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
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as an Ordinary Life, Disability and a General Lines agent should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for reasons set forth hereinafter by the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner on September 24, 1982. EXHIBITS The following exhibits were made part of the record: An Insurance Binder dated October 7, 1980, issued to Colon Aveiga by Center Insurance Agency, Inc., and signed by Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $554 for an auto insurance policy issued by Dixie Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 53). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated October 10, 1980, signed by Colon Aveiga and Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $514 (Petitioner's Exhibit 44). An Insurance Binder dated April 20, 1981, issued to Colon Aveiga and signed by Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $767 credit for premiums paid and $299 for premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 56). A copy of a cancelled personal check (numbered 128) written by Colon Aveiga, dated April 20, 1981, made payable to Metro Insurance Agency in the amount of $299 for payment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 57). A Notice of Cancellation of a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy dated March 25, 1981, and issued to Colon Aveiga for nonpayment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 52). An Amended Fireman's Fund Auto Insurance Policy dated February 6, 1981, issued to Colon Aveiga and showing a premium adjustment of $271 due (Petitioner's Exhibit 49). A Fireman's Fund Interoffice Memo dated March 23, 1981, written by Albert Sons, FJUA Underwriting Manager for Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, discussing Colon Aveiga's insurance policy application (Petitioner's Exhibit 42). A Fireman's Fund FJUA Underwriters Request for Information from Metro Insurance Agency regarding Colon Aveiga, dated December 1, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 46) A Fireman's Fund Underwriting memo dated January 14, 1981, requesting information about Colon Aveiga from Metro Insurance Agency and containing a new address for Colon Aveiga (Petitioner's Exhibit 47). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Gaston Aveiga's certified driving record, dated September 16, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 43). An Insurance Binder dated October 2, 1980, issued to Marc Gavidia by Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins, evidencing a payment of $140 for an auto insurance policy issued by Fireman's Fund (Petitioner's Exhibit 97). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement dated October 23, 1980, issued to Marc Gavidia by the Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 98). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Marc Gavidia's certified driving record, dated September 16, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 99). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated October 9, 1980, signed by Marc Gavidia and Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 101). A Policy Change Request for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated February 10, 1981, issued by Metro Insurance Agency, signed by Jon Scott Robbins, concerning Marc Gavidia's policy and listing his address as 5361 S.E. 11th Street, Tallahassee, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 111). A Notice of Cancellation of Marc Gavidia's auto insurance policy, dated February 27, 1981, issued by Fireman's Fund and citing material misrepresentation as the grounds for the cancellation (Petitioner's Exhibit 112). A copy of a cancelled personal check (No. 1726) written by Juana Perez, dated March 12, 1981, made payable to Metro Insurance Agency in the amount of $299 for payment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 62). An Insurance Binder dated March 12, 1981, issued to Rogelio Perez by Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins, evidencing auto insurance coverage by Utah Home Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 63). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement dated March 12, 1981, issued to Rogelio Perez by Metro Insurance Agency, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 78). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated March 12, 1981, signed by Rogelio Perez and Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 65). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage by Rogelio Perez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $978 (Petitioner's Exhibit 75). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage by Rogelio Perez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $881 (Petitioner's Exhibit 66). A receipt from Luby's Chevrolet of Miami, Florida, showing $1,084 received from Luis G. Capon (Petitioner's Exhibit 80). An Insurance Binder dated January 26, 1981, issued to Luis Capon by Metro Insurance Agency, signed by Jon Scott Robbins and evidencing auto insurance coverage provided by Utah Home Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 81). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy dated January 28, 1981, signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 84). A Policy Change Request for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy stating that Luis Capon's address had been changed to 2560 S.W. 