The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's insurance licenses should be disciplined on the basis of the alleged multiple violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing insurance agents of all types, regulating licensure status, and enforcing the practice standards of licensed agents within the powers granted by the Legislature in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Wolfe was licensed as an insurance agent in the following areas: Ordinary Life, Ordinary Life including Disability Insurance, General Lines, and Disability. Respondent was also registered with the Department as an Automobile Inspection and Warranty Salesperson. Respondent Wolfe conducted his insurance business through Edison Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter Edison), which is located in Fort Myers, Florida. The Respondent is the President, the Director, and sole shareholder of the insurance agency. All of Edison's personnel who collected funds in a fiduciary capacity, on behalf of the insured named in the Administrative Complaint, acted through the supervision and control of Respondent Wolfe, the licensed general lines agent of record at Edison. One of the services provided to customers who sought insurance through Edison was the agency's processing of premium financing applications. If an insurance customer decided to finance premium payments, the Respondent or agency personnel, would arrange premium financing for the customer through Regency Premium Finance Company (hereinafter Regency). Once the insurance customer's application to Regency was processed, Regency would issue a check for the financed portion of the premium. The check would name Edison as the payee, and would be sent to the agency's offices. The Respondent or agency personnel acting through his licenses, were then required to remit the money to the insurance company to obtain the insurance coverage selected by the proposed insured. Count I On October 7, 1986, Regency issued a check in the amount of eleven thousand eighty four dollars and twenty five cents to Edison. Upon receipt of the check, Edison paid the outstanding balance of the premiums owed to Canal Insurance Company by Shirley Turlington, who became insured with the company through Edison on July 16, 1986, under policies numbered P02 31 71, and 14 43 39. On November 7, 1986, a Notice of Cancellation was sent by Regency to the insurer as the insured did not pay an installment payment, as agreed, by October 16, 1986. The insurance policies were cancelled by the insurer, and an unearned premium of ten thousand one hundred and twenty four dollars was credited to Edison's account with Dana Roehrig & Associates, an authorized representative of Canal Insurance Company. Pursuant to the Premium Finance Agreement signed by the insured Shirley Turlington, Regency was assigned all unearned premiums returned by the insurance company on these specific policies. Shirley Turlington was not entitled to the unearned premiums credited to Edison's account by Canal Insurance Company through Dana Roehrig & Associates. A determination of Regency's entitlement to the unearned premium refund is currently pending in a civil action. Count II On March 16, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of nine thousand four hundred and forty one dollars to Edison. The purpose of the check was to have Edison pay the outstanding balance of the premium owed to Canal Insurance Company by Guillermo Rodriguez for a commercial automobile liability policy numbered 152 656. In reality, the amount of money necessary for payment to Canal Insurance Company had already been earmarked in the account maintained by Dana Roehrig & Associates which shows the credits and debits placed on Edison's business transactions with Dana Roehrig & Associates. The premium was paid, and the policy was issued by Canal Insurance Company with an effective date of February 2, 1987. In the premium finance agreement completed on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez in Edison's Offices, the inception date of the policy was projected for March 29, 1987. Respondent Wolfe and Edison personnel were unable to bind Canal Insurance Company so that an actual policy number and policy inception date were unknown by Edison at the time the finance agreement with Regency was completed at the agency. As the commercial automobile liability market was very active at Dana Roehrig & Associates during this time period, it is unknown what basis was used for the projected inception date of the policy. On May 27, 1987, a Notice of Cancellation was sent by Regency to the insurer as the insured did not pay an installment payment, as agreed, on April 29, 1987. The policy was cancelled September 25, 1987. No evidence was presented at hearing to demonstrate what happened to the unearned premium refund. Count III On March 24, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of twenty one thousand four hundred thirty five dollars to Edison. The purpose of the check was to pay the outstanding balance of the premium on a commercial automobile