The Issue Whether Petitioner's claim for medical expenses from August 6, 1982 through February 27, 1983 should be approved, pursuant to the State of Florida Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan. Petitioner appeared at the hearing accompanied by legal counsel. The Hearing Officer thereupon explained his rights and procedures to be followed in the administrative hearing. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected to represent himself. Petitioner testified in his own behalf at the hearing and the parties stipulated to the introduction of Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. A late filed exhibit, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was also admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst for the Respondent's Bureau of Insurance.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Thomas J. Appleyard, III, is a former state employee who retired with disability in 1976 as a result of cardiac disease. At the time Petitioner retired, he maintained coverage in the state Employees Group Health Self Insurance Plan under which the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. serves as the administrator of the plan for the state. Petitioner also receives disability benefits under the Medicare program for medical expenses. (Testimony of Petitioner) The State Group Health Self Insurance Plan provides in Section X, COORDINATION OF BENEFITS, that if an insured has coverage under Medicare, the benefits payable under the state plan will be coordinated with similar benefits paid under the other coverage to the extent that the combination of benefits will not exceed 100 percent of the costs of services and supplies to the insured. Paragraph D of Section X provides that the state plan will be the secondary coverage in such situations and will pay benefits only to the extent that an insured's existing insurance coverage does not entitle him to receive benefits equal to 100 percent of the allowable covered expenses. This provision applies when the claim is on any insured person covered by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Petitioner was hospitalized at the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center on three occasions in 1982-33. His Medicare coverage paid all but $261.75 of the hospital expenses. In February 1983, Petitioner also incurred medical expenses to his cardiologist, Dr. J. Galt Allee, in the amount of $248.33. Petitioner was originally denied his remaining hospital expenses by the administrator of the state plan under the erroneous belief that he was receiving regular Medicare benefits for persons over the age of 65. In addition, Dr. Allee's bill was only partially paid by Medicare, subject to the receipt of additional information from the physician. Payment under the state plan was limited to an amount sufficient to reimburse petitioner 100 percent of the amount originally allowed by Medicare. (Testimony of Seaton, petitioner, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 3) Respondent does not receive information on claims filed under the state plan until contacted by an employee. In February 1984, Petitioner requested assistance from William R. Seaton, Benefit Analyst, of Respondent's Bureau of Insurance, regarding his difficulties in receiving proper claims payments. Seaton investigated the matter with the Insurance administrator for the state, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, and discovered that the latter had not coordinated the hospital expense balance with Medicare. They thereafter did so and as of the date of hearing, there was no longer a balance due to Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Seaton also gave written instructions to Blue Cross to review all of Petitioner's claims and make sure that they were paid properly, and to install controls on his and his wife's records. (Testimony of Petitioner, Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1-2) The full claim of Dr. Allee had not been paid by Medicare since it had been awaiting requested additional in formation from the physician. Such information was provided after a personal visit had been made to Dr. Allee by Seaton and Medicare then recognized additional eligible expenses. However, a balance of $36.00 is still owed to the physician due to the fact that Blue Cross/Blue Shield had not received the necessary payment information from Medicare as of the day before the hearing. (Testimony of Seaton, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Section XVII of the state's Group Health Self Insurance Plan benefit document provides that an employee who wishes to contest decisions of the state administrator considering the employee's coverage under the plan may submit a petition for a hearing for consideration by the Secretary of Administration. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensure of insurance agents and the regulation of the insurance business in Florida. Respondent, Richard M. Rinker, was licensed by the Petitioner as a health insurance agent engaged in the business of soliciting, selling and servicing health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company. Levon H. and Joan D. Sprague, husband and wife, moved to Florida from New York in August, 1991. Prior to moving to Florida, the Spragues operated a restaurant in New York and purchased health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for themselves and some of their employees. They also owned a H.I.P. policy which was similar to a health maintenance organization, but both that coverage and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were dropped when they moved to Florida. Because both Mr. and Mrs. Sprague were getting older, and because both had indications of possible future health problems based on experience and family history, upon the recommendation of Mrs. Sprague's father, who had purchased coverage from Respondent and was satisfied with the service received, they contacted Respondent and met with him about purchasing health insurance. The first meeting was on January 6, 1992. At that time, the Sprague's made Respondent aware of the fact that they had no health insurance coverage at that time and that they wanted to purchase coverage which would give them 100 percent reimbursement of all bills for medical care rendered. After some discussion, they agreed to accept less coverage for doctors' bills and other professional services, but were quite adamant in reiterating they wanted a policy that would cover 100 percent of the cost of hospitalization. They emphasized this because of Mr. Sprague's family's history of heart problems and they wanted to be sure the hospital expense would be covered in full. They felt the doctors could wait a while for payment of the full amount of their bills. During the course of his presentation, Respondent utilized a document called a National States Limited Medical-Surgical Hospital Confinement Plan which purportedly outlined the specifics of policy coverage. Under that portion entitled "Specific Benefits", the form read, "This policy pays percent of usual and customary expenses of the following type:". Under the blank space, in smaller type, were the numbers "10, 20, 30, 40". In the blank area, Respondent, by hand, inserted 80 percent. Above, and to the right of that insertion, he also placed the numbers, "100 percent" and "40 percent." Respondent explains this as being his attempt to provide answers to questions asked of him by Mrs. Sprague. He noted that his company does not offer a major medical policy such as desired by the Spragues, and that the only way he could provide coverage close to that which they wanted was to combine policies. Using a yellow highlighter, he also highlighted the words, "Doctor's charges", "doctor's office", "clinic", "hospital", "home", and "surgical or medical center." He also highlighted the terms "annual mammography screening" because Mrs. Sprague had specifically inquired about coverage of that procedure. On that visit, Respondent sold the Spragues two policies each. These were "MSH-1" and "MSH-2" policies which, the Spragues recall, Respondent indicated would provide the total coverage they wanted. Initially, the premium was to be $3,600.00 for the year, but when the Spragues indicated they could not afford that much, after calling his office, Respondent was able to offer them 6 months coverage for one half the price. They were satisfied with this and accepted the policies. Mr. Rinker received as his commission 45 percent of the premium paid in by the Spragues for the first year of the policy. When he departed the Spragues' home, he left with them the policy outline he utilized in his presentation, a large manila envelope containing information regarding his office hours and phone number, and a MSP form required by law. The coverage was not heavily used at first. When, during the first six month period, claims were initially denied because of the waiting period, the Spragues accepted that. After the expiration of the waiting period, all claims submitted for doctors' visits and mammography were covered to at least 80 percent of the amount expected by the Spragues. This was, however, because of the combined benefits paid by the two policies. Neither policy, alone, paid 100 percent percent of the claim. The Spragues were satisfied with this because it was