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 86). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Luis Capon's certified driving record, dated September 12, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 79). A cancelled policy advisal dated July 8, 1981, regarding Luis Capon's Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy (Petitioner's Exhibit 90). A letter from Albert M. Sons, dated September 22, 1981, in his capacity as FJUA Manager stating that an inspection by Fireman's Fund established that Luis Capon had not moved to Gainesville, Florida, and that in fact he lived in Miami and was therefore in a higher rating zone (Petitioner's Exhibit 89). An Interoffice Memo from the file of Fireman's Fund dated March 23, 1981, in reference to Luis Capon questioning certain inconsistencies in that individual's application for insurance (Petitioner's Exhibit 83). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated September 10, 1980, issued to Javier Alvarez, showing a signature of "Javier Alvarez" and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage of Javier Alvarez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $737 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). A Return to Sender letter from Fireman's Fund to Javier Alvarez bearing the address of 4902 S.W. 84th Street, Plantation, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). A Fireman's Fund FJUA Underwriters request for Javier Alvarez' correct address, issued to Metro Insurance Agency, dated November 14, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement allegedly signed by Javier Alvarez, issued by Metro Insurance Agency, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 19). A letter from the National Insurance Finance Company to Javier Alvarez, 251 Crandon Boulevard, Miami, Florida, informing Alvarez of dates and terms of due payments (Petitioner's Exhibit 20). Deposition of A. M. Beverly, taken February 22, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). FJUA Rating Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Fireman's Fund FJUA Rating Examination (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). The following witnesses testified on behalf of the Petitioner: Gaston Aveiga, Albert M. Sons, Peter Gavidia, Marc Gavidia, Juana Perez, Luis Capon, and Javier Alvarez. The Respondent testified on his own behalf. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, post-hearing memoranda, documentary evidence received, pre-hearing stipulations and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jon Scott Robbins, was, during times material herein, licensed as an Ordinary Life, Disability and General Lines agent. By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated September 24, 1982, Petitioner, Department of Insurance, charged that the Respondent engaged in the following acts and/or conduct (in summary fashion) which amounts to conduct violative of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, to wit: Respondent failed to account for or pay to the insurer, insured, or other persons entitled to premiums or other funds received belonging to insurers or others in transactions under his license in a fiduciary capacity, in violation of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent diverted or appropriated such funds or portions thereof for his own use, in violation of Section 626.561(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent collected a sum as premium or charge for insurance in excess of or less than the premium or charge applicable to such insurance, in violation of Section 626.9541(15)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent misappropriated, converted, or unlawfully withheld monies belonging to insurers, insureds, beneficiaries, or others received in the conduct of business under his license, in violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly filed with a supervisor or other public official, or made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, or caused directly or indirectly to be filed with a supervisor, or other public official, or made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, any false material statement, in violation of Section 626.9541(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false material statement, in violation of Section 626.9541(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false entry of material fact in a book, report, or statement of any person, or knowingly omitted to make a true entry of a material fact pertaining to the business of such person in a book, report, or statement of such person, in violation of Section 626.9541(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent made false or fraudulent statements or representation on, or relative to, an application for an insurance policy for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money, or other benefit from an insurer, agent, broker or individual, in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false or fraudulent statement or representation in or with reference to an application or negotiation for insurance, in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent willfully violated a provision or provisions of the Insurance Code, in violation of Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Respondent demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices, in violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. Respondent engaged in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts as prohibited under Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. Respondent violated a provision of the Insurance Code, in violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent has shown himself to be a source of injury or loss to the public, or detrimental to the public interest, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. During times material herein, Respondent served as a General Lines agent and represented Fireman's Fund Insurance (Fireman's Fund). The complaint allegations, in summary fashion, may be grouped in two classifications; (1) that Respondent knowingly filed false statements of material facts concerning insureds in an attempt to attract more insureds by offering lower rates and (2) Respondent received premiums from insureds in excess of the actual premiums he submitted to Fireman's Fund and thereby unlawfully appropriated the excess monies to his own use. Albert Sons is the underwriting manager for the Florida Joint Underwriters Association (FJUA) in his capacity for Fireman's Fund and is a direct contact for Fireman's Fund with the Respondent. All FJUA premium rates are identical given the same variables such as age, type of vehicle, use and territory. Any variation of these factors changes the rate in a uniform manner and that change is uniform throughout the industry. As an example, Miami is a substantially higher rated territory than Gainesville (TR 31-32). An insured who cancels his insurance coverage is charged the amount of premium based on the amount of time that the coverage remained in effect plus a service charge exacted by the company for processing the application. Pursuant to negotiations for the purchase of auto insurance, Gaston Aveiga, speaking on behalf of his father Colon Aveiga, informed Respondent of his Florida driver's license number and date of birth. The same information was provided to the Respondent on behalf of Colon Aveiga. Gaston advised the Respondent that he would be the principal driver of the car to be insured. Colon Aveiga purchased an auto insurance policy from the Respondent on October 7, 1980 and was quoted a premium of $544. Colon received an insurance binder from Respondent reflecting his correct address: 1215 NE 110th Street, Miami, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 53). Approximately three days later, an application was made to Fireman's Fund on October 10, 1980, reflecting that Colon Aveiga's address is 1534 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida. The Aveigas have never lived in Gainesville nor have they indicated any intention of moving to Gainesville (TR 15). The insurance application further provides that Colon Aveiga is the only driver of the car and that he had an international drivers license whereas the Aveigas only have Florida driver's licenses; they specifically informed the Respondent of the same and that Gaston would be the principal driver of the insured car. The application submitted to Fireman's Fund on behalf of the Aveigas reflects a total premium of $514 which is, of course, $30 less than the premium quoted and collected from Colon Aveiga. On October 2, 1980, Marc Gavidia, and his father, Peter, purchased an auto insurance policy from the Respondent, doing business as Metro Insurance Agency. 2/ Respondent provided the Gavidias an insurance binder containing their correct address: 10441 SW 50th Street, Miami, Florida and evidencing a payment of $140 towards the balance due (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 97). The insurance was purchased to insure Marc Gavidia's Dodge van of which he was the principal driver. Marc Gavidia purchased the auto insurance from Respondent because of the cheaper rate (TR pp. 41-45). On October 4, 1980, an auto insurance application was tendered to Fireman's Fund on behalf of Marc Gavidia reflecting that he was self-employed (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 101). Marc Gavidia did not list himself as self- employed on the application (TR 49). Marc Gavidia gave Respondent his Florida driver's license which reflected a birth date of February 7, 1960 whereas the application submitted by Respondent on behalf of Marc Gavidia reflects a birth date of February 14, 1950 with a different driver's license number (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 101). On February 14, 1981 Respondent sent a policy change request for Florida auto insurance stating that the insured, Marc Gavidia, transferred schools to Tallahassee and now lives at 5361 SE 11th Street, Tallahassee, Florida (petitioner's Exhibit No. 111). Marc Gavidia has never lived in Tallahassee nor has he communicated to the Respondent any intent of moving to Tallahassee. (TR pp. 49-50). Juana Perez and her husband, Rogelio Perez purchased auto insurance from the Respondent based on the low rate quoted by Respondent. Ms. Perez wrote a check in the amount of $275 payable to Metro Insurance and received an insurance binder (TR pp. 53-54). Ms. Perez gave David Einhorn (a salesman of a local automobile dealership who was representing Respondent) Mr. Perez's Florida driver's license and Mr. Einhorn made a copy of the license (TR p. 56). An application for insurance was submitted to Fireman's Fund on behalf of the Perezes and reflects a total premium of $893. The application states further that the applicant has an international drivers license whereas Mr. Perez has never had an international drivers license (TR p. 59). The application reflects further that Mr. Perez was unemployed whereas he was employed at the time of his application for insurance (TR pp. 59, 63 and 65). An insurance premium finance agreement dated December 30, 1981, entered into by Mr. Perez shows $978 as a total amount of premiums minus the $275 downpayment leaving $704.20 as the amount to be financed (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 78). This represents approximately eighty-five ($85.00) dollars more than the premium sent to Fireman's Fund. On January 28, 1981, Luis Capon, purchased auto insurance from the Respondent and an application was submitted to Fireman's Fund reflecting a total premium of $789. At that time, Luis Capon paid $1,084 in cash to the Metro Insurance Company (TR p. 68). The application submitted by Respondent reflected further that Luis Capon had an international drivers license No. 1581934 and was born on January 15, 1944. At the time Luis Capon made application with the Respondent for auto insurance, he provided his Florida Drivers license which reflected his correct address: 419 NW 15th Avenue, Miami, Florida and his birth date, November 28, 1956 (TR p. 71). A policy change request for Fireman's Fund issued to Luis Capon states that Capon changed his address to 2560 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida. The policy change request form was signed by Respondent. Luis Capon has never lived in Gainesville nor has he evidenced to Respondent any intent of living in Gainesville. Further, Luis Capon has never received any refund from Respondent and in fact had to pay additional premiums (TR p. 73). The additional premium seems to have stemmed from additional violations as reflected by a DMV Driving Report. Javier Alvarez purchased an auto insurance policy from Respondent and was advised that the total cash premium for the policy was $830. Javier Alvarez paid $250 and financed the remaining $580 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19). An application submitted on behalf of Mr. Alvarez reflects a total premium of $730 which was submitted with the application. Mr. Alvarez has not received a refund of the difference in the amount quoted i.e. $830 and the amount $730 actually paid to Fireman's Fund by Respondent. When negotiating for the purchase of the auto insurance policy from the Respondent, Javier Alvarez gave the Respondent his Florida driver's license which contained his license number, birth date and address. The application submitted on behalf of Mr. Alvarez shows a Plantation, Florida address and reflects that Javier Alvarez has a Massachusetts driver's license and a birth date of August 16, 1940 whereas his correct birth date is February 22, 1961 and his address is 251 Crandon Boulevard, Apartment 342, Key Biscayne, Florida (TR p. 106). Mr. Alvarez has never had any address other than the Key Biscayne, Florida address and has never possessed a Massachusetts driver's license. On April 2, 1981, Respondent sent an endorsement request to Fireman's Fund advising that Javier Alvarez had transferred schools and was living in Gainesville, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Javier Alvarez has never attended any school in Gainesville, Florida nor has he indicated to Respondent any intent to do so (TR p. 110). THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION The Respondent testified on his own behalf and has been licensed since 1978. Respondent was first employed as a managing agent and as an underwriter for several years with another agency. During that employment, Respondent did not have the guidance and/or the assistance of a tutor. Respondent acknowledged that there were indeed numerous errors in addresses but he attributes same to the fact that he was a new agent without proper checks and balances in his office at the time, and that he, more than anyone else, was the victim of such mistakes. Respondent points to the fact that he earns commissions based on the amount of premiums and that the lower premiums quoted result in lower commissions to him. Finally, Respondent points to the fact that other agencies such as the chief complaining party in this case, Fireman's Fund, had a greater error ratio than the Respondent in the conduct of its insurance agency and that these errors were the result of sloppy clerical work and language barriers more than any intentional act on Respondent's part. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's insurance license as referred to herein be suspended for a period of two (2) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that eighteen (18) months of the subject suspension be suspended during which time the Respondent's license shall be placed on probation. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 2nd day of September, 1983
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent, James Edward Hickerson, violated the provisions of Chapters 624, 626 and 627, Florida Statutes, by commission or omission of acts as alleged specifically in the Administrative Complaint. The entry of this order was ; delayed by late filing of the transcript and post hearing briefs, the filing time of which was extended by order dated May 19, 1983. Petitioner submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact General Findings At all times relative to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, James Edward Hickerson, was President of the Hickerson Insurance Agency, Inc., located in Winter Haven, Florida, and held licenses as a surplus lines-property casualty and surety surplus lines, ordinary-combination life (including disability insurance) , general lines-property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous, and disability insurance agent issued by the Insurance Commissioner. The Respondent sold Hickerson Insurance Agency, Inc. , to James Hurst, Jr., as of March 1, 1982. Pursuant to their contract for sale, the Respondent remained liable for all business written prior to March 1, 1982, and the conduct of the business affairs of said agency prior to that date. Count I On January 29, 1982, Patricia Ann Haller applied for a bond as a notary at Hickerson Insurance Agency, Inc.