liability policy from Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Company which had been applied for by Thomas Gleason through Edison. Edison did not purchase an insurance policy for Mr. Gleason with the funds sent to Edison by Regency for that purpose. The check from Regency was cashed, and the funds were commingled with other funds in the agency's account number 632717. Count IV On April 21, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of twenty five thousand one hundred and fifty eight dollar and seventy five cents to Edison. The agency was to apply these funds against the outstanding balances on premiums for Clayton Olding, Inc., a trucking firm. The proposed insured had applied for insurance coverage from Canal Insurance Company and Cadillac Insurance Company. Edison paid for policy number 155941 with Canal Insurance Company with check number 7120. The premium amount and the inception date listed on the Regency premium finance agreement were correct. A notice of cancellation was sent to Canal Insurance Company on July 1, 1987, as Clayton Olding had failed to pay the installment due Regency on June 13, 1987. However, the policy had already been cancelled by the insured on June 1, 1987. A credit of nineteen thousand one hundred seventeen dollars and eighty cents was placed against Edison's account with Dana Roehrig & Associates, the authorized representative for Canal Insurance Company. Paperwork given to Clayton Olding, Inc. represented that the company was insured by Cadillac Insurance Company through Edison. Edison was the authorized agent of Cadillac Insurance Company and was able to temporarily bind the company. However, the money which was to be given to Cadillac Insurance Company as the down payment on the insurance premium was never sent to the insurer. Instead, Rose Delaney, an employee of Edison, created interagency documents which reflected that the money had been sent, and took the money for her own personal use. When Clayton Olding, Inc. notified Ms. Delaney to cancel the policy on June 1, 1987, this customer believed that Edison had acquired the insurance policy requested with Cadillac Insurance Company. Clayton Olding, Inc. received a refund from Edison after the cancellation of the two policies in the amount of approximately one thousand dollars. It was not revealed at hearing whether the refund related to the Canal Insurance Company policy or the Cadillac Insurance Company policy, or both transactions. Count V On April 28, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of four thousand five hundred and sixteen dollars to Edison for payment of the outstanding balance of the premium purportedly owed by Arthur Farquharson to Canal Insurance Company through Edison. Edison did not purchase an insurance policy for Mr. Farquharson with the funds sent to Edison by Regency for that purpose. The check from Regency was cashed, and the funds were commingled with the funds in the agency's checking account numbered 632717. The policy requested by Mr. Farquharson was never obtained by Edison on his behalf. Counts VI through VIII Count VI through Count VIII of the Administrative Complaint involve requests from proposed insured to purchase insurance through Edison. The proposed insured were Clinton Roole, Bertel Alexander Prince, and A & E Young Trucking, Inc, respectively. In each application for insurance, the proposed insured requested premium financing through Regency. Regency issued checks on behalf of these proposed insured to Edison. The agency was to pay the outstanding balances on insurance premiums in the policies purportedly obtained by Edison on behalf of these customers. Edison did not properly apply the funds sent to the agency by Regency because the requested policies were never purchased by Edison on behalf of these customers. The checks from Regency were cashed by the agency, and commingled with other funds in the agency's checking account numbered 632717. The customers did not receive the benefits requested from Edison, their insurance agency. Count IX On May 7, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of thirty two thousand one hundred and nine dollars to Edison. The agency was to apply the funds against the outstanding balances on three policies which were purportedly applied for from the following companies through Edison: Canal Insurance Company, Cadillac Insurance Company, and South Atlantic Council. The proposed insured was Charles Bernardo d/b/a ABX, Inc. A binder of insurance was issued by Canal Insurance Company to Mr. Bernardo for a fifteen day period which expired on April 28, 1987. A full policy was never purchased by Edison on behalf of Mr. Bernardo with the funds sent to Edison by Regency for that purpose. No information was provided at hearing regarding the purported application for insurance from South Atlantic Council on behalf of Mr. Bernardo through Edison. The check from Regency to Edison was cashed, and the funds were commingled with other funds in the agency's checking account numbered 632717. Mitigation All of the insurance transactions involved in the