not hospitalization. Later on, however, it became apparent that Mr. Sprague would have to enter the hospital for coronary bypass surgery, and he was admitted on an emergency basis. Before the surgery was done, however, the Spragues wanted to be sure the hospital bills would be paid in full, and they had their daughter- in-law, who had extensive experience in the insurance business prior to that time, to examine the policies. Her review of the policies generated some questions in her mind as to whether they provided 100 percent coverage of all hospital costs. To satisfy herself and her in-laws, utilizing the telephone number for Respondent on the materials left by him with the Spragues, she contacted him and asked, specifically, whether the policies he had sold to the Spragues, provided the 100 percent coverage they desired. His answer was somewhat evasive and non- responsive to her inquiry. He said, "Don't worry. She'll [Ms. Sprague] be able to sleep at night. She has a good policy." This did not satisfy either Ms. Sprague or her mother-in-law, and so she called Respondent again. During this second conversation he admitted that for at least a part of the cost, there was a 40 percent coinsurance provision. Respondent claims that during these calls, Ms. Sprague did not tell him that her father-in-law was to have surgery but only told him about tests. The tests were covered and the bills therefor paid by National States. By the time of these calls, however, Mr. Sprague was already in the hospital and facing the surgery the following morning. There was little that could be done. Mr. Sprague wanted to cancel the surgery but his wife would not allow this and the operation was accomplished. The hospital bills received by the Spragues amounted to approximately $140,000. Of this, the insurance company paid approximately $18,000. Ultimately, the Spragues and the hospital were able to reach an agreement for settlement of the obligation for $40,000. In order to satisfy this, Mr. Sprague was required to liquidate all his investments. He still owes the doctors a substantial sum but is making periodic payments to liquidate those obligations. The policies which Respondent sold to the Spragues were limited medical and surgical expense policies which pay only a limited percentage of incurred medical expenses over a limited period of time. Neither policy pays 100 percent of any medical or surgical expense. Respondent did not clearly communicate this fact to the Spragues. They suffered from the misconception that the policies sold to them by the Respondent paid 100 percent coverage for hospital expense, 80 percent for doctor fees, and 40 percent for medication. Petitioner presented no evidence that what Respondent did was below the standards accepted of sales agents within the health insurance industry. On the other hand, James Quinn, an insurance agent since 1975, who has taught life and health insurance and the legal responsibility of agents in the health insurance area with the approval of the Department since 1985, testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Quinn noted that there are three types of medical policies in use, including basic medical expense, major medical, and comprehensive major medical. The first of these, basic medical expense, permits liberal underwriting and pays policy limits. In Mr. Quinn's opinion, based on the age and preexisting conditions that the Sprague's have, major medical coverage, like they wanted, would cost between seven and ten thousand dollars annually, excluding deductibles. Health insurance coverage outlines, such as used by Respondent in his presentation to the Spragues are, according to Mr. Quinn, reasonably self-explanatory and are left with the insured either when the policy is applied for or is delivered. In the former case, the client is able to read the outline and cancel the policy before delivery, if he so desires. In the latter case, the insured has a set number of days to read the policy after delivery and cancel if he so desires. These outlines do not substitute for the policy, however, and generally, the agent prefers to deliver the policy personally so he can go over it again with the insured. According to Mr. Quinn, it is difficult to explain coverage to prospective insureds because of their unfamiliarity with the terminology and the available benefits. He concluded that the action of the Respondent, in issue here, whereby he used the coverage outline to explain the coverages to the Spragues, was consistent with proper agent conduct and was within industry standards. He also concluded that based on what Respondent had available to sell to the Spragues, he sold them the best package he could, at the time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this matter finding Respondent, Richard Michael Rinker, guilty of a violation of Sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6); 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(a)(1), (1)(e)(1), and (1)(k)(1), Florida statutes, and suspending his license as a health insurance agent for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-0089 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as to finding Mr. Quinn is an expert regarding insurance standards and business practices, but rejected as insinuating those opinions are binding on the Hearing Officer. Rejected notwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Quinn. Accepted, as there is no evidence to the contrary. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as contra to the evidence. Second sentence accepted as to the furnishing, but the quality of the information was less than clear. Balance accepted. & 8. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Department of Management Services properly denied medical insurance reimbursement to Marianne Fahle for EDTA chelation therapy services provided to her husband, John Fahle.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Marianne Fahle is a retired employee of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Marianne Fahle was a participant in the State of Florida group health insurance plan. Her husband, John Fahle, is a covered dependent. The state group insurance program is a self-insured health insurance plan administered for the State of Florida for its employees by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida ("BCBSF"). In August 2000, John Fahle was hospitalized after he collapsed at his home. Medical tests revealed that Mr. Fahle suffered from arteriosclerosis with an estimated 60-80% stenosis, or blockage, of his carotid artery. Rather than undergo surgery to relieve the blockage, Mr. Fahle chose a course of treatment commonly called EDTA chelation therapy. Chelation therapy involves the intravenous injection of ethylene-diamine-tetra acetic acid (edetic acid or EDTA) accompanied by nutritional supplements. After undergoing chelation therapy, Mr. Fahle's diagnostic tests were repeated, with reported results indicating some reduction of the blockage in his coronary artery and a reduction of the carotid artery blockage to 40-60 percent. The actual tests, as opposed to the physicians' reports of their results, were not offered as evidence. The weight of the evidence established that the reported improvement in Mr. Fahle's carotid artery blockage, from a 60-80 percent blockage to a 40-60 percent blockage, could be attributed to the subjectivity involved in reading the results of the diagnostic tests. In any event, the reported improvement was of little medical significance. Chelation therapy is generally accepted in the medical community as a safe and efficacious treatment for heavy metal toxicity, e.g., lead poisoning. The United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved EDTA as a lawfully marketed drug in 1953. The FDA cannot limit the manner in which a licensed physician may prescribe an approved drug, though it can place limits on the marketing representations that may be made as to the efficaciousness of a drug for certain uses. The FDA has approved the marketing of EDTA as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning. The FDA prohibits any person from representing that chelation therapy is a safe and efficacious treatment for arteriosclerosis, though a physician may lawfully treat arteriosclerosis with chelation therapy. Petitioner submitted several articles attesting to the value of chelation therapy in treating arteriosclerosis. A significant minority of physicians in the United States employs chelation therapy as an option in the treatment of arteriosclerosis. However, reliable, formal clinical trials have yet to establish the efficacy of chelation therapy as a standard treatment for arteriosclerosis. The strength of the anecdotal evidence and the persistent advocacy of physicians have led the National Institute of Health to begin clinical trials on the use of chelation therapy in the treatment of arteriosclerosis, but the results of these trials will not be available for five years. In any event, Mr. Fahle's coverage is determined by the terms of Ms. Fahle's insurance policy. The terms of coverage for the state group health insurance plan are set forth in a document titled, "State Employees' PPO Plan Group Health Insurance Plan Booklet and Benefit Document." The benefit document states, in pertinent part: Services Not Covered By The Plan The