Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jeffrey Allan Azis, is licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance as a General Lines Agent and did business as the American Automobile Insurance Agency, Inc., 603 NW 10th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, during the period of time delineated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent transacted the sale of motor vehicle insurance and an automobile club membership to the persons identified in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint. Each of the persons identified in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint was charged for membership in an automobile club by the Respondent or his employees. With respect to Counts I through VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the following findings are made: Count I James E. Rippy, Jr., purchased automobile insurance directly from the Respondent at the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc., Gainesville, Florida, on or about June 10, 1979. He requested the minimum coverage necessary to insure his vehicle to obtain a license tag. (Vol. 1, T-35) Mr. Rippy did not request motor club coverage and was not aware of what a motor club covered. (Vol. 1, T- 32) Sometime after purchasing insurance from the Respondent, Mr. Rippy discovered that his coverage included membership in a motor club. (Vol. 1, T- 33-34) At the Respondent's office, Mr. Rippy and his wife Norma, signed documents which included a membership application in Nation Motor Club with a membership fee of $25.00 [Respondent Exhibit 2(1)] and an application for coverage which included the following disclosure statement also signed by Mr. Rippy in addition to the application form: I understand the Nation Motor Club (NMC) membership applied for this date 6/30/79, through the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included with my down payment. Applicant (signed) Mr. Rippy was not pressured by the Respondent to sign these documents and could have taken additional time to read and ask questions if he had desired. (Vol. 1, T-49-50) write and do mathematics at a basic level. Count II On or about December 4, 1979, Deborah M. Zapp purchased automobile insurance from American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. Gainesville, Florida, from an employee of the Respondent's identified as "Judy". (Vol. 1, T-17) Ms. Zapp was unclear regarding the coverage she requested from Judy, but was sure that she would not have purchased motor club membership since she regarded it as an "extra". (Vol. 1, T-18-20) While at the agency on December 4, 1979, Ms. Zapp was asked to sign various papers which she read before signing. (Vol. a, T-20) These included a membership application in Nation Motor Club (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and an application form which contained the following disclosure statement: I understand the Nation Motor Club membership applied for this date 12/4/79, though the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included in my down payment. Applicant (signed) (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ms. Zapp was not rushed while reading the documents presented to her for signing and could have taken as much time as she wanted to go over them. (Vol. 1, T-20) However, notwithstanding reading and signing the membership application and disclosure statement regarding the motor club, Ms. Zapp did not know she had purchased motor club coverage when she left the Respondent's office. (Vol. 1, T-21) Ms. Zapp is a graduate of Sante Fe Community College and attended a university for one year following her graduation. (Vol. 1, T-16) At the hearing on February 5, 1981, she appeared bright and fairly assertive. Count III In Count III, Petitioner alleges that the Respondent in the conduct of business under his license violated various provisions of the Insurance Code. The allegations of Count III requires an application of the facts found in Counts I and II to Sections 626.9521, 626.9541(11)(a), 626.9541(5)(a), 626.9541(15)(b), and 626.621(b), Florida Statutes. Count III is duplicated by Count VI and calls for legal conclusions which will be discussed in the conclusions of law section of this Recommended Order. Count IV The deposition of Charles D. Smith was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 10. Mr. Smith currently holds an insurance license and has a bachelor's degree. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 4) Mr. Smith purchased automobile insurance from the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. on or about May 1, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at Appendix) Mr. Smith thought he was purchasing only Personal Injury Protection (PIP). (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 4) In order to get an auto tag, Mr. Smith requested the minimum coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 5) Like Mr. Rippy and Ms. Zapp, Mr. Smith signed an application for motor club membership and disclosure statement stating he understood he was purchasing motor club coverage at the time of his application for insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 7) Mr. Smith intended to purchase the minimum amount of insurance at the lowest price but did not require of either the Respondent or his employees whether motor club coverage was included in the price quoted. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 8,9) Neither the Respondent nor his employees orally explained motor club coverage to Mr. Smith. At the bottom of Mr. Smith's insurance application the following disclosure statement was signed by him: I understand the interstate membership applied for this date 5/1/79, through the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. is a separate item that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included in my down payment. Applicant (signed) (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at Appendix) Mr. Smith's decision to purchase from the Respondent was based solely on cost and not on any information provided by the Respondent or his employees. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 13). Count V The deposition of Richard B. Divins was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 11. Mr. Divins' testimony parallels the other witnesses in that he also signed an application for motor club membership and a disclosure statement acknowledging the purchase and price. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 11, 15, 16, 26) He purchased insurance and motor club coverage on July 13, 1979, from an employee of the Respondent at American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc., 603 NW 10th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 4,5) Mr. Divins thought he was purchasing only minimum liability insurance and was unaware that he had also purchased motor club coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 7,8) Mr. Divins is a senior in the School of Architecture at the University of Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 4. Count VI In Count VI, Petitioner alleges that the Respondent in the conduct of business under his license violated various provisions of the Insurance Code. Count VI requires an application of the facts found in Counts IV and V to Sections 626.9521, 626.9541 (11)(a), 626.9541(5)(a), 626.9541(15)(b) and 626.621(b), Florida Statutes. Count VI duplicates Count III and calls for legal conclusions and will therefore, be discussed in the legal conclusion section of this Recommended Order. Assuming that the witnesses who testified at the final hearing were representative of the Respondent's customers, his business was generally directed at persons who desired minimum automobile insurance coverage at the lowest possible price. (Vol. 1, T-17 and 31, Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 7-8, Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 8,9) An economic incentive existed to sell motor club memberships among agents whose customers desired minimum coverage due to the high commission rates associated with motor club policies. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9, Vol. 1, T-94-95, 97) Mr. Andrew Beverly was qualified as an expert witness on insurance matters and testified on behalf of the Respondent. (Vol. 1, T-29) Mr. Beverly owns the Florida Insurance School, serves as a consultant for several hundred insurance agencies and is a member of the Advisory Committee on Insurance Education of the Florida Insurance Department. (Vol. 1, T-78-79) A study by Mr. Beverly completed in 1979 for the Professional Insurance Agents Association of Florida demonstrated that insurance agents have been contacted by claimants or attorneys for claimants for failure to provide coverage or what is known in the industry as "errors and omissions." (Vol. 1, T-81-82) The Respondent is the first agent that Mr. Beverly has ever encountered who had difficulties arising from selling too much coverage. (Vol. 1, T-82-83) Mr. Beverly's conclusion concerning the value of motor club coverage and supplemental coverage generally is shared by Dr. Ronald T. Anderson, a colleague of Mr. Beverly's on the national faculty of the Society of Certified Insurance Counselors and an Insurance Commissioner of Colorado. (Vol. 1, T-83-85) In particular regard to this case, Mr. Beverly examined the application and disclosure statement signed by the witnesses for the Petitioner and responded to questions from counsel as follows: Q. Now, these documents -- if you would just take a look through those, you'll see in Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4, I believe -- Respondent's Exhibit 1, for example, where in boldface type, the applicant for the insurance signs a statement regarding Motor Club. is that a common practice in the industry? A. It's a practice that is becoming extremely common with the careful and appropriate insurance agents to have a thorough documentation of each coverage, accepted or rejected by an injured. Q. And why is that? A. Partially because of the high incidents (sic) of Errors and Omissions insurance, claims coming in against insurance agents, and then partly so that the client himself will be completely aware of what it is that he's throwing away when he rejects a coverage so he'll know he hasn't bought that. Q. Does the type of procedure meet the standards of the industry in Florida for fire and casualty agents? A. It exceeds them. Q. Okay. What else, in your opinion, could Mr. Azis do in this type of situation other than have him sign the statements and advise him as he has testified to. A. Mr. Woods, there's nothing an insurance agent could possibly do, in my opinion, beyond explaining the coverage to the insured and then having him sign in his own handwriting. I can't believe that there is anything else that he could do. He's being as cautious as he possibly can. Q. You're not aware of any other practices or procedures that might even be better than this? A. I can't think of anything that you could do that could add to this great amount of documentation of the insurers election of what they purchased. Q. In your experience, is it common for people who have bought insurance to come back and question coverages? A. Yes, sir, it happens all the time. I have more than a hundred insurance agencies under contract at this hour, and I am constantly receiving long distance calls from agents: What do you do with this? What's the answer to it? Q. So, that's why they require the need for this documentation? A. Yes, sir. (Vol. 1, T-85-87) Mr. Beverly's testimony was not rebutted by the Petitioner and is accepted as credible. Although Respondent's license as a general lines agent in Florida expired as of August 30, 1980, he retains eligibility to become licensed for a period of two years from the date of licensure. Section 626.221(3)(f), Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8)