Administrative Complaint were conducted by Rose Delaney, an employee of Edison. During the months of March 1987 through May 1987, this employee was involved in a complex embezzlement and document falsification scheme in which she embezzled funds from the insurance agency and created phoney insurance policies and premium financing agreements, as well as false agency control documents, to cover her misdeeds. Respondent Wolfe was unable to discover this embezzlement scheme until May 23, 1987. His inability to detect the scheme was based upon a number of extraordinary factors, in spite of his reasonable attempts to supervise his insurance business and the employees with the high degree of care commensurate with his responsibilities as an insurance agent. These extraordinary factors were: the rapid and intense growth of Respondent's business during this time period; the redesign of the computerized accounting program by the agency's accountant, who failed to recognize that he had disabled an account reconciliation function within the program; the sophistication of Ms. Delaney's embezzlement scheme, and her ability to generate false documents within the agency setting which hid her crimes from the supervisory reviews conducted by Respondent Wolfe over a two and one half month period. Rose Delaney, the perpetrator of the embezzlement and documentation falsification scheme, is currently being treated in a mental health institution for mental illness. She has been diagnosed as having major depression with psychotic features as well as suffering from latent schizophrenia, paranoid type. Based upon the professional opinions of the two psychiatrists who examined Ms. Delaney, she was insane during the time she handled the insurance transactions set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The McNaughton standard was applied by both of the experts, and no evidence to the contrary was presented during the administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Gary Stephen Wolfe, be found not guilty of all nine counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4927 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO# 2. Accepted. See HO# 2. Accepted. See HO# 3. Accepted. See HO# 3. Petitioner's findings do not contain a number 5. Accepted. See HO# 3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 5. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 5. Accepted, but for further exposition of the facts, see HO# 7. Accepted. See HO# 5. Accepted. See HO# 6 and # 7. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 8. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO# 8. Rejected. See HO# 10. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 11. Accepted. See HO# 12. Accepted. See HO# 12. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HOC 27. Accepted. See HO# 13. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO# 13. Rejected. Irrelevant to pleadings. See HO# 13. Rejected. Irrelevant to pleadings. See HO# 13. Accepted. See HO# 14. Accepted. See HO# 14. Accepted. See HO# 14. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 17. Accepted. See HO# 18. Accepted. See 1O# 18. 43.-48. Not provided to the Hearing Officer. Accepted. See HO# 18. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 19. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 19. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 19. Accepted. See HO# 20. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO# 25 and #27. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO# 25. Rejected. See HO# 27. Rejected. Irrelevant. Improper shifting of burdens of proof. Not an ultimate issue in these proceedings. Rejected. Immaterial. Outside the scope of the pleadings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. A co-signer was required on any checks signed by Ms. Delaney. Rejected. Outside the scope of the pleadings. Accepted that Respondent Wolfe was not personally involved in the wrongdoings committed by Ms. Delaney. See HO# 25. The rest of paragraph 84 is rejected as argumentative. Rejected. Irrelevant - Argumentative. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Argument as opposed to proposed finding of fact. Improper summary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO# 2. Accepted. See HO# 3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted the first statement in paragraph 4. See HO# 9. The rest is rejected a- irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 26. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not established by competent evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary with many factual conclusions that are immaterial to the allegationS in the Administrative Complaint. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Not established by competent evidence. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 27. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 25. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper summary. For rulings on each transaction, refer to Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. Accepted. See HO# 25. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Joseph D. Stewart, Esquire Hardt & Stewart 801 Laurel Oak Drive Suite 705, Sun Bank Building Naples, Florida 33963 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, William John Harnett, has been licensed or been qualified for licensure as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Respondent currently holds licenses for service lines insurance, debit insurance, ordinary life and health insurance, and general lines insurance (which is property, casualty, or surety). The Department is charged with the administration of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. On December 15, 1975, the Department was appointed to serve as Receiver of Southern American Fire Insurance Company (Southern) . The purpose of this receivership was to seek the rehabilitation of the insurance company. On February 10, 1976, Southern was determined to be insolvent pursuant to Section 631.011(3), Florida Statutes and the Department, as Receiver, obtained an Order of Liquidation. The Department was charged with the responsibility of marshalling the company's assets in order to settle the outstanding claims against it. To this end, the Department filed civil suits against insurance agents and agencies which had allegedly failed to remit premium monies owed to Southern. One such suit was against Harnett, Inc., Respondent, and other individuals associated with Harnett, Inc. From April 9, 1947 until November 14, 1986, Harnett, Inc. was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida whose general business was insurance. Respondent served as the treasurer and a director for Harnett, Inc. Respondent was authorized to and did sign checks and correspondence on behalf of Harnett, Inc. The Department's civil suit against Harnett, Inc. (Case No. 76-23143) was filed in Dade County on July 26, 1976. This suit claimed Harnett, Inc. had failed to remit premium monies owed to Southern and that Respondent, as an officer and director of Harnett, Inc. having direct supervision or control over individuals acting on behalf of Harnett, Inc., was personally liable for the amounts owed. On March 6, 1981, a final judgment (Case No. 76-23143) was entered in favor of the Department as Receiver of Southern. This judgment found against Respondent and Harnett, Inc., jointly and severally, in the sum of $78,617.85. This judgment was affirmed on appeal. 1/ The Department has attempted to collect the funds awarded in this judgment. From October 26, 1962 until November 14, 1986, Franklin Insurance Agency of Miami, Inc. (Franklin) was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. At all times material to this cause, Respondent was president and a director of Franklin. On October 20, 1976, the Department as Receiver of Southern filed a civil suit against Respondent and Franklin. This suit (Case No. 76-32799) claimed monies were owed to Southern for premiums Franklin had failed td remit. Further, the suit alleged that Respondent, as Franklin's president and director, was personally liable for the refusal and continued refusal of Franklin to pay the premiums. A final judgment was entered for the Department as Receiver of Southern in the Franklin suit on December 9, 1980. This judgment (case No. 76- 32799) provided for recovery against Franklin and Respondent, jointly and severally, in the sum of $35,983.39. The Department has attempted to collect the funds awarded in this judgment. Gables Insurance Agency, Inc. (Gables), organized on November 28, 1967, continues as an active corporation in this state. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the sole officer and director for Gables. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Inc. (Norfolk) entered into Agency Agreements with Gables and Harnett, Inc. on February 1, 1976. Subsequently, Norfolk sued Harnett, Inc. (Case No. 84-03815) and Gables (Case No. 84-03816) for premium monies it was claimed to be owed. These suits resulted in final judgments in favor of Norfolk. The suit against Harnett, Inc. (Case No. 84-02815) found the sum of $54,556.00 was owed to Norfolk. The suit against Gables (Case No. 84-03816) found the sum of $18,843.20 was owed to Norfolk. The four judgments identified herein (paragraphs 8, 11, 14 and 15) total $188,000.44 and remain unsatisfied. These judgments represent money damages owed for unpaid insurance premiums. An applicant for licensure with outstanding judgments incurred during the course of doing the business of insurance would not be approved by the Department without a showing of restitution or rehabilitation. The Department deems such an applicant to be untrustworthy, incompetent, and not fit to become qualified and licensed in Florida. Respondent offered no evidence of restitution or rehabilitation. Respondent maintained that no monies were owed by the respective debtor companies or Respondent individually.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order revoking the licenses held by Respondent, William John Harnett. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1988.