(hereinafter, the Hickerson Agency). Haller paid the Hickerson Agency a total of $61 for a notary seal and as premium on said bond. When Haller did not receive the bond and seal, she called the Hickerson Agency and was advised by a secretary that her application had been lost. She received a letter presumably forwarding a new application but which did not contain an enclosed application. When Haller again called the Hickerson Agency, she was advised to come to the agency and sign a new application. Haller went to the agency and signed a second application in February 1982. When she did not receive the bond and seal, after March 1, 1982, she recontacted the agency and at that time spoke with James Hurst, Jr., the new owner. A search of the office records by James Hurst, Jr. and the office staff revealed no record of the Haller transaction with the Hickerson Agency. The company to which application was made for the bond had no record of receiving the application for Haller's bond. Haller advised James Hurst, Jr., that she no longer wanted the bond. Haller never received the bond or a refund of the money she paid to the Hickerson Agency. Under the contract for purchase of the Hickerson Agency, the Respondent received all premiums and was responsible for all money collected on transactions prior to March 1, 1982. The Respondent was responsible for providing Haller's bond and her premiums. Counts II, III, IV, V and VI The Hickerson Agency billed Southern Mortgage Company of Florida, Inc., in the amount of $86 on December 14, 1981, for the renewal of fire insurance in behalf of Pearly Mae Williams. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) The Hickerson Agency billed United Companies Financial Corporation in the amount of $193 on or before February 17, 1982, for the renewal of homeowner's insurance in behalf of Annie N. Bonney. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 15.) The Hickerson Agency billed United Companies Life Insurance Company in the amount of $9 on February 8, 1982, for homeowner's insurance in behalf of Charles or Della M. Byrd. (See Petitioner'S Exhibit 18.) The Hickerson Agency received a check in the amount of $85 from United Companies, Inc., on December 23, 1981, for the payment of fire insurance for Pearly M. Williams. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) United Companies Financial Corporation paid the Hickerson Agency $193 on January 25, 1982, for fire insurance in behalf of Annie M. Bonney. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 16.) United Companies Financial Corporation paid the Hickerson Agency $9 on February 17, 1982, for fire insurance in behalf of Charles Edward Byrd. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 19.) Under the contract agreement between the Hickerson Agency and Independent Fire Insurance Company, the premiums on insurance placed with Independent Fire Insurance Company were due the 15th of the month following the effective date of the insurance coverage. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11.) The insurance for Pearly Mae Williams was renewed on January 31, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) The premium was due and owing and to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on February 15, 1982. Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the fire insurance for Annie N. Bonney on February 17, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 14.) The premium was due and owing and to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on March 15, 1982. Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the insurance of Charles or Della M. Byrd on February 22, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 17.) The premium was due and owing and to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on March 15, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 17.) Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the insurance of Curtis Smith on January 26, 1982, and, pursuant to the Hickerson Agency's agreement with said company, the premium for this insurance was to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on February 15, 1952. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 20.) Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the insurance of Edna T. Tipper on December 14, 1951, and, pursuant to the Hickerson Agency's agreement with said company, the premium for this insurance was due from the Hickerson Agency on January 15, 1952. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 21.) Regarding the insurance of Curtis Smith, there is no evidence that the Hickerson Agency received payment from the insured or the insured's mortgagee. Concerning Edna T. Tipper, there is no evidence that the Hickerson Agency received payment for said insurance from the insured or the insured's mortgagee. A statement of account similar to Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 22, the statement for February 1952, was provided to the Hickerson Agency each month. As of February 25, 1952, premiums were owed for the insurance in effect on Pearly Mae Williams, Edna T. Tipper, Curtis Smith, Charles Byrd and Annie N. Bonney by the Hickerson Agency. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) On July 14, 1952, Independent Fire Insurance Company advised the Respondent at his home address by certified mail that his account with the company was in arrears in the amount of $531.30 and made demand for payment no later than August 3, 1952. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) On July 19, 1952, the Respondent tendered payment to Independent Fire Insurance Company with his check numbered 2343 in the amount of $531.30. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 24.) A letter from Independent Fire Insurance Company reflects that said company has been paid the premiums due on Williams, Tipper, Smith, Byrd and Bonney. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 25.) The Respondent received payments from Williams (Count II), Bonney (Count III) and Byrd (Count IV) with which he was to pay the premiums due on insurance for them. The Respondent did not pay the premiums for these insureds when due, although he had received the money with which to do so. Count VII Jackie Ricks Colson first insured her 1979 Toyota with the Hickerson Agency in March 1979. In March 1980, she renewed the insurance on her car and added her husband's 1978 Pontiac Transam to the policy. In March 1981, having received notice that her automobile insurance required renewal, Mrs. Colson paid $260 as a down payment to the Hickerson Agency and executed a finance agreement to finance the remainder of the premium with Capital Premium Plan. By financing the premium, Capital Premium Plan paid the Hickerson Agency the premium, and Mrs. Colson made payments as required under the financing agreement to Capital Premium Plan. Mrs. Colson made the payments as required from March 1981 through December 31, 1981, at which time she had paid off all but $3.60 of the borrowed amount, which Capital Premium Plan charged off. Although requested many times to provide a copy of the policy by Mr. and Mrs. Colson, the Hickerson Agency did not do so. As a result thereof, the bank financing Mr. Colson's Transam insured that car and charged Mr. Colson for the insurance. The Colsons have never received a policy of insurance on their cars from the Hickerson Agency. The records of the Hickerson Agency do not reflect that any insurance was in effect between March 17, 1981, and September 1981 on the Toyota and November 1981 on the Transam. The Colsons' Toyota was insured on September 28, 1981, for a period of one year with Dixie Insurance Company for a premium charge of $495. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 28.) Their Pontiac Transam was added to said policy by endorsement effective November 27, 1981. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 29.) On September 30, 1981, Mrs. Colson was involved in an auto accident in the Toyota, which suffered major damage. Mrs. Colson was unable to get her car from the garage until December 1981, because the insurance company would not pay for the repairs. Mr. Colson also had difficulty with delay in payment for insured damages when the top of the Transam was damaged. The Respondent accepted a premium from Mrs. Colson but did not provide automobile insurance as requested between March 17, 1981, and September 28, 1981, on the Toyota and November 27, 1981, on the Transam. The Respondent did not provide the Colsons with copies of their policies after repeated requests. Count VIII The records of Capital Premium Plan (Petitioner's Exhibit 33) reflect the Respondent owed Capital Premium Plan $1,306.01 as the result of cancelled policies which required the Respondent to return unearned premium amounts to Capital Premium Plan. A statement for these accounts was presented in June 1982. The record reflects that in late 1982 the Respondent paid $356.01 of the money originally owed. At the date of hearing, the Respondent owed Capital Premium Plan $950 in unearned premiums. The Respondent raised no valid defense to the claim by Capital Premium Plan. Count IX Pursuant to his agreement with Underwriters Insurance Company, the Respondent was required to pay said company premiums for policies sold issued by the company. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 34.) As of September 1981, the Respondent's accounts with Underwriters Insurance Company were not current. The company's representative called upon the Respondent and made demand for the money owed by the Respondent to the company. The Respondent gave the company's representative a check in full payment of the amount then due. This check was dishonored by the bank upon its presentation due to insufficient funds. As a result thereof, Underwriters Insurance Company cancelled its underwriting agreement with the Respondent. The Respondent owed Underwriters Insurance Company approximately $6,000 as of the date of the hearing. The Respondent asserted no reasonable defense to the company's claims. Count X On February 16, 1979, automobile and health insurance was purchased for Grecian Pool Service by Frank Weller, the company's president. Neither Grecian nor Weller received a copy of the insurance policies from the Hickerson Agency. One of Grecian's vehicles was involved in an accident. Michigan Mutual, the insurer of the other vehicle, attempted to collect $228 for damages it had paid but which were the responsibility of Grecian's insurer. Michigan Mutual contacted the Hickerson