following services and supplies are excluded from coverage under this health insurance plan unless a specific exception is noted. Exceptions may be subject to certain coverage limitations. * * * 47. Services and procedures considered by BCBSF to be experimental or investigational, or services and procedures not in accordance with generally accepted professional medical standards, including complications resulting from these non-covered services. The benefit document defines "experimental or investigational services" as follows: ny evaluation, treatment, therapy or device that: cannot be lawfully marketed without approval of the US Food and Drug Administration or the Florida Department of Health if approval for marketing has not been given at the time the service has been provided to the covered person is the subject of ongoing Phase I or II clinical investigation, or the experimental or research arm of Phase III clinical investigation-- or is under study to determine the maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition is generally regarded by experts as requiring more study to determine maximum dosage, toxicity, safety or efficacy, or to determine the efficacy compared to standard treatment for the condition has not been proven safe and effective for treatment of the condition based on the most recently published medical literature of the US, Canada or Great Britain using generally accepted scientific, medical or public health methodologies or statistical practices is not accepted in consensus by practicing doctors as safe and effective for the condition is not regularly used by practicing doctors to treat patients with the same or similar condition BCBSF and [the Department] determine whether a service or supply is experimental or investigational. The benefit document is not explicit as to whether the elements of the quoted definition are to be considered in the disjunctive, but the plain sense of the document leads to the reading that if any one of the definitional elements applies, then the service or supply must be considered experimental or investigational. Dr. William Wood, BCBSF's medical director, confirmed that if any single element of the definition applies to a service or supply, then it is considered experimental or investigational. Chelation therapy would fall under every element of the definition except, arguably, the last element dealing with regular use by practicing physicians. The FDA does not allow chelation therapy to be marketed as a treatment for arteriosclerosis, chelation therapy is currently the subject of clinical trials, and it is not accepted "in consensus" by practicing physicians as a treatment for arteriosclerosis.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Marianne Fahle. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 2nd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Marianne Fahle 12205 North Marjory Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Julia Forrester, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Matthews, Director Division of State Group Insurance Department of Management Services 4040 Esplanade Way, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Simone Marstiller, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a waiver of the limitations in the state group health self insurance plan regarding pre-existing conditions during the first 12 months of coverage under the plan.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony presented at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner was first employed by the Department of Transportation as a Clerk Typist Specialist on October 31, 1986. As a new employee, the Petitioner was entitled to select health insurance under the state group health self insurance plan or with a participating health maintenance organization (HMO). The state group health self insurance plan and the HMO's each have different benefits and premiums. The Petitioner's direct supervisor is Ms. Gwen Molander. On October 30, 1986, the day prior to her first day of employment, the Petitioner met with her supervisor to sign the employment paperwork. On that day Ms. Molander called the Department of Transportation personnel office in Lake City for the purpose of finding out whether the state group health self insurance plan would cover pre-existing allergy conditions of the Petitioner's son. Ms. Molander specifically asked the Lake City personnel office if the plan would cover the Petitioner's son if the son was under the care of an allergist. The words "pre- existing condition" were not used in the conversation Ms. Molander had with the Lake City personnel office. The Lake City personnel office told Ms. Molander that the Petitioner's son would be covered even if it was not an open enrollment period. The Petitioner authorized a "double-up" deduction so the health insurance would be effective as of December 1, 1986. The Petitioner's son has been covered as a dependent under the Petitioner's health insurance since December 1, 1986. Based on the information from the Lake City personnel office, the Petitioner believed that the state group health self insurance plan would provide coverage for all of her son's medical expenses without any limitation regarding pre-existing conditions. The Petitioner's son had a pre-existing allergy condition for which he received medical treatment in December of 1986 and thereafter. Since December of 1986 the Petitioner has incurred medical bills of approximately $2,000.00 for treatment related to her son's pre-existing allergy condition. The state group health self insurance plan has refused to pay any of the medical expenses related to the treatment of the pre-existing allergy condition of the Petitioner's son. The state group health self insurance plan contains a provision to the effect that "no payment shall be made for pre- existing conditions during the first 12 months of coverage under the Plan." Accordingly, the refusal to pay described above is consistent with the provisions of the state group health self insurance plan. At the time the Petitioner chose to enroll in the state group health self insurance plan, she could also have chosen any of three HMO programs available to state employees in he Gainesville area. Petitioner chose the state group health self insurance plan because of her belief that it provided coverage for her son's pre-existing allergy condition. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record in this case regarding the coverage provided by the three available HMO's, the limitations (if any) on the coverage, or the cost to the employee of such coverage. At the time the Petitioner chose to enroll in the state group health self insurance plan, her employing office did not have any written information regarding the health insurance options available to new employees. There is no evidence that the Petitioner attempted to obtain information regarding health insurance options from any source other than her direct supervisor and the Lake City personnel office. On the insurance enrollment form signed by the Petitioner, dated October 31, 1986, the Petitioner was put on notice and acknowledged that coverage and the effective dates of coverage under the state group health self insurance plan were governed by Rule Chapter 22K-1, Parts I and II, Florida Administrative Code, and by the plan benefit document, "regard-less of any statements or representations made to me. " The Petitioner has previously worked in the insurance field and she is familiar with limitations on coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration issue a final order in this case denying the relief requested by the Petitioner and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1485 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner As noted in the introductory portion of the recommended order in this case, the Petitioner's post-hearing submission consists of a letter dated May 12, 1987. Although the letter does not contain any statements which are identified as proposed findings of fact, in light of the lesson taught by Kinast v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), all factual assertions in the letter of May 12, 1987, have been treated as though they were proposed findings of fact. The references which follow are to the unnumbered paragraphs and sentences of the letter of May 12, 1987. First unnumbered paragraph: This is an introductory comment only. Second unnumbered paragraph: First sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because not supported by evidence in the record. Second sentence is a statement of position rather than a proposed finding. Third sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because not supported by evidence in the record. Fourth sentence is a statement of the relief requested rather than a proposed finding. Fifth sentence is rejected as a proposed finding because it is inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Third unnumbered paragraph: This entire paragraph is rejected as proposed findings because it consists of statement of position and argument rather than proposed facts. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are contained in twelve numbered paragraphs in Respondent's proposed recommended order. The paragraph references which follow are to each of those twelve paragraphs. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: First sentence accepted. Second sentence is rejected in part and accepted in part; first ten words are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. The remainder of the sentence is accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with correction of confused dates and deletion of irrelevant details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as irrelevant due to the fact that no such literature was available at Petitioner's employing office. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Juanita L. Resmondo Department of Transportation Maintenance Office Post Office Box 1109 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Respondents violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent The Administrators Corporation (hereinafter "TAC") has been an authorized administrator, and Respondent Charles N. Zalis (hereinafter "Zalis") has been licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a legal expense insurance sales representative in the State of Florida. Zalis is the chief executive officer of TAC. TAC is not licensed in Florida as an insurer. An authorized administrator in Florida may engage in the solicitation, negotiation, transaction and/or sale of insurance in Florida if such activity takes place pursuant to an agreement between the authorized administrator and an authorized insurer. Life and Health Insurance Company of America (hereinafter "Life & Health"), which is not a party to this administrative proceeding, is an authorized insurer in Florida. On April 13, 1988, TAC entered into a contract with Life & Health to market and service group health insurance. The term of that contract was for four years and one month. Life & Health attempted to terminate its Administrator Agreement with TAC by letter dated March 16, 1989, effective immediately. The date on which the responsibilities under that Administrator Agreement terminated, if ever, is an issue in dispute between Life & Health and TAC. The Department takes no position on that issue. That issue is the subject of a civil lawsuit filed in Broward County, between Life & Health and TAC, which is currently being litigated. Although Life & Health's original position was that the contract between it and TAC terminated as of March 16, 1989, that position apparently changed because Life & Health continued paying claims up to July 1, 1989. TAC's position was that Life & Health's responsibilities under that contract did not terminate until September 26, 1989, when George Washington, an authorized group health insurance carrier in Florida, agreed to assume the risk for the block of business retroactive to July 1, 1989. TAC could have obtained a replacement carrier earlier than September 26, 1989, if the Department had advised TAC and Zalis as to the procedure involved to allow Summit Homes, an authorized property and casualty insurer, to broaden the scope of its certificate of authority to include group health insurance. The simple procedure could have been accomplished in as little as 24 to 48 hours. A group health insurance carrier remains on the risk to its policyholders until there has been a valid cancellation or termination of that coverage. In the pending Circuit Court litigation between Life & Health and TAC, the validity of the termination or cancellation and the date of same are ultimate issues in that law suit and have not yet been determined by the Court. On March 27, 1989, Life & Health sent a letter to agents informing them of its termination of its relationship with TAC and that it would not accept any new business written after March 16, 1989. The evidence in this cause, however, indicates that Life & Health did continue to accept new business after that date. The Department became aware of the dispute between Life & Health and TAC on June 8, 1989. The Department knew as of July 12, 1989, that TAC was continuing to write business on Life & Health "paper." At some point after the attempted March 16, 1989, termination of the contract by Life & Health, TAC and Life & Health informally agreed to a July 1, 1989, date after which Life & Health would no longer be responsible for any claims and TAC would have a replacement insurer in place to take over the block of business. That agreement was based upon TAC and Life & Health each agreeing to cooperate with each other and to take certain actions to facilitate the transfer of the book of business. Both the Department and the Circuit Court were aware of the informal agreement whereby Life & Health agreed to remain on the risk for the block of business at least through July 1, 1989, and Zalis and TAC would issue no further policies on Life & Health "paper" and would not remain involved in the processing or payment of claims after July 1, 1989. Prior to July 12, 1989, those matters required to take place in connection with the July 1, 1989, "cutoff" date had not been accomplished, and Zalis and TAC continued writing new business on Life & Health "paper" believing that Life & Health was still legally responsible. Zalis informed the Department's investigator on July 12, 1989, that he was writing and that he intended to continue to write new business on Life & Health "paper." No evidence was presented to show that the Department notified Zalis or TAC that they could not do so, and the Department took no action to stop that activity. Additionally, Life & Health took no action to enjoin TAC or Zalis from writing new business on Life & Health "paper." The evidence does suggest that Life & Health may have continued to accept the benefits and liabilities. The premiums for policies written by TAC on Life & Health "paper" after July 1, 1989, were not forwarded to Life & Health; rather, they were retained by TAC in a trust account. Zalis and TAC offered to deposit those monies with the Circuit Court in which the litigation between TAC and Life & Health was pending or to transmit those monies to the Department to insure that the monies would be available for the payment of claims. Pursuant to an agreement with the Department, the monies representing those premium payments were transmitted to the Department On September 26, 1989, George Washington Insurance Company, an authorized health insurance company in the State of Florida, agreed to take over the block of business from Life & Health, retroactive to July 1, 1989. Life & Health, however, had not yet signed the assumption agreement to transfer its responsibility to George Washington Insurance Company as of the time of the final hearing in this cause. TAC and Zalis did not place any Florida insurance business with any companies not authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent Zalis has been in the insurance business for 26 years and enjoys a good reputation for honesty and integrity. Zalis and TAC have never had prior administrative action taken against them. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, there had been no Circuit Court determination of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Life & Health's termination of the Administrators Agreement nor of the date of that termination, if any.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and dismissing the Order to Show Cause filed against them. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 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 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5981 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6-9, 14-17, 20, 21, and 25-27 have been adopted either in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 5 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13, and 22 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 19 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 18, 23, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter D. Ostreich, Esquire Office of Treasurer and Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Jerome H. Shevin, Esquire Wallace, Engels, Pertnoy, Martin, & Solowsky, P.A. CenTrust Financial Center 21st Floor 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Davis, Marks & Rutledge, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Barrett Chambers Miller, was licensed as an agent with Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company in the State of Florida. On March 11, 1981, Respondent signed a Combination Agent's Contract Form 1-7759 with the Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company. Part I, Article 2, of the contract requires the agent to "pay over all monies collected to the manager of the district" or to his representative and forbids the agent to retain any monies collected for any purpose. Part I, Article 1, of the contract requires the agent to "keep true records of the business on the books [and] to forward to the company on company forms a true account each week of his business. Among the "company forms" routinely used by agents in the conduct of their business are: (1) the Premium Receipt Book, (2) the Collection Book, (3) the Ordinary Remittance Report, (4) the Field Accounting Route List, and (5) the Balance Due Account Deficiency Sheet. The Premium Receipt Book is used to record the premium paid by the policyholder; is annotated whenever a premium is paid; and bears the premium paid, the date paid, and the signature or initials of the agent receiving the payment. The Collection Book page