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent, a licensed insurance agent, is guilty of violating the statutes regulating the conduct of an insurance agent, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been eligible for licensure and licensed as a life and health insurance agent and as a dental health care contract salesman. For many years, Respondent had also been licensed to solicit general lines -- property, casualty, surety, and miscellaneous lines -- insurance in this state. Respondent was unaware that this license expired on March 24, 1987. At all times material hereto, Respondent was, however, eligible for licensure as a general lines agent. At all times material hereto, Respondent was one of the officers of Johnson's Model City Insurance Agency #1, Inc., a Florida corporation. That corporation was involuntarily dissolved on November 4, 1988. On December 30, 1986, Respondent telephoned Petitioner to discuss the propriety of an insurance agent charging a consulting fee. Following that telephonic conversation, an attorney for Petitioner directed correspondence to Respondent confirming that telephone conversation, advising that a consulting fee could legally be charged under certain circumstances. Those circumstances included the use of a separate consulting contract between the agent and the insured so that the insured would fully understand that he or she was entering into a separate contract and paying a separate consideration in advance of the performance of consulting services. Additionally, the services rendered must be other than those normally provided by an insurance agent. Further, if a separate consulting contract were effectuated, an agent could set up a separate consulting corporation to enter into such contracts. Hartford Insurance Company sells automobile insurance in the State of Florida by use of a toll-free telephone number. People who know the telephone number can call Hartford directly, obtain a quote for automobile insurance, and purchase a policy directly from Hartford. Hartford has no insurance agents in the State of Florida and pays no commissions to insurance agents in Florida for the obtaining of automobile insurance customers. A person can obtain a quote in writing from the Hartford in advance of purchasing a policy. Sometimes, the quotation card and the policy are issued and mailed simultaneously by Hartford to its new insureds. On September 20, 1987, Patricia Moss telephoned J. M. C. Insurance Consultants pursuant to an ad in the telephone yellow pages. She inquired about obtaining automobile insurance to replace her current policy which would expire on September 22, 1987. She spoke with an employee named Betty who advised her that she could obtain replacement insurance at a cost of $927. Since the cost quoted to her was substantially lower than the prices she had been quoted by the other agencies she had consulted, Moss went to the offices of J. M. C. on September 21, 1987. Betty presented Moss with a number of documents to sign. She signed a Power of Attorney appointing Johnson's Model City Insurance, Inc., doing business as JMC Insurance Consultants as her attorney-in-fact to obtain insurance for her, specifically ratifying and confirming actions taken on her behalf by J. L. Johnson- consultant. She also executed an Agreement with Consultant specifying the services that JMC Insurance Consultants would perform on her behalf. She signed a further statement which provided that: "I understand that JMC Insurance is acting as Consultants for my insurance placement and is entitled to any and all consultation fees." She also signed a document written in boldfaced type which states: IMPORTANT NOTICE THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU THAT JMC INSURANCE CONSULTANTS ARE NOT AGENTS NOR DO WE REPRESENT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. WE REPRESENT "YOU" THE CLIENT AND WE ACT IN YOUR BEHALF WITH THE RIGHT THAT YOU GIVE US THROUGH A POWER OF ATTORNEY. WE ENDEAVOR TO PLACE YOUR AUTO INSURANCE FOR YOU ON YOUR BEHALF. WE ARE YOUR CONSULTANT. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM PLEASE CALL US WE ARE HERE TO HELP AND ACT IN YOUR BEHALF. CALL US FIRST. LET US HANDLE IT. CLIENT. I HAVE READ AND I UNDERSTAND. Moss gave JMC Consultants a check in the amount of $262.50 for which she was given a receipt which carried the specific notation that the money she had paid was for an insurance consultant's fee. She was also given a small card entitled Insurance Identification Card on which Betty filled in information showing that she would be insured by Hartford effective on the following day and specifically describing the coverage provided, the automobile insured, and the name and address of Moss. Within a week she received directly from the Hartford an insurance policy for the benefits which she sought. The policy itself reflected that the premium for the policy was $632 and that she would be receiving a bill from Hartford for that amount. She telephoned Betty, demanding a refund of her $262.50, which demand was refused. Betty explained to her that the amount was for the