Recommendation It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the licensee, Jeffrey Allan Azis, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 1981. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard P. Harris, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Lawrence P. Stevenson, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner, George Moore Chevrolet, Inc., be permitted to relocate its dealership to 10979 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida 32225, for the sale of the line-make Chevrolet (CHEV), upon compliance with all applicable requirements of Section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. Filed October 19, 2010 11:37 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED this Z, 7 —day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ‘ARL A. FORD, Direct Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division, of Motor Vehicles this day of October, 2010. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: John H. Holley, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos Latour General Motors Company 100 GM Renaissance Center Detroit, Michigan 48265 George H. Moore George Moore Chevrolet, Inc. 711 Beach Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32250 Lawrence P. Stevenson Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Sections 112.313(6), 112.313(7)(a), and 112.313(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Lee Thomas, served as Mayor of Glen St. Mary for approximately fourteen years prior to his resignation on June 6, 1995. In early December 1994, Ed Harvey, vice-president of the Baker County Shrine Club, telephoned Respondent regarding certain real property owned by the Shrine Club. Mr. Harvey told Respondent that the Shrine Club wanted to sell the property for $20,000. The Shrine Club had previously purchased the property from the City of Glen St. Mary. Pursuant to a provision in the deed conveying the property, the Shrine Club was obligated to give the city right of first refusal should it ever decide to sell the property. Consistent with this provision, Mr. Harvey contacted Respondent in his role as Mayor so that the matter could be presented to the Glen St. Mary City Council (Council). At the time Ed Harvey called Respondent regarding the sale of the Shrine Club property, information that the property was for sale was not available to the general public. When initially contacted by Mr. Harvey regarding the sale of the Shrine Club property, Respondent was aware that the City of Glen St. Mary had a right of first refusal on the Shrine Club property. During their telephone conversation, Respondent asked Mr. Harvey if the Shrine Club would sell the property to anyone other than the City of Glen St. Mary. Mr. Harvey told Respondent that the property was available to anyone for $20,000, subject to the City of Glen St. Mary's right of first refusal. After learning that the Shrine Club property was for sale, Respondent contacted his cousin, C. Parker Thomas, pastor of the Midnight Cry Ministry Church. Respondent informed C. Parker Thomas of the availability of the Shrine Club property because he knew that his cousin was looking for property in the Glen St. Mary area. As a result of Respondent's communication with C. Parker Thomas, the church decided to purchase the Shrine Club property and use it as an outreach center. On December 15, 1994, Respondent met with Jimmy Robbins, an elder of the Midnight Cry Ministry Church, and C. Parker Thomas at Respondent's home. At this meeting, Respondent accepted a $2,000 binder check dated, October 15, 1994, from Mr. Robbins on behalf of the Midnight Cry Ministry Church. The binder check was given to Respondent in exchange for his agreement to sell the Shrine Club property to the church for $30,000. Respondent asked Mr. Robbins to postdate the December 15, 1994, binder check to December 21, 1994. However, Mr. Robbins refused to postdate the check. Respondent brought the issue of the Shrine Club property up before the Council at its December 20, 1994, meeting. Specifically, the issue brought to the Council by Respondent was whether the City should exercise its right of first refusal and purchase the Shrine Club property. In presenting the issue to the Council for a vote, Respondent pointed out that the City of Glen St. Mary already had more land than it needed. Comments made by Respondent were intended to persuade the Council members not to purchase the Shrine Club property. After a brief discussion of the issue, the Council voted to decline to purchase the Shrine property. At no time did Respondent inform the Council that he had an agreement to sell the Shrine Club property to the Midnight Cry Ministry Church for $10,000 more than the Shrine Club was asking for the property. On December 23, 1994, three days after the Council voted to decline to exercise its right of first refusal, Respondent cashed the December 15, 1994, binder check from the Midnight Cry Ministry Church and used the money to purchase a $2,000 cashier's check as a binder on the Shrine Club property. The cashier's check was made payable to the Shrine Club with Respondent named as the remitter. On or about December 24, 1994, Respondent delivered the $2,000 binder check made payable to the Shrine Club to Ed Harvey. On February 23, 1995, Respondent purchased the Shrine Club property from the Shrine Club for $20,000. On that same date, Respondent sold the Shrine Club property to the Midnight Cry Ministry Church for $30,000. Winston Byrd was a Glen St. Mary City Commissioner on December 20, 1994, and participated in the vote regarding the City's right of first refusal on the Shrine Club property. Mr. Byrd voted not to purchase the Shrine Club property, but would have voted differently if Respondent had disclosed that the Midnight Cry Ministry Church was willing to purchase the property for $30,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Respondent, Robert Lee Thomas, violated Section 112.313(6), 112.313(7)(a) and 112.313(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994); imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation; ordering the restitution of the $10,000 profit Respondent made on the land deal to the City of Glen St. Mary; and issuing a public censure and reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric S. Scott CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1997. Assistant Attorney General Attorney General's Office PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mr. Robert Lee Thomas Post Office Box 185 Glen St. Mary, Florida 32040 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Kerrie J. Stillman Complaint Coordinator Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Ivy Powell, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, The Auto Club Group, based on a disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact The Auto Club is affiliated with the American Automobile Association (“AAA”), a national not-for-profit organization that provides its members with benefits relating to travel, emergency roadside assistance, and insurance coverage. The Auto Club hired Petitioner in March 1995, at its branch office in Melbourne, Florida. The Auto Club first employed Petitioner as a Service Clerk. Petitioner’s job changed over the years. Her last position with the Auto Club was as a Member Representative I (“MR-1”). As a MR-1, Petitioner was responsible for providing customer support services for Auto Club members. These services included greeting current and prospective members in the office, accepting members’ travel and membership payments, promoting travel and membership products, generating leads, and updating members on travel and insurance specials. Petitioner also provided travel-related services including booking car rentals, reserving hotel rooms, and preparing auto travel packages (“triptiks”). As a MR-1, Petitioner was a full-time employee in the Melbourne office. The Melbourne office was open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. As a full-time employee, Petitioner’s normal work schedule mirrored the Melbourne office operating hours. Petitioner was allowed a one-hour lunch break. While Petitioner was employed with the Auto Club, she began to experience several medical issues. Petitioner described her conditions to include ataxia (loss of muscle control), fatigue, headaches, memory loss, and small vessel disease. Petitioner asserts that her mental and physical impairments substantially limited her major life activities including concentrating, lifting, sitting, standing, and thinking. Pertinent to her job, Petitioner explained that working longer than five hours a day caused her to become tired and lose concentration. On February 24, 2014, Petitioner presented a doctor’s note to her supervisor in the Melbourne office, Linda Hurt. The note stated, “it is medically necessary for [Petitioner] to decrease her work hours, for five hours per day, due to her medical condition.” On March 31, 2014, Petitioner produced a second note from her doctor restating her need to limit her work hours. Petitioner requested a reduced work schedule under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The Auto Club granted Petitioner’s request, and beginning in February 2014, the Auto Club reduced her work hours to five hours a day. The Auto Club initially scheduled Petitioner to work from 8:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. In May 2014, when Petitioner had difficulty arriving to work by 8:30 a.m., the Auto Club shifted Petitioner’s work schedule to 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. On October 20, 2014, the Auto Club advised Petitioner that she would exhaust her FMLA leave in early November 2014. Therefore, she would need to provide additional documentation should she desire to continue working a shortened work day beyond the expiration of her FMLA leave. The Auto Club presented Petitioner with an Interactive Process Questionnaire which she was to have a doctor complete. By the first week of November 2014, however, Petitioner had not returned the requested paperwork. Therefore, on November 11, 2014, the Auto Club informed Petitioner that her FMLA leave had expired, and she would be expected to return to a normal, full-time work schedule. On November 13, 2014, Petitioner produced the questionnaire which her doctor had completed. In the questionnaire, her doctor restated Petitioner’s need to continue to work a reduced work schedule, indefinitely, and that her restrictions were permanent. Petitioner’s doctor wrote that Petitioner “is temporarily totally disabled” and “only able to work a maximum of five hours per day to prevent an exacerbation of symptoms.” After the Auto Club received Petitioner’s paperwork, it allowed Petitioner to remain on a shortened work schedule while it evaluated her request to continue working five hours a day. As more fully detailed below, the Auto Club determined that it could not indefinitely accommodate Petitioner’s part-time work schedule. The Melbourne office’s operation needs required full-time MR-1 employees. (The Melbourne office did not employ any part-time positions.) Therefore, the Auto Club explored options to offer Petitioner to accommodate her request for a reduced work schedule. In particular, the Auto Club reviewed its workforce to determine whether any part-time positions were open within 50 miles of Respondent’s residence. On December 4, 2014, Petitioner met with Linda Hurt to discuss the status of her employment. Brenda Slupecki, the Auto Club’s Employee Relations Manager, participated in the meeting by phone. During this meeting, Ms. Slupecki explained to Petitioner that her MR-1 position was a full-time position. Therefore, the Auto Club needed an employee in her position to work full-time. Ms. Slupecki further informed Petitioner that the Auto Club’s Melbourne office could not accommodate her request to work a part-time schedule indefinitely. The Auto Club then placed Petitioner on a 90-day disability leave of absence. Ms. Slupecki suggested that Petitioner look for part-time positions within the Auto Club offices in Tampa and Heathrow, Florida. Petitioner’s last day of paid employment in the Auto Club’s Melbourne office was December 5, 2014. However, the Auto Club continued to provide Petitioner employee benefits (such as health insurance) until her official termination in May 2015. After the December 2014 meeting, following a suggestion from Ms. Slupecki, Petitioner applied for short-term disability benefits from the Auto Club’s insurance company, Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”). Petitioner’s claim was denied. On March 9, 2015, Ms. Slupecki sent Petitioner a letter advising her that her 90-day disability leave of absence had expired. Consequently, the Auto Club placed Petitioner in a 30-day layoff status. The Auto Club, once again, suggested Petitioner apply for other jobs within the company. Ms. Slupecki cautioned Petitioner that the Auto Club would terminate her employment at the end of the 30-day period if she was not able to obtain another position. Petitioner did not apply for any other jobs within the Auto Club. On March 12, 2015, Petitioner appealed the denial of her claim for short-term disability to Hartford. On March 26, 2015, Hartford informed Petitioner that her appeal was not timely, and her claim would remain closed. On March 30, 2015, Ms. Slupecki sent a letter to Petitioner advising her that the 30-day layoff period would restart following Petitioner’s unsuccessful appeal to Hartford. The Auto Club once again encouraged Petitioner to search for a part-time job within the Auto Club. Petitioner did not attempt to find another position within the company. Petitioner’s 30-day layoff period ended on April 30, 2015. The Auto Club officially terminated Petitioner’s employment on May 1, 2015. The specific accommodation Petitioner requested from the Auto Club was to be allowed to work a part-time schedule of five hours a day, five days a week, for an indefinite period of time. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that the Auto Club could not offer her any other accommodation that would have allowed her to work full-time in her MR-1 position. At the final hearing, Petitioner expressed that she was a good performer for the Auto Club, and her customer surveys showed no drop in customer satisfaction during the time she worked shortened hours. She strove to complete all her tasks every day before she left work. She believed that she could perform all the functions of her MR-1 position except working eight hours a day. Petitioner also asserted that her requested accommodation would not impose an undue hardship on the Auto Club. Petitioner suggested that the Auto Club could hire a part- time employee to cover her MR-1 duties during the hours she is absent from the office. Petitioner commented that, with revenue at more than a billion dollars a year and tens of thousands of employees, the Auto Club would not be unreasonably burdened by hiring another employee to supplement her job at the Melbourne office. Petitioner explained that she did not accept a part- time position at another Auto Club office because the nearest potential vacancy (Lake Mary, Florida) was more than 50 miles from her home. She would have been required to drive at least an hour to and from this location. Adding the commute time to a part-time job would have defeated the purpose of her restricted, five-hour workday. In response to Petitioner’s claim, the Auto Club argues that creating a permanent, part-time position just so Petitioner can work five hours a day is not reasonable. Moreover, even if it was reasonable, accommodating this request would place an undue hardship on the Auto Club. Based on its goal of consistent and expedient customer service, the Auto Club asserts that working a full-time schedule is an essential function of the MR-1. Ms. Hurt became Field Manager of the Auto Club’s Melbourne office in January 2014. In her role, she oversaw the day-to-day operations of her office. She also supervised Petitioner. Ms. Hurt testified that the Melbourne office employed approximately 15 people. Three of these employees (including Petitioner) filled the position of MR-1. Ms. Hurt relayed that all employees of the Melbourne office worked full-time and were required to work during the office’s regular hours of 8:30 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. Ms. Hurt explained that, as a “front-facing” employee, the MR-1 is the Auto Club representative who welcomes customers into the business. Ms. Hurt expressed that the Melbourne office experiences a lot of “foot traffic.” It is a small office, but very busy. Ms. Hurt conveyed that the staffing needs of her office require full-time employees in each position to interact will all customers who enter the office during business hours. Ms. Hurt further asserted that the Melbourne office did not operate efficiently in Petitioner’s absence. Petitioner’s reduced work schedule caused the office to be short-staffed from 8:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. The office was not able to complete all of the work that needed to be accomplished during business hours. Neither was it able to provide timely service to its customers. Ms. Hurt remarked that developing customer relationships is paramount to the Auto Club’s business. The Auto Club desires its offices to service customers as expeditiously as possible. The MR-1 position is designed to cultivate long-term relationships with customers by providing consistent and continuous service. Ms. Hurt recounted that in 2014, she was aware of several customers who became aggravated due to increased wait times and left the Melbourne office without meeting with any Auto Club representative. Ms. Hurt also testified that a direct consequence of having one of her three MR-1 employees working part-time was that her office did not meet its 2014 budget projections. In particular, the Motor Club, which was the specific section in which Petitioner worked, produced lower income. Ms. Hurt relayed that Petitioner’s shortened work schedule also negatively impacted the other two MR-1 employees. The remaining MR-1s were obligated to meet with all customers who arrived at the Melbourne office outside of Petitioner’s five-hour work schedule. In addition to their own workload, they were forced to divide up and complete Petitioner’s duties. For example, because Petitioner could not work past 3:00 p.m., any customer with whom she was working was transferred to another MR-1. This situation prevented the continuity of service that the Auto Club strove for as an organization. The other two MR-1s also experienced increased overtime and reduced lunch breaks due to Petitioner’s truncated work schedule. Ms. Hurt explained that the overtime the MR-1 employees worked in 2014 nearly tripled. The Melbourne office was budgeted $3,300 for overtime costs that year. However, the office’s actual overtime expense in 2014 equaled approximately $9,600. In addition, the other MR-1s were not able to attend certain training sessions or use all of their paid vacation leave in 2014. Ms. Hurt also relayed that, at one point, one MR-1 volunteered to return early from medical leave because the office could not provide adequate service for all its customers due to Petitioner’s limited availability. Ms. Slupecki testified that, based on the Auto Club’s business model, hiring a part-time employee to fill in during the work hours Petitioner missed would not be an efficient or practical option to best serve Auto Club customers. The MR-1 position requires specific experience, knowledge, and training. Ms. Slupecki did not believe that a part-time employee would be able to master the skills or obtain the required expertise required of a MR-1. Furthermore, a part-time MR-1 would not provide the expected level or continuity of customer service the Auto Club desires. Ms. Slupecki imparted that the Auto Club employs only full-time MR-1s in all of its branch offices. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not establish that the Auto Club discriminated against Petitioner based on a disability. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that the Auto Club discriminated against her in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Ivy Powell, did not prove that Respondent, the Auto Club, committed an unlawful employment practice against her and dismiss her Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 20th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Hotel and Motel Association, Inc. (Association or petitioner) is a non-profit corporation whose membership includes various hotels and motels throughout the State of Florida. The organization has been in existence since the 1950's. As of July, 1980, the Association had approximately 600 members. There are currently in excess of 6,000 licensed properties in the State that are eligible to join the Association. Mr. David Arpin was employed in various capacities by the Association for more than twenty years. His last position was that of executive vice president. Because of an illness, Mr. Arpin's full time activities with the petitioner ceased in December, 1977. However, he continued to receive compensation from the Association until June 30, 1978, on a "sickness leave of absence." (Exhibit No. 1). His employment with the Association was terminated on that date. (Exhibit No. 4). On November 7, 1977, a memorandum was prepared for Mr. Arpin by the Association's secretary which advised him that the name "Florida Hotel and Motor Hotel Association, Inc." was available for reservation in the Division of Corporations. (Exhibit No. 5). Mr. Arpin claims he did not read the memorandum at that time. However, he acknowledged that sometime after January 1, 1978, he became aware of the availability of the corporate name in question. On June 26, 1978, Mr. Arpin, through his counsel, reserved the name "Florida Hotel and Motor Hotel Association, Inc." Because of the controversy with petitioner, the respondent has been unable to utilize the name since that time. Since the cessation of his relationship with the Association, Mr. Arpin has operated an organization known as the Florida Lodging and Food Service Association, Inc. It is comprised of approximately 100 members, of which the majority are hotels and motels. It is in direct competition with petitioner for memberships. The logo used by the corporation is also strikingly similar to that used by petitioner. If the name "Florida Hotel and Motor Hotel Association, Inc." is awarded Mr. Arpin, he intends to use it in conjunction with an industry newsletter to be distributed to hotels and motels, or to substitute it in lieu of the corporate name now being used. He will continue to compete with petitioner, and solicit memberships from motels and hotels that are now members of the Association. Until July 1, 1980, the uncodified practice of the Division relative to the awarding of corporate names was that there be at least a one word difference in a corporate name from another in order to enjoy its use. Under this informal guideline, the Division took the position that the inclusion of the words "motor hotel" in lieu of "motel" constituted the necessary name difference for awarding the name to Mr. Arpin. Prior to the 1960's, a distinction existed between the terms "motel" and "motor hotel". Typically, a motor hotel was larger than a motel, and offered a full range of services that a motel did not, such as food, beverages and a night club. In contrast to a motel, a motor hotel did not have doors leading from each room directly to the parking lot. Since 1960, this distinction has evaporated within the hotel-motel industry, and the words are used interchangeably in the trade and have the same meaning.