bears the name and address of the premium payer, the policy number(s), the type of plan, some statistics as to the insured, the death benefit, and the date on which the premium is paid each month. The Ordinary Remittance Report carries, as to each policy on the agent's debit (list of policyholders to be serviced), an account of the periodic premium collections recorded during the week covered by the report. The Field Accounting Route List is used by the agent to indicate weekly collections on weekly premium payments, and the Balance Due Account Deficiency Sheet is used to charge back deficiencies to the agent's account that are found in his collections turned in weekly. Count I: On May 26, 1981, Annie McKibben, owner of Policies A 39189 on the life of Carol L. Cox, A 39190 on the life of Ronny Cox, Jr., and A 39191 on the life of Stacey Cox, paid to the Respondent by check payable to Independent Life the amount of $13.96, total premium for the three policies listed. The premium card for that policy reflects an altered payment of $13.98 with the signature "B. C. Miller" for the May 1981 payment on the 26th of that month. The Collection Book page reflects collection on May 26, 1981. The Ordinary Remittance Report for the week of May 25, 1981, shows collection of $13.96. There is no Field Accounting Route List in evidence for this account, but the Balance Due Account Deficiency Sheet for the week of August 17, 1981, reflects deficiencies for money not turned in for all three policies for the collections made thereon on May 26, 1981. The check with which Mrs. McKibben paid the premiums in question was subsequently deposited to the account of Independent Life at the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville. Respondent denies any wrongful withholding on this account. Count II: On some date in June, 1981, Wilma L. Robinson, owner of Policies B 03628 and A 67660, both in her name, wrote Check No. 348 on the Flagship Bank of Jacksonville in the amount of $48.68, payable to Independent Life Insurance and reflecting the notation "Ins. June." Someone, she is not sure who, gave that check to a representative of the company. Her payment book reflects a payment of $23.03 received by B. C. Miller on June 16, 1981. The Collection Book reflects collection on June 16, 1981. The Remittance Report reflects collection on June 16, 1981. The Deficiency Account Sheet, however, reflects a deficiency for money not turned in in the total amount of $23.03. Mrs. Robinson is not sure to whom her check was given. She was sick during that period, and it may be that her husband actually delivered the check; and in early 1981, she began mailing her payment checks in. However, to the best of her knowledge, she had never seen Respondent until he came to her home on January 4, 1983. Count III: In June, 1981, Mrs. Evelyn Reynolds had four policies with Independent Life: 017872 on Debbie Spivey, A0037496 on Angela Reynolds, A0010351 on Sherry D. Reynolds, and A14776 on Robert Reynolds. Though she cannot identify to whom she made her payment that month, her routine practice was to make the payment monthly, sometimes by check and sometimes by cash. On some occasions, Respondent and a Mr. McGroarty from the company both came to get her payment. On some occasions, she left the payment with her mother and does not know to whom it was made. Mrs. Reynolds' payment book shows a payment of $24.02 made on June 9, 1981, with the initials "BCM" reflected in the block for the signature of the agent. The Collection Book page shows collection on June 9, 1981; and the Remittance Report does as well, but the Deficiency Sheet shows a deficiency of $24.02 for monies not turned in but collected that date. Mr. Miller unequivocally denies the initials in the payment book were put there by him, nor was any entry on the Collection Book page relating to this account put there by him. Count IV: Mrs. Evie Bennett does not recognize the Respondent. She has only seen him once before in her life, on New Year's Day, 1983, when he came to her house. She did not meet with him on August 4, 1981, and did not make any payments to him. Her payment book for Policy No. B0000499 in her name reflects a premium payment in the amount of $9.51 made on August 4, 1981; and the entry in the block for the signature of the agent reads "Receipt Miller." The Collection Book page for this account reflects a collection on August 4, 1981, of $9.51. Other pertinent documents reflect a deficiency by reason of monies not turned in of $9.51 for this collection. Mr. Miller denies the entries in both the Payment Receipt Book and the Field Report were made by him. Mr. Edward Cooper owned Policies 05 18285A on Edward Thomas; and 0536115A and 0536115B, both on Mary Cooper. He normally paid his premiums by check once a month to whatever agent came to collect. He does not know to whom he made the payment on July 7, 1981, nor does he know whether he paid on that day by check or cash, notwithstanding his written statement on November 24, 1981, witnessed by Mr. Pat McGroarty, indicates he paid the payments on his Premium Receipt Book to the Respondent. The payment card for these policies reflects that on July 7, 1981, an individual who used the signature "B. C. Miller" received payment of $20.80, representing premiums of $4.16 for each of five weeks including June 29, 1981; July 6, 1981; July 13, 1981; July 20, 1981; and July 27, 1981. The Field Accounting Route List for this Respondent in the period in question reflects a remittance of $16.64 with a shortage of $4.61, which shortage is also reflected on the deficiency page. Mr. Miller admits the signature on the payment card is his, but contends the card was altered. Mr. Kerry Fossett is a field auditor for Independent Life Insurance Company and in November, 1981, was requested to conduct an audit of Respondent's agency. As a part of the audit, he checked policyholders' receipt books and compared them to the agent's account. His audit showed discrepancies on 19 premium receipt cards for a total shortage of $141.75, of which amount the sum of $100.98 occurred when Respondent had the agency. The remainder of the shortage occurred either before or after Mr. Miller was in the job. During the course of the audit, Mr. Fossett found at least one instance where Mr. McGroarty made a collection on Mr. Miller's account and failed to turn it in. In the opinion of the auditor, the shortages in the account of $30 before Mr. Miller took over, when it was handled by Mr. McGroarty, were theft. Mr. McGroarty was discharged from employment with Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company approximately one week after the audit was completed. Mr. Baucom, assistant vice president of the company and custodian of the personnel records, indicated the audit done on Respondent's records revealed a shortage of $361.50. This was subsequently adjusted to $126.18 as a result of the company withholding commissions due Respondent. On February 4, 1983, Mr. Baucom wrote to the Department of Insurance, State of Florida, requesting to withdraw a charge of deficiency against Respondent previously submitted on December 7, 1981, on the basis that the company was not satisfied with the documentation of the alleged deficiency. Thereafter, on April 5, 1982, he again wrote the Department of Insurance reinstating the charge based upon subsequent receipt of "satisfactory documentation" and Mr. Miller's "attitude." Gracie Williams, a policyholder with Independent Life, experienced somewhat of a problem with the company when she and her husband tore down a house on which they had been paying premiums. When the house was removed, they mentioned the fact to Mr. McGroarty, but he did nothing about it. As a result, they paid several months' premiums on property that did not exist. In fact, when Respondent complained about this to Mr. McGroarty, he was told to collect the money or McGroarty would take it from another policy. Jennie L. Wilder also had difficulties on her policy with Independent Life's agent named "Alligood" (sic). She had paid her premiums for six months in advance, but because the agent delayed remitting the premium, she got credit for only three months. On the other hand, Catherine C. DiPerna and her husband have been insured with Independent Life for quite a while. Part of that time, the Respondent was her agent/collector. On June 16, 1981, just about the time of the other alleged shortages in Respondent's remittances, she paid her premium payment to Mr. Miller by check. The check was cashed, she did not receive a notice of lapsed policy, nor did she have any problem with her policy, even though on the Ordinary Remittance Report for the same period used by the Petitioner in the allegations relating to Mrs. Robinson shows no money received from the DiPernas. On March 11, 1981, upon the recommendation of Mr. R. Brenner, an investigator with the Department of Insurance, Respondent went to work for Independent Life as a debit agent in Jacksonville, Florida, under the supervision of Mr. Pat McGroarty, who, also, had had the debit (account) before. After the basic company indoctrination course, Respondent underwent on-the-job training under McGroarty. He never, during the entire time he worked for the company, accepted total responsibility for the account because, in his opinion, there were large discrepancies