consultant's fee for obtaining the low- cost coverage for Moss. Hartford's direct marketing program does allow people to purchase insurance on someone else's behalf utilizing a Power of Attorney. Although Hartford's records do not reflect a Power of Attorney from Moss to J. M. C. Consultants or Respondent, Hartford's records regarding their policyholder Moss are not accurate. For example, they erroneously reflect that they quoted a rate to Moss on September 15, a week before they received any contact on her behalf. Although Moss testified that Betty told her the $262.50 was the down payment on her insurance premium, her testimony is not credible in view of the numerous documents that she signed stating that she fully understood that Respondent was not an agent for Hartford, that Respondent would be acting on her behalf pursuant to the Power of Attorney and Consultant's Agreement which she had signed, and the other documents reflecting that the $262.50 was a consultant's fee which she was paying to Respondent to act on her behalf. Her testimony that she did not understand is refuted by the documents she signed saying that she did. There is no allegation that Moss, a retired registered nurse, was unable to read. Rather, it is concluded that Moss voluntarily chose to pay the Hartford premium plus Respondent's consulting fee since the total price for the two charges was still substantially less than she could have obtained insurance for from other sources. Allstate Insurance Company is an insurer which sells insurance policies through their agents in the State of Florida. It also has a division which participates in Florida's Joint Underwriting Association (hereinafter "FJUA"), a program through which high-risk drivers who cannot obtain insurance in the regular voluntary insurance market can obtain automobile insurance. Prior to the time that his general lines agent license expired, Respondent participated in that program and was assigned to write insurance for Allstate for policyholders participating in the program. The Producers Contract entered into between Respondent and the FJUA, which assigned him to Allstate Insurance Company, provided that it would automatically terminate if an agent's general lines license expired. On July 22, 1988, James Tillie came to the office of J. M. C. to procure automobile insurance for the van that he used in his business. After meeting with Respondent, Tillie gave Respondent a check in the amount of $204 as a down payment on an automobile insurance policy. The check was endorsed and deposited into the business bank account of J. M. C. Respondent gave James Tillie an automobile insurance binder which reflected that his insurance policy was to be issued through Allstate Insurance Company. Under the terms of Respondent's contract with the FJUA, Respondent was required to submit James Tillie's application and premium to Allstate within 24 hours. The FJUA application acts as a binder. Once the application is completed and the premium is paid to the agent, the insured has automatic coverage for 30 days during which time the carrier, Allstate in this case, can act on the application. There is no evidence as to when Respondent forwarded James Tillie's application to Allstate; however, Allstate has no record of ever receiving the application. Respondent did tell James Tillie that within a couple of months he would receive from Allstate his policy and instructions for payment of the balance of his premium. After a month or two had elapsed, James Tillie became concerned since he had not yet received his insurance policy. He contacted Respondent who assured him that he did have insurance coverage. Shortly thereafter, James Tillie received in the mail from Respondent a card entitled Insurance Identification Card. On that card information had been filled in showing a policy number, the effective date, the insurance company as Allstate Insurance Company, a description of the insured vehicle, and the name and address of James Tillie. This is not an official Allstate identification card, and no one purported it to be such. An official Allstate Insurance card is issued by Allstate as part of the policy issued by it. On September 23, 1988, Sina Tillie, James' mother, visited J. M. C. for the purpose of purchasing automobile insurance for her new automobile. Sina Tillie is an elderly person who had never before owned an automobile or possessed a driver's license. She wished to purchase insurance on a brand- new automobile. Sina Tillie gave Respondent $1,828 in cash as full payment of the policy's annual premium. Respondent gave her an insurance binder which reflected that her insurance was placed with Allstate. Allstate has no record of receiving Sina Tillie's application and premium from Respondent. Subsequently, Sina Tillie became concerned when she had not yet received her insurance policy. She asked her daughter to contact Respondent. Respondent advised her daughter not to worry. He then mailed to Sina Tillie an Insurance Identification Card similar to the one which he had provided to James Tillie reflecting