paid the down payments for the new policies from its own funds, hoping that IBSL would repay the finance company with any unearned premiums that would be returned to IBSL as a result of the cancellations. ITMA sent an invoice called an Account Current Statement to IBSL for the business conducted in the month of November 2008. The total amount owed to ITMA was listed as $55,116.32. The invoice included the premium for the policy issued for Carter, less IBSL's commission. The premiums for the policies issued to Eduardo Bravo; Fermin Bazaldua; JNL Transportation, Inc.; Janet Rodriguez; OD Transport, Inc.; and Prestige Transport USA were also included in the Account Current Statement for the business that IBSL conducted in November. IBSL was required to pay the $55,116.32 by December 15, 2008, but did not do so. ITMA received a check from IBSL dated December 31, 2008, for $25,000.00. A notation on the check indicated that it was a partial payment for the November business. The check was unallocated, meaning IBSL did not state to which premiums the partial payment should be applied. Mr. Holliday, III, claimed that IBSL had sent a bordereaux along with the check showing to which policies the payment applied. Mr. Holliday, III's, testimony is not credited. Donald Kaitz (Mr. Kaitz), the president of ITMA, communicated with one of the Respondents, who advised Mr. Kaitz that he needed another week or so to collect some premiums from his retail producers. On January 12, 2009, ITMA received a telephone call from IBSL, stating that IBSL could not pay the balance owed to ITMA and that ITMA should take whatever action it felt necessary. As a result of the communication from IBSL, ITMA issued notices of policy cancellation on all applicable policies listed in the Account Current Statement which was to be paid on December 15, 2008. Copies of the cancellation notices were sent to the insureds and IBSL. ITMA issued pro rata return premiums based on the number of days that each policy had been in effect. The return premiums were sent to IBSL by a check for $18,790.06. Additionally, ITMA sent IBSL a list of the policies that had been cancelled, showing the earned premiums which had been deducted from the $25,000.00. IBSL received and retained a net of $30,116.32, which was owed to ITMA. This amount is derived by deducting the $25,000.00, which IBSL sent to ITMA, from the $55,116.32, which was owed to ITMA. By letter dated April 2, 2009, IBSL sent K.V. a check for $524.80, which stated: We have totaled all amounts owing to IBSL by KV Carrier Service, and we have totaled all pro rated commissions owing by IBSL to KV Carrier Services for the benefit of your clients and have included our check # 1025 in the final amount of $524.80 to settle the account. All net unearned premiums for other than unearned commissions which are funded herein you must contact the insurance carriers involved and request payment under the provisions of Florida Statutes #627.7283. Federal Motor Carriers Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (FMC), is an insurance company, which sells commercial auto liability insurance, specifically targeted to intermediate and long-haul trucking companies. CBIP Management, Incorporated (CBIP), is a managing general underwriter for FMC. FMC had an agreement effective June 1, 2008, with IBSL, allowing IBSL to act as a general agent for FMC. As a general agent for FMC, IBSL was given the authority to accept risk on behalf of FMC. IBSL was given a fiduciary responsibility to accept insurance applications, provide quotes, and bind coverage. Once IBSL binds a policy for FMC, FMC issues a policy and is responsible for the risk. IBSL would receive the down payment from the retail agency, and, in most cases, the finance company would pay the balance of the premium directly to IBSL. The agreement between FMC and IBSL provided that IBSL was to provide FMC a monthly report of premiums billed and collected, less the agreed commission. The report was due by the 15th of the month following the reported month. In turn, FMC was to issue a statement for the balance due, and IBSL was required to pay the balance due within 15 days of the mailing of the statement following the month in which the policy was written. In August 2008, FMC began to notice that IBSL was selling premiums lower than FMC's rating guidelines. IBSL owed FMC approximately $186,000.00, which was due on August 15, 2008. IBSL sent FMC a check, which was returned for insufficient funds. FMC contacted IBSL and was assured that the check was returned due to a clerical error and an error by the bank. Assurances were given to FMC that funds would be transferred to FMC the following day; however, FMC did not receive payment until five days later. In September 2008, Joseph Valuntas (Mr. Valuntas), the chief operating officer for FMC, paid a visit to Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday, IV. Mr. Valuntas expressed his concerns about the delay in receiving payment in August. He also pointed out that IBSL had taken some risks which were not rated properly and that there were some risks in which IBSL was not following the underwriting guidelines. After his visit with the Hollidays, Mr. Valuntas wrote a letter to IBSL, restricting IBSL to writing in Florida and limiting the amount of gross written premium to no more than $100,000.00 per month. IBSL did not adhere to Mr. Valuntas' instructions. An example of IBSL's conduct involved the writing of a policy for Miami Sunshine Transfer, which is a risk category designated as public delivery. Public delivery was not a standard that FMC insured and, as such, was not covered by FMC's reinsurance. Beginning on or about September 21, 2008, FMC began getting complaints from policyholders and retail agents about cancellations of policies that had been paid timely and in full. Although the retail agents had paid the premiums in full to IBSL, IBSL had not forwarded the premiums to FMC. By October 2008, IBSL owed FMC approximately $120,000.00 in past due premiums. FMC officially terminated the IBSL agreement in October 2008. IBSL sued FMC for breach of contract. On December 22, 2008, FMC received a check from IBSL in the amount of $25,122.80, but IBSL did not specify what premiums were being paid by the check. From February 1, 2006, through November 20, 2008, IBSL had a business relationship with Markel International Insurance Company Limited (Markel), an entity for which IBSL was writing insurance. IBSL was a coverholder for Markel, meaning that IBSL could produce insurance business for Markel and had the authority to collect and process premiums and bind insurance on Markel's behalf. Once the premiums were collected by IBSL, they were to be reported to Markel, and, within a maximum of 45 days, IBSL was to remit to Markel the aggregate gross written premiums less IBSL's commission. T. Scott Garner (Mr. Garner) is an expert auditor and financial analyst who currently works for Northshore International Insurance Services (Northshore), an insurance and reinsurance consulting firm. Markel retained Mr. Garner to determine the amount of money that IBSL should have sent to Markel for business transacted by IBSL for the period between February 1, 2006, and November 20, 2008. In doing his analysis, Mr. Garner used the bordereauxs which IBSL prepared and provided to Markel. Bordereauxs are monthly billing reports or accounts receivable reports. Mr. Garner also used data from Omni, which is a software system that was used by IBSL. Mr. Garner used the following procedure to determine what IBSL owed Markel. He determined how much risk IBSL wrote during the time period, that is, the gross written premium. He identified the amount of money that Markel had received from IBSL for the time period. Next he determined the amount that should have been received from IBSL, the gross written premiums minus IBSL's commissions. He compared what should have been remitted to Markel with the amount that was actually received by Markel. Based on his analysis, Mr. Garner calculated that IBSL owed Markel $1,208,656.61. Mr. Garner's analysis is credited. Respondent submitted a FSLSO Compliance Review Summary, which was done by the Florida Surplus Lines Office. At the final hearing, Mr. Holliday, III, viewed the report to mean that Markel was incorrect in the amount of money that was owed to it by IBSL. The report does not indicate that the policies on which the premium variances were noted were policies issued by Markel. Additionally, in his review, Mr. Garner eliminated duplicate transactions in determining the amount owed to Markel. The report did give a long list of policies, which should have been reported to Florida Surplus Lines Office, but IBSL had failed to report the policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondents committed the violations alleged in Counts I through V of the Administrative Complaints, dismissing Count VI of the Administrative Complaints, and revoking the licenses of Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2010.