between the premium receipt cards and the company records when he was assigned the account. Respondent discussed these difficulties with McGroarty and other officials of the company, such as Mr. Ivanoski, Mr. Tharpe, and Mr. Baucom. In April, 1981, Miller saw that his signature as agent was forged on a policy owned by the Petitioner's witness Cooper on the life of Cooper's nephew, Edward Thomas, who, at all times pertinent, was an inmate in the state penitentiary. When Respondent mentioned this to McGroarty, McGroarty told him that Cooper had forged the names and Respondent was with McGroarty when he delivered the policy to Cooper. This is one of the policies which form the allegation in Count V of the Complaint and about which there is an obvious alteration on the Premium Receipt Book showing an increase in the weekly premium of one cent because of a change from a health policy to a life policy. Other difficulties with this particular account were brought by Miller to the attention of the district manager who forced McGroarty to make up the shortage from his own pocket. During a part of the time Respondent worked with the company, he also handled fire policies on a temporary license. He found so many irregularities and such out-and-out corruption, he states, that he intentionally failed the state examination for an industrial fire license. Even after instructions came from the home office terminating Respondent's work in fire insurance, the district manager instructed him to continue to collect fire premiums and turn them over to McGroarty. As a result of all of this, deficiencies show up on his fire accounts for periods after the time he ceased fire business. In fact, documents show collections by Miller on his accounts, even after he left the employ of the company. Respondent unequivocally denies any wrongdoing with regard to his accounts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent dated August 27, 1982, and amended on September 24 and December 28, 1982, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Rhoda Smith Kibler, Esquire David Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S. Perry Penland, Esquire Penland, McCranie & Shad, P.A. Suite 1103, Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 The Honorable Bill Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to remit premiums or submit applications for insurance; misappropriated and converted funds for her own use and benefit or unlawfully withheld monies belonging to insureds as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein signed August 2, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Margaret Ann Edwards, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as a health insurance agent, and was so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. During times material, Respondent served as a general agent for LHCA. Respondent operated through a corporate entity known as Chartered Financial Advisors, Inc., which served as a clearing house for insurance agents. Insurance agents who operate as general agents are well versed in operating an insurance agency. On or about March 4, 1991, LHCA and Respondent entered into an agency agreement whereby Respondent agreed to solicit insurance products on behalf of LHCA. The agreement provided in relevant part: (2) ACCOUNTING All monies received for the Company by the General Agent for premiums, by reason of this Agreement, shall belong to the Company and shall be received and held by the General Agent in a fiduciary capacity only. The initial premiums shall be forthwith paid and delivered to Chartered Financial Advisors, Inc. All other premiums shall be forthwith paid and delivered to the Company. (5) INDEBTEDNESS If the Company, for any reason, refunds the premium on any Authorized Policy solicited by the General Agent, Representatives or employees, the General Agent shall refund to the Company any monies received by the General Agent, Representatives or employees by reason of the payment of such premiums. To the extent not refunded, said amount shall constitute an indebtedness by the General Agent to the Company. Prior to its agreement with LHCA, Respondent had been involved in the insurance business for an extended period of time and was familiar with the duties and obligations of a general agent. General agents who have good credit histories are granted "netting" authority. Netting authority is a procedure whereby the agent is given the authority to receive gross premiums from applicants for insurance and to withhold their net "commissions" from the gross premiums and remit the balance, or net premiums, to the company (LHCA). Respondent maintained a business bank account with Barnett Bank, and she was the sole signator on that account. The account was used to conduct her insurance business and to implement the netting authority arrangement that she had with LHCA. During August, 1992, LHCA became increasingly concerned about Respondent's failure to timely remit premiums due to LHCA on policies issued by the company, as well as premium refunds not being made by the Respondent to insurance consumers. LHCA made Respondent aware of these concerns by telephonic messages and by written communiques. LHCA's concerns about Respondent were not resolved and during January, 1993, LHCA terminated its agency agreement with Respondent. After termination of the agency agreement, LHCA was contacted by insurance consumers, Austin Jenkins, Bernice Caldwell, Mrs. Robert Bolling, and Robert Stopford about either policies that they had applied for and had never received or about policies which they were desirous of cancelling and/or obtaining a refund. LHCA demanded an explanation from Respondent about the complaints from the referenced consumers. Respondent thereafter sent a check to LHCA in the amount of $9,841.02 which Respondent represented as being owed to LHCA for the premium payments for insurance applications previously solicited and sold to the consumers. Respondent's check, which represented the refund of net premiums which was due and owing to LHCA, did not clear the bank and was returned for insufficient funds. Jonathan Miller of LHCA contacted the Respondent and attempted to amicably resolve the matter. Respondent advised Miller to redeposit the check as the funds were now in her account. Miller followed Respondent's directive and the check failed to clear the bank the second time due to insufficient funds. Miller did not authorize Respondent to cover refunds by using net commissions which were owed to LHCA. During this period, LHCA began receiving numerous inquiries from additional insurance consumers about the status of health insurance policies purchased through Respondent or her subagents, but for which the company had no record and had received no net premiums. The number of policies involved was approximately twelve. LHCA conducted an investigation and instructed the inquiring consumers to provide, among other things, proof of payment and other pertinent evidence to substantiate their claims. As a result, LHCA refunded premium payments to each individual consumer, including consumers Jenkins, Caldwell, Bolling, and Stopford. Austin Jenkins made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA through a subagent of Respondent and tendered a check in the amount of $3,868.00 made payable to LHCA. This check was deposited into Respondent's business account maintained at Barnett Bank. Bernice Caldwell, another consumer, also made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA through a subagent under contract with Respondent, and tendered a check in the amount of $7,072.00 made payable to LHCA. The check was deposited into Respondent's business account with Barnett Bank. Robert Bolling made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA of America, through a subagent under contract with Respondent, and tendered two checks in the amounts of $3,195.68 and $2,525.20, respectively, made payable to LHCA. These two checks were deposited into Respondent's business bank account maintained at Barnett Bank. Robert Stopford made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA through a subagent under contract with Respondent, and tendered a check in the amount of $3,996.20 made payable to LHCA. This check was also deposited into the business bank account maintained by Respondent at Barnett Bank. All of the above mentioned checks were negotiated and cleared their respective banks. The funds were thereafter transferred and credited to Respondent's business bank account maintained at Barnett. Insurance consumers Jenkins, Caldwell, Bolling, and Stopford intended their checks to be the initial premium for insurance policies which they applied for with LHCA. LHCA never received any applications for insurance or premium payments from Respondent on behalf of the above named consumers. The premium refunds made by LHCA to insurance consumers, Jenkins, Caldwell, Bolling, and Stopford were reflected on Respondent's account current statements with LHCA. As of December 31, 1993, Respondent owed LHCA the sum of $53,227.65. This sum represented premiums received by Respondent for insurance policies, but which remained unremitted to LHCA. LHCA has demanded payment from Respondent for the above refunds without success. In an attempt to recover its funds paid on behalf of Respondent, LHCA filed a civil suit in