James' coverage. He also telephoned Sina Tillie to assure her that if anything happened, all she would need to do would be to show the card saying that she was covered and to contact him. Since neither he nor his mother had received a policy from Allstate, James Tillie called Allstate. He did not know that there were, in effect, two Allstates. The Allstate office which he contacted was a regular Allstate office which markets insurance to customers who call or come in, and not an office affiliated with the FJUA program. The person with whom he spoke told him that neither he nor his mother were insured by Allstate and that the policy numbers reflected on the Insurance Identification Cards given by Respondent to James and his mother were not Allstate policy numbers, but rather were binder numbers. James Tillie then contacted Respondent who consistently maintained that both James and Sina were insured. Respondent contacted Allstate regarding James' and Sina's policies. James Tillie came to the office of J. M. C. and met with Respondent. He advised Respondent that he and his mother had obtained insurance elsewhere and requested refunds of the premiums that he and his mother had paid. Respondent told Tillie that he could not refund the premiums since both James and his mother were insured in exchange for those premiums. Respondent eventually told James Tillie that he would refund the premiums if the Tillies would sign releases. James Tillie maintained that he would sign releases only after he had received the refund of the premiums. The meeting ended in stalemate. James Tillie contacted Petitioner, and Petitioner contacted Respondent. Respondent maintained that he would refund the premiums in exchange for a release. Petitioner forwarded a copy of Respondent's letter to James Tillie. Respondent eventually made arrangements with James and his mother to refund the premiums in monthly payments since he did not have the money to refund the premiums in full. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Respondent had only refunded the total amount of $600 to the Tillies. At the time that Respondent's general lines agent license with Integrity Insurance Company was cancelled on March 24, 1987, he believed that he was being re-licensed by Fortune Insurance Company. However, he never received a license for or from Fortune and never checked to ascertain why.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of statutory violations as set forth in this Recommended Order and suspending Respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for a period of 60 days from the date of the Final Order entered in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 13th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 7-9, 14-19, 21-26, and 28-32 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6, 10, 11, 13, 20, and 27 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact number 12 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Johnny L. Johnson 17120 Northwest 27th Avenue Opa Locka, Florida 33056 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation and licensing of general lines insurance agents. Its responsibility includes the duty to sanction those licensed under the insurance code for violations of the code. At all times relevant, Respondent was a licensed general lines insurance agent and possessed license #265736194 issued by the Petitioner on December 21, 1990. Respondent's license is presently active. On June 5, 1992, an order of liquidation, injunction and notice of automatic stay was entered in Case No. 92-1766, Circuit Court, Leon County, Florida, In Re: The Receivership of First Miami Insurance Company, a Florida corporation. On December 14, 1992, Salma Zacur, the operations manager for the receiver for First Miami Insurance Company, mailed a letter to Respondent. On June 7, 1993, a summary order directing immediate delivery of funds was entered in Case No. 92-1766, Circuit Court, Leon County, Florida, In Re: The Receivership of First Miami Insurance Company, a Florida corporation. On June 8, 1994, an order on receiver's motion for entry of final judgment was entered in Case No. 92-1766, Circuit Court, Leon County, Florida, In Re: The Receivership of First Miami Insurance Company, a Florida corporation. Petitioner failed to produce evidence of the contents of the December 14, 1992 letter which was non-hearsay and, therefore, failed to establish the relevance of the court orders of June 7, 1993 and June 8, 1994 in this matter. The Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 631.155, or Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(b)9., Florida Statutes. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (in part), 12 (in part). Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence: paragraphs 6, 7 (in part), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (in part) 13. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Michael K. McCormick, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Jed Berman, Esquire Infantino and Berman O. Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790