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to a proposed motor vehicle dealership in Seminole County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact DOAH provided the parties with adequate notice of the final hearing. On December 11, 2008, DOAH mailed a Notice of Hearing to each of the parties, scheduling the final hearing for April 6, 2009. No Notice was returned as undelivered. No party objected to a final hearing on April 6, 2009. On December 11, 2008, DOAH also issued an Order of Pre- hearing Instructions that, in relevant part, required the parties to file a pre-hearing stipulation which was to include a list of witnesses and exhibits to be called and submitted at the final hearing. No party complied with the Order. The documents forwarded to DOAH by the Department support the findings. The Notice of Publication for a New Point Franchise Motor Vehicle Dealer in a County of More than 300,000 Population was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 34, Number 43, on October 24, 2008. On behalf of Respondent, Mr. James Sursely timely filed a protest letter dated November 7, 2008, with Ms. Nalini Vinayak, the administrator at the Department responsible for receiving such protests. The remaining facts are undisputed in this proceeding. The proposed new point franchise motor vehicle dealer is for a line-make identified in the record as Chunfeng Holding Group Co. Ltd. (CFHG) motorcycles. The proposed location is in Seminole County, Florida. Seminole County has a population in excess of 300,000. The proposed new point franchise motor vehicle dealer is located at 3311 West Lake Mary Boulevard, Lake Mary, Florida. Respondent owns and operates an existing CFHG dealership that is located at 306 West Main Street, Apopka, Orange, County, Florida, 32712. The proposed dealership is within a 12.5-mile radius of Respondent's dealership. Respondent has standing to protest the establishment of the proposed dealership. The petitioners submitted no evidence that Respondent is "not providing adequate representation" of the same line-make motor vehicles in the community or territory.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying the establishment of the proposed franchise dealership. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of April, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner takes exception to the findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order at paragraphs 12, 19, and 27, wherein the Hearing Officer found that the evidence did not prove that the Respondent had committed the violations charged as referenced in each finding. This conclusion is not supported by competent and substantial evidence as required by section 120.57(1)(a) 10., Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer was convinced that the multitude of forms utilized by the Respondent in selling the non-insurance products (motor clubs) to Hulan Mitchell, Jenna Chester and Michele Humose demonstrated that they had given their informed consent. However, the Hearing Officer overlooked the blatant misrepresentation and false statement contained in the "premium" receipts issued to each of the insureds. Although the Hearing Officer is free to determine the credibility of the witness' testimony, the Hearing Officer cannot ignore or reject unrefuted competent and substantial evidence in the record that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the premium receipts are a misrepresentation of fact or false statement. No witness testimony is necessary to make this finding. The documents speak for themselves and were not otherwise questioned or refuted. The record unequivocally established the following: Hulan Mitchell - The "premium" receipt (Pet. Ex. "1") issued to Mr. Mitchell indicates a total premium of $378. The actual cost of the "insurance" was $328 with a downpayment of $98 required. See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "1") This is absolutely unrefuted on the record. The premium receipt includes $50 for the cost of the motor club, which is not a policy of insurance and accordingly is not "premium". Also the downpayment required, purportedly for insurance, included $50 for the motor club ($98 + $50 = $148). Furthermore, based on clear documentary evidence in the record, Mr. Mitchell was again subject to a misrepresentation of fact (undisputed) wherein on July 9, 1993 he received a letter (Pet. Ex. "1") threatening to cancel his "insurance" policy because he did not pay a $48 balance due on the motor club. Accordingly the record clearly indicates that the Respondent has made a false or misleading statement with reference to the insurance transaction for Mr. Mitchell. The fact that the Hearing Officer held that Mr. Mitchell knew (despite his testimony otherwise) that he had purchased a motor club, does not negate the fact that the Respondent made a false or misleading statement. JENNA CHESTER - The deceptive premium receipt practice was visited upon Ms. Chester on two occasions. First on February 1, 1994 a "premium" receipt (Pet. Ex. "2") was issued in an amount of $670 for "total premium" due and a required downpayment of $261. The actual cost of the "insurance" was $585 with a required downpayment of $176. See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "2") The "premium" receipt and downpayment included a non-insurance fee for a motor club in the amount of $85. On May 23, 1994 Ms. Chester went to the Respondent to repurchase coverage which had been cancelled. At that time, another "premium" receipt was issued to her in the amount of a "total premium" of $719 and a required downpayment of $286 (Pet. Ex. "2") The actual cost of the insurance was $619 and a required downpayment of $186. See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "2") The additional $100 was for the non-insurance motor club which was sold to Ms. Chester. Although the Hearing Officer held that Ms. Chester knew she was purchasing this motor club (despite Ms. Chester' s testimony otherwise) this does not negate the fact that the Respondent has made false or misleading statement in this insurance transaction with Ms. Chester. Michelle Humose - The unrefuted documentary evidence indicates that on May 5, 1994, Ms. Humose was issued a "premium" receipt (Pet. Ex. "3") indicating a "total premium" in the amount of $926 and a required downpayment of $348. The actual cost of the "insurance" was $826 with a required downpayment of $248 See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "3") The additional $100 included in the "premium" receipt was for the non-insurance motor club sold to Ms. Humose. Again despite the Hearing Officer's finding contrary to Ms. Humose's direct testimony that she did not know she was purchasing a motor club, the Respondent has clearly and convincingly made a false or misleading statement with respect to this insurance transaction with Ms. Humose. It is implicit in the Findings of Fact by the Hearing Officer that each referenced transaction took place as described herein. The Hearing Officer merely failed to explicitly state in the Recommended Order that the unrefuted documentary evidence establishes a prima facie misrepresentation of fact. Indeed, the exact factual scenario established herein was determined to constitute a misrepresentation in In the Matter of: Kenneth Michael Whitaker, Case Number 93-L-432DDH (Final Order dated July 3, 1995). It was specifically determined "that the Respondent's standard business practice of combining the costs of insurance coverages with the costs of the auto club memberships and then calling such costs "total premium" on receipts issued to customers constituted a misrepresentation and was deceptive." Also, it was further determined "that the Respondent's standard business practice of deducting all or part of the ancillary product fee up front resulted in false statements on other documents that the full downpayment for premium or financing of premium had been made, when in actuality it had not." Whitaker Final Order at pp's 9-10. The Department determined that this activity was a violation of section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. This finding was also affirmed on appeal in Whitaker v. Department of Insurance and Treasurer, Case No. 95-2702, (21 FLW 1353, Slip Opinion dated June 13, 1996). The court upheld this violation when it summarized the practice in the opinion as follows: Appellant took all or part of the ancillary product from the required premium downpayment and gave the consumer a receipt which listed the full downpayment as "Total Premium". The receipt did not reveal that part of the "premium" went to purchase an ancillary product. Whitaker Slip Opinion at pp's 3-4. This type of fraudulent and deceptive practice also constitutes a violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by placing before the public a representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive or misleading. The Hearing Officer has already considered the unrefuted facts on the record and was clearly in error to make a finding otherwise. Accordingly, pursuant to section 120.57(a)(a) 10., Florida Statutes, which reads in part: The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact, including findings of fact that form the basis for an agency statement, unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. the Department may modify the findings of fact. In this case there was no competent and substantial evidence to make a finding that the Respondent did not make a false or misleading statement with the premium receipts issued in this cause. A review of the entire record demonstrates unrefuted documentary evidence which supports the modified findings of fact contained herein. Therefore, Petitioner's exceptions to findings of fact 12, 19 and 27 are hereby GRANTED. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Petitioner takes exception to conclusions of law at paragraphs 30 and 31, based on the Hearing Officer's rejection of unrefuted facts established on the record, i.e., deceptive and misleading premium receipts. Conclusions of Law 30 and 31 are revised to reflect that the premium receipts issued to insureds constitute fraudulent and deceptive practices as well as placing before the public a representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. Conclusion of Law 30 is modified as follows: In this case, the Respondent was charged with violating sections 626.611(4), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(b), 626.9541(1)(e), 626.9541(1)(k)1., and 626.9541(1)(z), Florida Statutes. Boiled down to the essentials the Department alleged that Respondent violated the provisions listed above by unlawfully selling insureds motor club memberships without their informed consent, made false and misleading statements regarding the coverage provided and falsely represented and illegally required insureds to purchase motor club membership as part of their purchase of automobile insurance and that Respondent engaged in the prohibited practice of "sliding" additional coverages or products into the purchase of the insured without the informed consent of the insured. This revision is necessary because the Hearing Officer failed to include sections 626.9541(1)(b) and 62.9541(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged violations. Conclusion of Law 31 is likewise revised as follows: The Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent attempted to "slide" coverage or ancillary products involved in this case. Likewise, the evidence did not clearly or convincingly demonstrate that Respondent did not obtain the informed consent of her customers prior to selling them the auto club memberships involved here. However, based on the unrefuted evidence in the record, the Respondent has violated sections 626.611(9) and 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by issuing "premium receipts" which falsely and deceptively represented "total premium" which included a fee for a non-insurance product, ie. motor club membership. Accordingly, the Respondent is guilty of three counts of violating sections 626.611(9) and 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's exceptions to conclusions of law 30 and 31 are hereby GRANTED. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION The Petitioner takes exception to the recommendation that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. The Penalty Guidelines contained in Chapter 4-231, Florida Administrative Code, should be applied in this case. There are three documented violations (one for each count) of engaging in fraudulent and dishonest practices as prohibited in section 626.611 (9), Florida Statutes, and placing before the public a representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive or misleading in violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Under the penalty guidelines, a violation of section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes, requires a suspension of 9 months per count. Under the penalty guidelines, a violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires a suspension of 6 months per count. Based on Rule 4-231.040, Florida Administrative Code, the highest penalty per count should be assessed, therefore the appropriate penalty is three counts at 9 months for a total suspension period of 27 months. Since the total required suspension exceeds 2 years, the appropriate sanction is the revocation of the Respondent's licenses in accordance with section 626.641(1), Florida Statutes. The violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, permits the assessment of an additional fine on top of any other administrative sanction, pursuant to section 626.9521, Florida Statutes. This section permits fines for wilful violations of up to $10,000 per violation not to exceed $100,000. The Petitioner recommends that a fine of $3,000 be assessed against the Respondent. However, insufficient grounds have been demonstrated to justify the assessment of a $3,000 administrative fine. Therefore, Petitioner's exceptions to the recommendation are hereby GRANTED, except for the Petitioner's argument for an additional sanction in the form of a $3,000 administrative fine which is hereby DENIED. PENALTY Rule 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the aggravating and mitigating factors which the Department shall consider and, if warranted, apply to the total penalty in reaching the final penalty. Aggravating factors in this matter, as delineated in Rule 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, are the willfulness of the Respondent's conduct and the existence of secondary violations established in Counts I-III of the Administrative Complaint. Only minimal mitigating factors exist which are outweighed by the aggravating factors. The existence of these aggravating factors would increase the Respondent`s total penalty, thereby resulting in a higher final penalty. Increasing the Respondent's total penalty would be pointless, however, for section 626.641(1), Florida Statutes, limits a licensee's period of suspension to a maximum of 2 years. The Respondent's 27-month total penalty already exceeds the two-year statutory limit. Consequently, the Department has determined that a revocation of the Respondent's insurance agent license is warranted and appropriate in this matter, and is necessary to adequately protect the insurance-buying pubic. IT IS THEREBY ORDERED: All licenses and eligibility for licensure held by TARA JEANNE SMITH, are hereby REVOKED, pursuant to the provisions of sections 626.611, 626.621, 626.641(2) and 626.651(1), Florida Statutes, effective the date of this Final Order. As of the date of this Final Order, the Respondent shall not engage in or attempt or profess to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or permit is required under the Florida Insurance Code, or directly or indirectly own, control or be employed in any manner by an insurance agent or agency. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek review of this Final Order pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333, and a copy of the same and the filing fee with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. BILL NELSON Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner COPIES FURNISHED: Tara Jeanne Smith 2588 Panther Creek Road, Apt. A Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5628 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley and Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Diane Cleavinger, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Stephen C. Fredrickson, Esquire Division of Legal Services 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Chapter 626, Florida Statues and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 16 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted. The facts contained in paragraph 23 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen C. Frederickson, Esquire Division of Legal Services 645A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley and Associates 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Bill Nelson Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be disciplined pursuant to a nine count administrative complaint, each count containing allegations of multiple violations of the Insurance Code.
Findings Of Fact Emerald Coast Insurance Agencies, Inc. (Emerald Coast) is a nonstandard automobile insurance agency, insuring high risk drivers who normally have a difficult time procuring insurance. Emerald Coast advertises. Some customers named in the administrative complaint responded to advertisements featuring "high risk, low down payment." At all times material, Respondent was licensed as a life agent, as a life and health agent, and as a general lines agent and was the corporate president, director and registered agent of Emerald Coast. Respondent was present and actively overseeing all of the applications involved in this case, even when information was written on forms by the customer, another agent, or an unlicensed employee. Most of the complaining witnesses were able to identify Respondent as being present and/or assisting while their forms were made out. DOI did not affirmatively prove that any unlicensed employee of Emerald Coast spent more than 10 percent of his employment time interacting with customers. Prior to these proceedings, DOI has never taken action against Emerald Coast or Respondent. Respondent went to DOI on two occasions prior to the filing of this administrative complaint and discussed optional coverages in an effort to avoid situations that might lead to disciplinary action. Emerald Coast has four offices in three cities. All of the events underlying the charges herein occurred in Tallahassee. Emerald Coast has written between 15,000 and 18,000 automobile insurance policies in the three years it has been open. Approximately 70 percent of Emerald Coast's customers who purchase automobile insurance policies cancel those policies prior to the renewal date. Eighty percent of these cancelled policies are cancelled for nonpayment of premium. Among these cancellations are individuals called "tag runners." Tag runners purchase the minimum required insurance for receipt of an automobile license tag, with the intent of having the policy cancelled after they have made one or two payments and taking the chance that the Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles will not catch up with them to suspend their licenses because insurance cancellations may take up to six months, even for non-payment. Once the policy information is taken from the customer, it is entered in a computer and, within three to five days, checks are written from Emerald Coast to the insurance carriers for initial premiums. If the proposed insured fails to make a payment or stops payment on a check, the agency loses money on the transaction because the agency has already forwarded the money to the insurance company. Emerald Coast provides the option of financing a premium if a customer cannot pay it in a lump sum annually. When a customer cannot pay in full for an insurance policy, Emerald Coast offers the option of purchasing an ancillary product like an auto club for a set price in addition to paying for the insurance with a low down payment. The club cost is in addition to the total insurance premium, and the low down payment for the insurance premium is conditional upon the customer's paying for the club's product. If the customer does not want the auto club product, Emerald Coast still permits him to finance his insurance premium with a 50 percent down payment. Emerald Coast's purpose of requiring a 50 percent down payment or payment in full, or the purchase of the auto club when a small down payment is made, is to offset cancellation rates and the agency's losses incurred thereby. The premium finance companies which finance insurance policies require fees. There are no premium finance companies that require Respondent to sell auto clubs in order to sell their premium finance products. The insurance carriers charge a premium for the risk they assume with the contract of insurance. There are no insurance carriers that require Respondent to sell auto clubs in order to sell their insurance. Approximately 60 percent of the people to whom Emerald Coast has sold policies also purchased auto clubs, including towing and rental features. The larger the fee paid by the customer for the club, the greater the towing, rental and other benefits that the club provides and the greater amount the seller makes. Respondent received a 90 percent commission from Atlantic Travel Association of North Florida, Inc. for the auto clubs he sold and sent to them. Respondent also sold American Travelers Association death and dismemberment benefit contracts at a similar commission. Respondent and Emerald Coast used to sell Atlantic Travelers Association, Inc. auto clubs. As of January 1, 1992, they switched to selling Atlantic Travelers Association of North Florida, Inc. clubs. The two clubs are not associated in any way. By agreement with the new club's owner, Respondent and Emerald Coast continued to use the old forms bearing the wrong company name and submitted them to the new club. The forms do not provide the address of the club, and members are expected to submit claims through Emerald Coast. Atlantic Travelers Association of North Florida, Inc. is a valid auto club and pays valid claims. Atlantic Travelers Association of North Florida, Inc.'s owner testified that his company was prepared to honor each misnamed form that Respondent sent to him with a fee, but it is probable that the form issued in the wrong name would not be legally binding. If the form was never received by the new club, Emerald Coast's customer would have an even more tenuous claim. Therefore, Respondent's auto club customers were protected only at the new club's whim as to whether or not a contract they paid for would be honored, and each form issued by Respondent or Emerald Coast with the wrong auto club name on it constituted a misrepresentation, deceptive to the customer on several levels. Respondent also continued to use the Atlantic Traveler's Association, Inc. name on all the acknowledgments he asked his customers to sign, signifying that they understood that the auto club cost was optional and in addition to their automobile insurance. The use of the wrong name on these acknowledgment forms also was a misrepresentation. Due to space considerations, and for greater clarity, Atlantic Traveler's Association, Inc. will hereafter be referred to as "the old auto club," and Atlantic Traveler's Association of North Florida, Inc. will hereafter be referred to as "the new auto club." None of the customers named in the administrative complaint lost money as a result of any auto club sold by Respondent or Emerald Coast. The auto club contracts offered 38 different choices of benefit levels. Each of the benefit levels was an option which should have been discussed with and knowingly accepted by the customer. Respondent gave the individuals selling the auto clubs no instructions on which of the options they should sell to a customer or how they should judge which option(s) a customer needed. Routinely, neither Respondent nor any of his employees ever offered all 38 options to each customer. Rather, dependent upon the car insurance coverage the customer selected, or upon the unbridled discretion of the salesperson, each salesperson sold what he felt like. Respondent and Emerald Coast use an acknowledgment form to let the customer know he is purchasing an ancillary product, that the total cost of the ancillary product is in addition to insurance premiums, and that the ancillary product is optional and not required by law. They use a document called an "affidavit" to inform the customer of other