Sarasota County Circuit Court, Case No. 93-003262-CI-018. On March 9, 1994, a Summary Final Judgement was entered in the circuit court case filed against Respondent in the amount of $53,225.43. As of the date of hearing, the judgment remains unsatisfied. Respondent was involved in an automobile accident during April, 1992. The accident was the source of injuries to Respondent and limited her ability to actively engage in the operation of her agency. Under the subagency agreement Respondent utilized to hire subagents, Respondent kept approximately fifty-three percent (53 percent) of the net commission and she paid her agents amounts ranging from forty-seven percent (47 percent) up to, and in some cases, sixty percent (60 percent) of the net commissions that she received. When policies were cancelled and the subagents refused to return the premiums which they had been advanced, Respondent found herself financially unable to remit the payments either to the insureds or to LHCA as demanded. Respondent contends that Miller advised her to pay refunds from other net commissions due LHCA. As noted, Miller denies making any agreement with Respondent to use LHCA's net funds. Respondent's contention that she was told by LHCA's representative, Jonathan Miller, to deduct company net premiums from other policies to pay for refunds that were due to other consumers is not credible. In this regard, the agency agreement between Respondent and LHCA provides the procedure whereby LHCA was entitled to a refund from any premiums advanced on behalf of any authorized policies solicited by any general agent, as Respondent, or Respondent's representatives or employees. This procedure is set forth in subparagraph 5 of the agency agreement in effect between Respondent and LHCA. Additionally, the accounting procedures section of the agreement between Respondent and LHCA clearly states that all monies received for the company, as LHCA, by the general agent (Respondent) for premiums, by reason of their agreement, belong to LHCA and shall be received and held by the general agent in a fiduciary capacity only. Given these clear provisos in the agreement between the parties, Respondent's contention that she had entered into other oral agreements with LHCA for return of the premiums does not withstand scrutiny and is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licenses be suspended for nine (9) months, pursuant to Rule 4-231.080, Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order requiring that Respondent make satisfactory restitution to Life and Health Insurance Company of America prior to any request for reinstatement of her insurance licenses as authorized pursuant to s. 626.641, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of October, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX to RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5080 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 20, adopted as modified, paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 22 and 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 18 and 22, Recommended Order. Paragraph 24, rejected, legal argument and/or conclusionary. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1, adopted as relevant, paragraph 10-13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 6, adopted as modified, paragraph 3, Recommended Order. Paragraph 9, rejected, as a restatement of testimony. Paragraph 10, adopted as modified, paragraphs 1 and 3, Recommended Order. Paragraph 14, rejected, irrelevant and not probative. Paragraphs 16 and 18, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 8 and 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 21-26, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 2,5,7, and 23, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 27 and 28, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 19 and 20, Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 John L. Maloney, Esquire 5335 66th Street North, Suite 4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33709 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner became employed by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Weights, on November 5, 1982. Upon being accepted for employment Petitioner completed and submitted to proper authorities the forms necessary to be covered by the State's group health insurance program and authorized the appropriate deductions from his salary to cover the premiums. On several occasions, he and his wife inquired through the Department of Transportation regarding their failure to receive an insurance card. Each time they were told the insurance card would be forthcoming and only administrative delays in processing the application were causing the delay. During this time no deductions were being taken from Petitioner's pay. In June, 1983 Petitioner incurred two doctor bills for his wife and son (Exhibit 1) in the total amount of $50, of which he paid $10 with the remainder forwarded to Blue Cross and Blue Shield who administers the state's health insurance plan. Blue Cross and Blue Shield had no record of Petitioner's insurance and the claim was denied. Petitioner paid the additional $40 charges. Although evidence was not submitted to show why Petitioner's application was not properly processed or what finally got this application back on track, the proper steps were finally taken and Petitioner was credited with having been covered with health insurance in accordance with his application from December 1982 and billed for premiums due from that date. This resulted in the assessment by the state of $436.14 for back premiums. Since he was not on the Blue Cross register in June 1983, Petitioner contests the assessment as a condition to remaining a participating member in the state health insurance program.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint; and If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent's Licensure Status Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-licensed life and health insurance agent. Counts I through VI At all times material to the instant case, Peter DeBello, Inc., d/b/a Emery Richardson Insurance (Corporation), a Florida corporation owned by Respondent's father, operated a general lines insurance agency (Emery Richardson Insurance) located in the state of Florida. The Corporation was formed to manage the assets of Emery Richardson, Inc., which assets Respondent's father had obtained through litigation. Respondent's father delegated to Respondent the authority to manage the affairs of the Corporation. The same day (in 1992) that the Corporation took possession of Emery Richardson, Inc.'s assets, it so notified the Department of Insurance (Department) by telephone. Shortly thereafter, Leo Joy, a Florida-licensed property and casualty insurance agent since 1961, was designated on a Department- provided form as the primary agent for Emery Richardson Insurance at its 240 Commercial Boulevard location in Lauderdale By The Sea, Florida, and the completed form was provided to the Department.3 At no time prior to the commencement of the instant administrative proceeding did Respondent himself personally notify the Department of the identity of Emery Richardson Insurance's primary agent. It was Mr. Joy who (in 1992) filled out the primary agent designation form and submitted it to the Department. Mr. Joy, however, did so on behalf of Respondent, who had verbally designated Mr. Joy as Emery Richardson Insurance's primary agent. Neither Respondent, Mr. Joy, nor any one else, has subsequently used the Department's primary agent designation form to advise the Department of Mr. Joy's continuing status as Emery Richardson Insurance's primary agent. In his capacity as president of the Corporation, Respondent, on behalf of the Corporation, in April of 1994, entered into an agreement (Agreement) with Ulico Casualty Company of Washington, D.C. (Ulico), which provided as follows: WHEREAS, the Applicant (Corporation), a licensed insurance agent and/or insurance broker, has heretofore obtained from the COMPANY (Ulico) or is desirous of obtaining from the COMPANY the placement of insurance for the Applicant's customers or principals, and WHEREAS, the COMPANY, using its facilities, has placed insurance for the Applicant or with whom Applicant has requested the placement of such insurance, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. It is mutually AGREED as follows: With reference to the placement of new insurance, Applicant shall submit to the COMPANY a separate application containing the name of each prospective insured, describing the risk to be considered for underwriting and binding. Applicant specifically understands and agrees that Applicant shall have no authority to authorize or write any insurance or bind any risk on behalf of the COMPANY without the prior written approval by a duly authorized representative of the COMPANY. With respect to any insurance heretofore placed with the COMPANY by the Applicant, and with respect to any insurance hereinafter placed by the Applicant, all premiums shall be payable to the COMPANY and such Applicant assumes and agrees to pay the COMPANY premiums on all the policies of insurance heretofore or hereinafter placed by Applicant with the COMPANY in accordance with the current statements rendered to the Applicant by the COMPANY, such payment to