coverages and when the coverages will go into effect and to hopefully insure that the information received from the customer is accurate. These so-called "affidavits" are neither notarized nor attested-to by anyone. Respondent acknowledged that the DOI and the insurance industry consider the word, "premium," as applying to insurance premiums only, not ancillary products such as auto clubs. See, Section 627.041(2) F.S. Laymen likewise regard the word "premium" as reflecting the cost of insurance. Respondent and Emerald Coast use generic receipts which say "premium," not "insurance premium." Where insurance premium collections and ancillary product sales were conducted simultaneously, Respondent used the word "premium" on these receipts to cover the total amount tendered by each customer as a down payment on both the insurance policy premium and on the ancillary product. He then listed only the insurance premium down payment (total amount tendered by the customer minus ancillary product full fee or down payment) on the insurance premium finance agreement because only insurance premiums can be financed on those forms. Where receipts specified "total premium" he lumped in the cost of the ancillary product. Respondent thus misused the word "premium" on receipts issued to customers. Accordingly, the receipts provided to Respondent's customers were misrepresentations and deceptive. One result of the misuse of the term "premium" was that customers sometimes were led to believe that their deposits against both auto clubs or death and dismemberment policies and insurance coverage were down payments on the insurance policies alone, even where the receipts specified "premiums" and "deposit." Accordingly, Respondent's deductions of all or part of the ancillary product fee up front resulted in false statements on other documents that the full down payment for premium or financing of premium had been made when it had not. Respondent testified that his standard operating procedure was for himself or another licensed insurance agent to explain the coverages on each of the policy application forms executed at Emerald Coast; that where marks occurred on the summary of coverage pages, they were made by himself or another Emerald Coast representative during these explanations; that he explained the cost coverage breakdown for each customer he saw; and that he instructed each customer he saw to read all documents before signing. However, the juxtaposition of the "total" space block and the column where premiums and other costs are added on the "summary of coverages and cost breakdown" form makes it impossible for the customer to quickly add up the premiums for each type of insurance coverage and the cost of ancillary product in a straight line. Also, due to the confusion of Respondent's use of the word "premium" for different purposes on different documents, the figure for total "premium" frequently cannot be reconciled among the receipt, the financing document, the insurance application, and/or the summary of coverages and cost breakdown form. Even a reasonably attentive customer would be confused by the several forms. Reading the summary before signing it would not necessarily have revealed what funds were being applied to which purpose. In some instances, more specifically set out by customer and count infra., the completed summary of coverages and cost breakdown forms were misleading or unexplainable as to what amounts were being charged to the customer. Count I (David K. Register) On January 31, 1992, David K. Register went to Emerald Coast to purchase insurance. The applications made out at that time were executed by Respondent as brokering agent. Mr. Register signed all documents without reading them. Nonetheless, he understood that he was purchasing personal injury protection, property damage coverage, comprehensive and collision coverage, and what the deductibles were at the time he signed the documents. He also knew he was purchasing an auto club at the cost of $150. The total cost of the insurance coverage he was seeking was approximately $750. Respondent required Mr. Register to purchase an auto club contract as a condition of obtaining premium financing for his insurance policies. Respondent completed a premium finance agreement for financing the unpaid premiums for the policies showing that Mr. Register had tendered a $197 premium down payment. Respondent advised Mr. Register that he owed an additional $135, due February 14, 1992. Respondent issued a receipt to Mr. Register showing the total premium was $937. When he applied with Emerald Coast, Mr. Register had four offenses on his driving record, three for unlawful speed and one for violation of the alcoholic beverage open container law. His complete driving record was not disclosed on the documents prepared. If it had been disclosed, an additional premium would have been charged. The testimony is in direct conflict on whether or not Mr. Register orally disclosed his prior violations to Emerald Coast: Mr. Register maintained that he did; Respondent maintained that he did not. There is no direct evidence to show which witness was accurate on this issue. Circumstantially, there was no reason Respondent should fail to write down violations told him by Mr. Register since Respondent was prepared to write insurance in the high risk category anyway and one way or another Respondent could have insured Mr. Register for the amount Mr. Register was prepared to pay that day. Subsequently, Mr. Register made a down payment and executed an insurance application with Progressive Insurance through Swann Insurance Agency on which he also failed to disclose his entire driving record. He did so with the explicit understanding at that time that the new carrier would run a license check on him and an additional premium would be required due to his bad driving record which he had disclosed orally to Swann Insurance Agency. The "safety net" when a bad driving record is not disclosed on an application is that carriers routinely run independent driving license checks and adjust the premium upward or refuse coverage if they discover an undisclosed bad driving record. What Swann Insurance Agency and its carrier did after the carrier researched David Register's driving history is not clear on the record. When Emerald Coast and its carrier discovered his history, they demanded a higher premium. The evidence falls short of showing that Respondent deliberately left information provided by Mr. Register off his application at Emerald Coast. On February 6, 1992, Armor, the carrier with whom Emerald Coast had placed Mr. Register's PIP and property damage coverage, notified Mr. Register and Respondent that the policy binder would be cancelled if required photographs of the vehicle were not received. On February 10, Mr. Register took the vehicle to Emerald Coast for photographs. On February 13, Respondent wrote Mr. Register a letter threatening to cancel his "policy" if the $135 "premium" were not paid by February 14. Respondent testified that the letter referred to cancellation of the auto club towing "policy" and therefore he was not threatening to cancel Mr. Register's automobile insurance policy for failure to pay for an ancillary product. However, on its face, the letter was misleading. Respondent's unique "wordology" had the effect on Mr. Register of a threat to cancel his automobile insurance policy for non-payment of the ancillary product fee. On February 14, David Register and his father wrote Respondent requesting cancellation of the insurance policies and return of all money paid, since they had purchased duplicate coverage at Swann Insurance Agency. Respondent did not forward the cancellation request to Nu-Main, general agent for the carrier with whom he had placed Mr. Register's comprehensive and collision policy. Respondent did not forward the car photographs to Armor. As a result of the photographs not being received, on February 18, Armor cancelled its binder to David Register. On March 9, 1992, the finance company sent David Register and Emerald Coast its cancellation notice for nonpayment of premiums. David Register never paid the additional $135 due on February 14 for the auto club and the new auto club had no record of his old auto club form being received. Due to his February 14 cancellation, Respondent eventually refunded Mr. Register $140 of the $212 he had paid on January 31, 1992. Mr. Register's father testified that the $72 difference was accounted for by the cost of coverage from January 31 to February 14 and cancellation fees charged by the carriers. Count II (Diedre Hawks Johnson) On August 15, 1992, Diedre Hawks went to Emerald Coast to buy minimum insurance for a used car she had just purchased and financed. She executed an application for property damage, comprehensive, collision, and PIP insurance coverages. These coverages are more than the minimum required by law, but may not be more than the minimum required by the financing of Baldwin-Foster Motors, where Ms. Hawks had just purchased the car. The record is unclear on this distinction. Ms. Hawks tendered $165. Respondent actively supervised Dan Allison, a licensed insurance agent, during this transaction. Contrary to Ms. Hawks' testimony, it is found that she understood on August 15 that she had purchased an auto club. Although she did not read them at the time, Ms. Hawks executed the premium finance agreement to obtain financing for the remainder of the automobile insurance policy premium and the application for an auto club at $150. Ms. Hawks likewise signed both an acknowledgment showing she knew she was getting an auto club for $150 and an "affidavit." She also signed a summary of coverages and cost breakdown acknowledging that Emerald Coast employees had explained the coverages, that she fully understood them, and that she had received a completed copy of that document. Her explanation at formal hearing for why she did not read what she signed was that she was in a hurry because it was late in the day and the Emerald Coast employees were rushing to get out. However, she acknowledged that Respondent gave her an opportunity to read the documents which clearly set out that she was buying an auto club for $150. However, even if she had read them, the documents presented to Ms. Hawks were ambiguous as to what the amounts paid or owing were to cover. The enumerated coverages on the cost breakdown form add up to $745 (including a $150 auto club) plus a policy fee of $25 and a "grand total" of $770. The financial agreement shows a $620 premium total with $465 financed, a $155 down payment and $65.49 per month due in monthly payments. The receipt issued to Ms. Hawks by Emerald Coast on August 15 showed that she had tendered a $165 deposit, was paying for a $770 annual premium, and owed an additional $140 deposit. Upon the foregoing, Ms. Hawks' testimony was convincing that even though she initialled the receipt requiring the additional deposit, she did not know that she still owed a $140 down payment when she left Emerald Coast and that she believed that she only had to pay her premium in monthly increments of $65.49. The next day, August 16, 1992, Underwriters Guaranty Insurance Company issued Ms. Hawks an insurance policy with an annual premium of $620. The difference of $150 between the $770 and $620 figures was the total $150 cost of the auto club which she was required to buy in order to get financing with Emerald Coast. Ms. Hawks signed a contract with the old travel club. Emerald Coast sent the contract to the new travel club. Ten dollars of Ms. Hawks' initial $165 had been applied by Emerald Coast as a down payment on the auto club. No paper specifically shows this diversion of funds. On September 8, Emerald Coast wrote Ms. Hawks that she must come in and pay $140 more on her down payment for "premium" or her insurance would be cancelled. Ms. Hawks purposefully ignored the letter since communications with the carrier clarified that the money was actually to be applied to the auto club fee. Beginning September 13, Respondent telephoned her several times to come in and make the payment. Ms. Hawks still did not pay the $140. Therefore, Respondent refused to turn over to her a copy of her automobile insurance policy when it was issued. Ms. Hawks again dealt with the carrier directly and the carrier assigned her to a new agent. She never paid the auto club fee. Count III (Christine Maddux Vollenweider) On March 16, 1992, Christine Maddux asked to finance part of a $242 premium. Respondent told her that the additional cost of financing insurance with the $242 annual premium would be $317. Respondent also told her that Emerald Coast had a condition of financing which required her to buy an auto club. Ms. Maddux executed an application for a PIP and property damage automobile insurance policy with a total annual premium of $242. Respondent told her that she must pay a $143 down payment. Ms. Maddux had only $80 with her, so she tendered $80 to Respondent, who told her she must pay the remaining $68 the following week. On her first visit, the "total premium" was $317 on the receipt ($80 received and $68 deposit due). She paid the $68 the following week, as agreed. That amount was also receipted as "total premium." On March 16, Ms. Maddux executed a premium finance agreement to obtain premium financing on the balance of the premium amount and applied for an auto club. The premium financing agreement showed that she had tendered only $73 down payment on the insurance premium. The $7 balance of her $80 went for the auto club, but no document specifically shows that diversion of funds. Ms. Maddux did not read the summary of insurance coverages and cost breakdown prior to signing it. She was not told that she could not read the document, and she signed a statement acknowledging that the coverages had been explained to her, that she fully understood them, and that she had received a completed copy of the document. All of the documents except the financing agreement consistently reflect the $75 for the auto club. Ms. Maddux applied for the auto club at a cost of $75 even though she already received equal or better auto club benefits from AAA-Plus, and had told Respondent so. No one at Emerald Coast told Ms. Maddux that she was required by law to purchase it. She applied for the auto club only because of Respondent's specific agency business practice to require an auto club purchase of any customer who had to finance insurance premiums after a down payment of less than half of the entire annual premium. The auto club contract Ms. Maddux signed was with the old club showing a cost of $75. Emerald Coast sent the contract to the new club. Ms. Maddux was issued a policy by Security Insurance Company of Hartford. Count IV (Candy Bassett) On March 16, 1993, Candy Bassett wanted to purchase the minimum required non-owner's automobile insurance to get back her driver's license, which had been suspended. She incorrectly stated to Emerald Coast that she had only four points on her driving record, when in fact she had twelve points. The points had been accumulated for speeding tickets, for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) with serious bodily injury, and for a conviction for failure to identify upon an accident. Ms. Bassett signed Emerald Coast's summary of coverages and cost breakdown form and the policy application form, stating therein that her violations and offenses as revealed by her were accurate and acknowledging that the coverages had been explained to her and were fully understood by her. Ms. Bassett executed both a cost breakdown and summary and an acknowledgment. The cost breakdown and summary showed she was purchasing a travel club including accidental death coverage for $100. Her acknowledgment showed she was purchasing a motor club including towing and rental reimbursement for $187. Ms. Bassett executed an application for an automobile insurance policy to be issued by Underwriters. The application listed the total annual premium as $334. Ms. Bassett tendered her down payment check in the amount of $187. The receipt showed the "total premium" to be $449 and the amount received to be $187. Ms. Bassett executed a premium finance agreement to obtain financing for the remainder of the policy premium. It showed that Ms. Bassett had tendered only an $87 down payment on a total premium of $349. Underwriters issued Ms. Bassett an insurance policy for an annual term. Respondent actively supervised her transaction and executed the policy application as brokering agent. As part of this transaction and as part of a specific Emerald Coast business practice, Respondent required Ms. Bassett to execute an American Travelers Association, Inc. accidental death and dismemberment benefits contract reflecting a fee of $100, not a towing contract as reflected on some of her other paperwork. The $100 for this death and dismemberment product constituted the difference between the $87 shown on the finance agreement as the amount tendered and the $187 check Ms. Bassett actually tendered. There is no evidence as to the status of American Travelers Association Inc. or whether it received Ms. Bassett's contract. Contrary to other documents she executed, Ms. Bassett signed an acknowledgment form to the effect that she knew the club, including towing and rental reimbursement, were optional at a fee of $187 separate from her automobile insurance and that she understood that it was not insurance. Ms. Bassett testified that she thought the death and dismemberment benefits were included in her insurance, that she was not informed that she would have to pay an additional $100 for those benefits, and that she did not intend to pay any monies for such benefits. The foregoing testimony is not entirely credible in light of the rest of the evidence. Ms. Bassett also specifically testified that she was told that the travel/accident feature was "included in the -- I can't remember how much the premium was, it was four hundred and something, he said it was included in that." (Emphasis supplied.) She also signed an acknowledgment indicating the towing fee would be in addition to the insurance premium and a paper showing the amount for financing the insurance premium totalled only $349, and she was asked to name, and did name, a beneficiary on the death and dismemberment form. Further, she admitted that she understood that she was receiving travel/accident benefits through American Travelers, and that it was required for premium financing. However, she is credible and clear that all the amounts she had paid and was going to have to pay were not fairly represented to her and that Respondent made out forms showing she was being charged $187 for an auto club or towing feature which, having no car she could not very well use, as well as forms showing she was purchasing a death and dismemberment feature at $100, purely as a requirement of financing automobile insurance. Count V (Cynthia Mann) On January 24, 1992, Cynthia Mann made application for full coverage automobile insurance. Respondent actively supervised her transaction. Respondent was the brokering agent for the policy. Ms. Mann tendered a check for $180 and was advised that an additional down payment of $95 was due on the policy. She tendered the additional $95 down payment to Respondent on February 3, 1992. Charter American Casualty Insurance Company issued her standard automobile policy. Ms. Mann also executed a premium finance agreement to obtain premium financing for the policy. This agreement indicated that the total down payment for the policy was $165. Respondent required Ms. Mann to execute an old auto club contract in order to get the financing. She signed an acknowledgment that she had been offered an opportunity to purchase insurance from Emerald Coast without any auto club. The new auto club had no record of receiving Ms. Mann's Atlantic Travel Association, Inc. contract. The record is silent as to whether or not the old auto club received her contract. The annual fee specified on the old auto club contract was $110. Emerald Coast took $110 from Ms. Mann's $180 deposit and applied it to the auto club contract. Ms. Mann signed an application form, an acknowledgment form similar to those signed by the other complainants, and an "affidavit." Ms. Mann contended that Respondent had told her that she had a towing benefit as part of the automobile insurance policy purchased. The reconciled and understandable portion of her paperwork shows otherwise. She was not told she could not read the documents placed before her for reading and signature, but she did not read any of the documents prior to signing. She did not want to spend additional time reading documents because she "knew [she] had to have insurance." However, reading the documents would not have eliminated some of the contradictory and therfore false statements as to what constituted insurance premium. Count VI (Jacque Flowers) Respondent was actively involved in both of Jacque Flowers' transactions. At all times material, Paul Wettrich, an unlicensed employee of Emerald Coast, spent less than ten percent of his time actually filling out forms for customers or taking information from customers. On December 31, 1992, Jacque Flowers went to Emerald Coast to purchase automobile insurance and executed an application for various coverages for two automobiles. On December 31, 1992, Ms. Flowers tendered $160 as a down payment to Mr. Wettrich. Mr. Wettrich signed a receipt as "salesman," and assisted Ms. Flowers in filling out the required forms. The receipt showed a total premium of $849. The Respondent executed the application as brokering agent. Mr. Wettrich never signed any of the applications on behalf of Respondent or any other licensed agent. Also, on December 31, 1992, Ms. Flowers executed an Underwriters Financial premium finance agreement to obtain financing for the remainder of the policy premium. Respondent executed that agreement as agent of record. The agreement incorrectly specified that a $187 down payment already had been made. As part of the December 31, 1992 transaction, and pursuant to Emerald Coast's standard business practice, Ms. Flowers was required to contract with Atlantic Travel Association, Inc. for an auto club at a $100 fee. The $100 auto club fee was deducted from the $160 cash payment made on that date. On December 31, 1992, Ms. Flowers was in a hurry to complete her transaction because she had her three-year-old child with her. Without reading them, Ms. Flowers signed an application form, a premium finance agreement, an acknowledgment form, an Atlantic Travel Association, Inc. form, and a summary and cost breakdown form, acknowledging the truth and accuracy of the statements contained in each document, that the coverages had been fully explained to her, and that she understood them. Effective January 1, 1993 and pursuant to the policy application, Underwriters issued to Ms. Flowers a policy with a total annual premium of $749. On January 27, 1993, pursuant her agreement on December 31, 1992, Ms. Flowers tendered to Respondent an additional $127. ($160 plus $127 would equal $287 paid up to that date.) Also on January 27, 1993, Ms. Flowers deleted one car from the policy. On February 15, 1993, Ms. Flowers deleted the second car from the policy and added a third car. This resulted in an increased premium and an addendum to the policy which had been issued January 1. Ms. Flowers paid $92 more to Respondent's brother Scott, an unlicensed employee of Emerald Coast, who signed the receipt. The addendum stated that the additional policy premium was $167, and that $67 had been the cash down payment. Respondent executed the addendum as brokering agent. In accord with its standard business practice, Emerald Coast, through Scott Whitaker, required Ms. Flowers to execute an accidental death and dismemberment contract with American Travelers Association, Inc. Twenty-five dollars for this item was taken from her $92 paid that day. The receipts and other documents provided Ms. Flowers at this time were inconsistent, and Respondent was unable to explain the inconsistencies at formal hearing. Although Ms. Flowers testified that the two ancillary product packages (auto club and death and dismemberment benefits) were never explained to her and that she would never have purchased either package if she had understood that there were additional charges therefor, her paperwork shows otherwise. Also, she specifically testified that when she went to Emerald Coast the first time, on December 31, 1992, her insurance had just been cancelled by Florida Farm Bureau due to her husband's driving record, and that when she requested full coverage, she understood "full coverage" to include towing, based on her experience with Florida Farm Bureau. Therefore, it is concluded that she wanted the towing benefit however she could get it. She also admitted that each paper was explained to her before she signed on December 31, 1992. Therefore, she knew on December 31, 1992 that she was getting towing and was paying for it through an auto club, even though the totality of the paperwork is misleading as to what amounts were paid for each purpose, and even though the several options within each type of ancillary product were not explained to her and the Emerald Coast employees chose what benefit amount to sell her each time. The December 31, 1992 old auto club package was sent to the new auto club. The record is silent as to what became of the February 15, 1993 American Travelers Association, Inc. death and dismemberment form. Count VII (Sebrena McPhaul) On September 21, 1992, Sebrena McPhaul went to Emerald Coast to purchase automobile insurance and executed applications for bodily injury, property damage, and PIP coverages with Underwriters and for physical damage coverage with Nu-Main, for a total premium of $651, to be divided appropriately between the two carriers as they required. Ms. McPhaul executed a finance agreement stating that the down payment for her insurance policies was $163. Ms. McPhaul tendered a $163 down payment check with the understanding that she would tender an additional $100 in two subsequent $50 installments. Ms. McPhaul also signed an Atlantic Travel Association, Inc. form, even though she informed Emerald Coast employees that she did not need an auto club since she had AAA. The application she signed was for an auto club at a cost of $130, a portion of which was to be taken from the down payments to be made by Ms. McPhaul. Ms. McPhaul signed a summary of coverages and cost breakdown form which stated that an auto club was covered, including payment for bail bonds, towing and labor and owner protection at a cost of $130, but she did not read it before she signed it. Ms. McPhaul admitted that the coverages had been explained to her by Scott Whitaker, an unlicensed employee of Emerald Coast, prior to her signing the summary of coverages and cost breakdown form, but maintained that he had not adequately explained that the $130 for the auto club was in addition to her insurance premium instead of part of it. Ms. McPhaul signed an acknowledgment form concerning the purchase of the auto club and an "affidavit" concerning the truthfulness of her responses, but she read neither of them, either. She conceded that if she had taken the time to read the acknowledgment form instead of just signing it, she would have understood the difference. Scott Whitaker issued her a receipt showing her total premium was $781. Respondent was in charge of the office, was actively involved in her transaction, and signed the applications as brokering agent. Emerald Coast sent the old club form to the new club. Ms. McPhaul executed a premium finance agreement to obtain financing for the remainder of the premiums for her policies which were executed by Respondent as agent of record. Ms. McPhaul was issued insurance policies for her purchased coverages, on September 21 and 22, respectively. At this point, Ms. McPhaul understood that she was paying $130 for an auto club above and beyond her premiums and financing costs. Previously, she had thought that towing was part of her standard automobile insurance contract. She blamed the misunderstanding upon misrepresentations made by Scott Whitaker, but the acknowledgment she signed is clear on this portion of the disclosure. Ms. McPhaul stopped payment on a check she had used to pay the down payment on her insurance. Emerald Coast thereby incurred a loss of $90 it had forwarded to the carriers, and also lost the cost of processing her applications. The receipts and other documents provided Ms. Flowers were inconsistent. Respondent was unable to explain the inconsistencies. Count VIII (Steve Reeves) On March 20, 1993, Steve Reeves went to Emerald Coast to purchase automobile insurance for a new truck he was leasing. He did so because he had unilaterally formed the opinion that his current truck insurance would not cover a new truck he had just leased. Mr. Reeves tendered to Emerald Coast a down payment of $175 with the understanding that he would make an additional $45 premium payment to Emerald Coast. That additional premium payment was paid by Mr. Reeves at a later date. Mr. Reeves executed a premium finance agreement to obtain financing for the remainder of his policy premium. The financing agreement showed the down payment was $120, not $175. This is the only significant discrepancy among Mr. Reeves' documents except for the wrong use of the word "premium" on the receipt and the wrong auto club being named in the acknowledgment and auto club form. Respondent executed the policy application as agent of record. The application stated that the premium was $453 plus a $25 policy fee for a total of $478. The receipt to Mr. Reeves for the down payment lists the total premium as $578, as does the cost breakdown form. The $100 difference was applied to an auto club fee. Mr. Reeves also purchased an auto club from Emerald Coast. He knew he had purchased the auto club as a condition of getting his insurance from Emerald Coast. His companion suggested going elsewhere for cheaper insurance without the auto club, but Mr. Reeves declined this suggestion because it was late in the day and he wanted to get his truck insured right then and drive it home. The auto club contract reflected a fee of $100 and bore the name of the old auto club. It was sent to the new auto club. Mr. Reeves signed an acknowledgment form which also reflected a $100 auto club fee, an "affidavit," a summary and coverage cost breakdown form, and a travel association form, but did not fully read them. Executive Insurance Company issued a policy to Mr. Reeves, which he paid on monthly for five or six months. He eventually allowed the policy to lapse for non-payment because he got in a dispute with Emerald Coast about the agency's refusal to accept payments made in its office by way of a third party check.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Insurance enter a final order suspending Respondent's licenses for thirteen months for eight violations of Section 626.9541(1)(x)4. and eight violations of Section 626.621(6) F.S. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 93-5436 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-5 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 6-7 Rejected as not proven. 8-10 Subordinate to the facts as found. 11-15 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer counts. Subordinate to the facts as found. Rejected as a conclusion of law 19-29 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 30-31 Subordinate to the facts as found. 32 Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective count. 33-38 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective count. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective count. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 43-47 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 48 The first sentence is rejected as a conclusion of law. The second sentence is accepted,. 49-50 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 51 Accepted as covered in FOF 18. 52-53 Subordinate to the facts as found. 54-55 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 56 Rejected in part as a conclusion of law. The remainder is covered in substance. 57-59 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 60 Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 61-62 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 63 Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 64-71 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 72 Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 73-74 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Rejected in part as a conclusion of law. Otherwise accepted. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 78-79 Accepted in part and rejected in part upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. See FOF 66-68. 80-83 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 86-87 Accepted in part and rejected in part upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. See FOF 20,24, 72-76. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 90-95 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Rejected because not proven as stated. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 98-99 Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 100-102 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 106-111 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 117-118 Rejected in part and accepted in part as covered in FOF 90-91. 119-124 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Rejected as misstating the primary party. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 123 and respective customer count. 128-130 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 133-138 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 139 Rejected as contrary to the record as a whole. 140-145 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 146-147 Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. 148-150 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Accepted as modified to more closely approximate the record as a whole. See FOF 23 and respective customer count. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 153-157 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. 158 Rejected as a conclusion of law. 159-162 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Respondent's PFOF: 1-18 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Legal argumentation has also been excluded. 19-20 Rejected because misleading and non-dispositive as stated. See FOF 17-20. 21 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Legal argumentation has also been excluded. 22-25 Unnecessary. Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.Legal argumentation has also been excluded. Immaterial 28-37 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.Legal argumentation has also been excluded. 38 Accepted but not dispositive 39-42 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.Legal argumentation has also been excluded. 43 Rejected as not proven. 44-103 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been utilized, and some further explanation has been added. Some matters have been considered on the issue of credibility but not incorporated. 104 Rejected because not proven as stated. 105-108 Covered only as necessary in FOF 23-24 109-112 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.Legal argumentation has also been excluded. The primary party has been indicated. 113-124 Rejected as quoting isolated, unreconciled testimony, as mere legal argument, and as stating a conclusion of law. 125-128 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized. Legal argumentation has also been excluded. 129-133 Rejected as quoting isolated, unreconciled testimony, as mere legal argument, an as stating a conclusion of law. 134-137 Accepted in substance, except that unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.Legal argumentation has also been excluded. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esquire David D. Hershel, Esquire Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bill O'Neil, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dan Sumner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