be made no later than 30 days after the month of issue of the insurance policy, or due date of any installment if issued on an installment basis, less any credits due to the Applicant for return premium, provided an appropriate credit memorandum therefor has previously been issued by the COMPANY to Applicant. In the absence of such credit memorandum, Applicant shall have no right of counterclaim or setoff with respect to any claimed credits due, but shall be required to establish entitlement to the same in a separate action. Applicant shall have the right, so long as Applicant is not indebted to the COMPANY, to deduct agreed upon commissions on each policy of insurance prior to remitting the remaining premium to the COMPANY. In the event that premiums on behalf of any insured party shall have been financed and refund of financed premiums are required from the COMPANY to the financing institution, Applicant shall forthwith refund and pay to the COMPANY all unearned commissions heretofore received with respect to such financed premiums. In the event that Applicant shall fail to make any payment to the COMPANY which is required to be made pursuant to this Agreement, within the time specified, the COMPANY shall have the right, at any time subsequent to the due date of payment, to cancel any policy on which the premium payments have not been remitted to the COMPANY, without prior notice to the Applicant, by sending notice of cancellation directly to the insured, except that Applicant shall continue to remain liable to the COMPANY for the payment of all premiums earned as of the date of cancellation which are collected by Applicant. Applicant represents that they are duly licensed as an insurance broker or agent for Casualty and Property Insurance as indicated in the States set forth below, and agrees that in the event that any license shall cease, terminate or be cancelled, that the Applicant will promptly notify the COMPANY accordingly. Applicant agrees, where required, to file at Applicant's expense, all necessary affidavits and collect all State or local premium taxes and to pay the same promptly to the respective taxing authorities on all insurance placed with the COMPANY, in accordance with the laws applicable in the State of licensing. No changes or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless such change or modification is subscribed, in writing, by the COMPANY and Applicant. Ulico is one of approximately 47 insurance companies that Emery Richardson Insurance represents. In the past five years, Emery Richardson Insurance has received from clients in excess of seven or eight million dollars in premium payments, which it has deposited in its various checking accounts and then paid over to these insurance companies. Ulico is the only one of these 47 insurance companies to have experienced "problems" in receiving from Emery Richardson Insurance monies due. These "problems" are detailed below. On June 13, 1994, the Corporation opened a checking account (account no. 458-902279-9, hereinafter referred to as the "Account") with Savings of America at the bank's Hollywood, Florida, branch. The Peter Debello described on the signature card for the Account was Respondent's father. Respondent's father, however, through execution of a power of attorney, had authorized Respondent to act on his behalf in connection with the Account. On August 20, 1996, Respondent drafted and signed four checks drawn on the Account, which were made payable to Ulico: check no. 804, in the amount of $1,729.15, for "Teamsters #769, Policy #BOU 907"; check no. 805, in the amount of $1,071.65, for "Sheet Metal Appr. #32, Policy #CLU 668"; check no. 806, in the amount of $700.00, for "Sheet Metal #32, Policy #CLU 682"; and check no. 807, in the amount of $96.05, for "Painters L.U. 160, Policy #CLU 451." (These policies will hereinafter be referred to as the "Subject Policies.") On January 24, 1997, Respondent drafted and signed a check (check no. 882) drawn on the Account, in the amount of $7,500.00, which was also made payable to Ulico. Check nos. 804, 805, 806, 807,4 and 882 were sent to Ulico as payment for monies the Corporation owed Ulico (pursuant to the Agreement) for insurance coverage obtained from Ulico by the Corporation for its clients (as reflected in invoices Ulico sent the Corporation, which hereinafter will be referred to as the "Subject Invoices").5 At the time that he drafted and signed these checks and submitted them to Ulico, Respondent assumed that there were sufficient funds in the Account to cover the amounts of the checks. In drafting and signing these checks and submitting them to Ulico, Respondent did not make any statements or representations that he knew to be false or misleading. All five checks were returned by Savings of America unpaid, with the explanation, "insufficient funds," stamped on each check.6 (These checks will hereinafter be referred to as the "Dishonored Checks.") Ulico's premium collection manager, Gayle Shuler, spoke with Respondent, as well as with Mr. Joy, "many times" concerning the monies the Corporation owed Ulico. At no time did either Respondent or Mr. Joy indicate that they disputed the Subject Invoices7 (although Respondent and Mr. Joy did contest other invoices that they received from Ulico). Although aware that the Dishonored Checks had been returned due to insufficient funds8 and knowing that Ulico desired payment, Respondent failed to act promptly to remedy the situation. It was not until early 1998, after the commencement of the instant administrative proceeding, that Respondent, on behalf of the Corporation, took steps to address the matter. At that time, using Fidelity Express money orders purchased between February 26, 1998, and March 1, 1998, (which Respondent dated August 26, 1996), Respondent paid Ulico a portion ($1,867.70) of the total amount of the Dishonored Checks. The money orders were sent to Ulico by certified mail, along with a cover letter from Respondent. Respondent "backdated" the money orders to reflect "when [the monies owed Ulico] should have been" paid. He did so without any intent to mislead or deceive. There is no clear and convincing evidence that anyone other than Ulico was injured by Respondent's failure to timely pay over to Ulico the monies Emery Richardson Insurance had received from its clients for the Subject Policies (which monies belonged to Ulico). Respondent's failure to timely make such payments, it appears, was the product of isolated instances of carelessness, neglect and inattention on Respondent's part,9 which, when considered in light of the totality of circumstances, including his problem-free dealings with the other insurance companies Emery Richardson Insurance represents, were not so serious as to demonstrate a lack of fitness, trustworthiness or competency to engage in transactions authorized by his license. Count VII In August of 1986, Respondent visited Gary Faske, Esquire, at Mr. Faske's office in Dade County, Florida. The purpose of the visit was to have Mr. Faske complete the paperwork necessary to add Mr. Faske to his new employer's group major medical insurance policy with Union Bankers Insurance Company. After the paperwork was completed, Respondent left Mr. Faske's office with the completed paperwork, as well as a check from Mr. Faske's employer to cover the cost of adding Mr. Faske to the group policy.10 It is unclear what Respondent did with the paperwork and check after he left Mr. Faske's office. In October of that same year (1986), Mr. Faske took ill and had to be hospitalized on an emergency basis. He assumed that he was covered by his employer's group major medical insurance policy, but he subsequently learned that he was wrong and had to pay between $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 in medical bills. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent (as opposed to Union Bankers Insurance Company or some other party) was responsible for Mr. Faske not having such coverage. Mr. Faske thereafter filed suit against Respondent and Union Bankers Insurance Company in Dade County Circuit Court. He settled his claim against the insurance company, but was unable to reach an agreement with Respondent. Respondent's case therefore went to trial, following which, on August 12, 1997, a Final Judgment11 was entered against Respondent in the amount of $40,271.00.12 Count VIII By filing an Address Correction Request, dated January 29, 1992, Respondent notified the Department that his new mailing address was 40 Hendricks Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Department subsequently sent a letter, dated April 14, 1995, to Respondent at this 40 Hendricks Isle address. Respondent, however, "had just moved from that address," and the letter was returned to the Department stamped, "forward expired." In May of 1995, Respondent advised the Department in writing of his new mailing address. It is unclear whether such written notification was given more than, or within, 30 days from the date Respondent had moved to his new address.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations noted in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by suspending his license for 18 months; and (3) dismissing the remaining allegations of misconduct advanced in the First Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of February, 1999.