Agency many times in an effort to obtain payment from Grecian's insurer but was unsuccessful. Michigan Mutual contacted the Department of Insurance, and an agent of the Department contacted the Respondent, who stated that a check had been sent to Michigan Mutual. The Department's agent contacted Michigan Mutual, which denied receipt of the check. The Department's agent then asked the Respondent to provide the Department with a copy of the front and back of the cancelled check. In response, an employee of the Hickerson Agency advised the Department's agent that it had no information concerning the accident and requested the Department to provide more information in order that it could respond to the Department's request. The Respondent failed to provide a timely response to Michigan Mutual of claim information as requested. The Respondent failed to provide the Department with records and information upon request. The Respondent failed to provide the insured with a copy of the insurance policy. Count XI and XIII W. F. Jones and James Earl Jones, who are brothers, both tendered premiums to the Hickerson Agency for the purchase of insurance on tractor- trailer trucks which they respectively owned. The daughter of W. F. Jones paid the Hickerson Agency $2,678 in September 1981 for insurance on two trucks owned by W. F. Jones. This payment was made in four checks each for $669.50 to be negotiated one each week for four weeks commencing on September 2, 1981. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 52.) On September 4, 1981, Shelley, Middlebrooks and O'Leary (hereinafter, SMO), general agent for Carolina Casualty, issued a binder on insurance for W. F. Jones. The quoted down payment for this policy was $2,678, and the premium on the ten-day binder issued by SMO was $928. The Hickerson Agency remitted to SMO the amount of $557.95. This was $267.25 less than the required binder premium. SMO immediately notified the Hickerson Agency that additional money was due. When the money was not forthcoming, SMO sent the Hickerson Agency a 14-day notice of cancellation. This extended the coverage of the binder until October 6, 1981. The Hickerson Agency did not forward any additional amount, and the insurance was cancelled on October 6, 1981. The amount received from the Hickerson Agency was less than the earned premium for the coverage from September 4, 1981, until October 6, 1981. In November 1981, the Hickerson Agency sent SMO a check for $257.25, the amount left owing on the earned premium. In February 1982, after many requests by W. F. Jones and his wife for the insurance policy and inquiries from them to the Hickerson Agency about their monthly payments, Jones received notice from the company financing his trucks that the trucks were not insured by the Hickerson Agency as he had thought. W. F. Jones checked with the Hickerson Agency, which was unable to produce a policy of insurance or other evidence of insurance. W. F. Jones demanded his money back, and the Respondent wrote Jones a check for the money that Jones had paid. When Mrs. W. F. Jones took the Respondent's check for deposit, her bank advised her after checking with Respondent's bank that there were insufficient funds in Respondent's account to cover the check. Because W. F. Jones had left on a trip, Mrs. Jones took the check to the Hickerson Agency and requested insurance. On February 5, 1982, Huffman and Associates bound coverage on W. F. Jones's two trucks with Canal Insurance Company. Huffman and Associates received $2,345 with a balance of $6,097, which was financed through a premium finance company. The Canal Insurance Company policy number for W. F. Jones was AC29 67 99. No evidence was presented that the two trucks belonging to W. F. Jones were insured between October 6, 1981, and February 5, 1982, although the Hickerson Agency had received payment for the down payment in the amount of $2,678. James Earl Jones applied for insurance on his truck with the Hickerson Agency on or about July 29, 1981. Mrs. James Earl Jones wrote three checks to the Hickerson Agency on said date to be negotiated as indicated: July 29, 1981- -$500 for immediate negotiation; $474--hold until August 5, 1981; $474--hold until August 19, 1981. The balance of the premium was financed with Capital Premium Plan with a monthly payment of $305.45. Monthly payments were made by James Earl Jones to the Respondent or to Capital Premium Plan until April 5, 1982. At that time, Capital Premium Plan cancelled the insurance due to late payments by the insured. When notified of the cancellation of the insurance by Capital Premium Plan, Mrs. James Earl Jones contacted Canal Insurance Company in care of New South Underwriters, which was listed as the insurer by Capital Premium Plan. Mrs. Jones was advised by New South Underwriters that they had no record of insurance on the Jones's truck with Canal Insurance Company. Mrs. James Earl Jones called the Hickerson Agency and asked for the policy number on the truck. The Respondent called Mrs. Jones and gave the policy number for the insurance on the truck as AC29 67 99, the policy number of W. F. Jones. (See paragraph 38 above.) When Mrs. James Earl Jones rechecked, she found that the policy was that of W. F. Jones, whereupon she called James Earl Jones, who went directly to the Hickerson Agency and spoke with the Respondent. James Earl Jones demanded of the Respondent some proof of insurance. The Respondent gave him a copy of the first page of W. F. Jones's policy. When James Earl Jones pointed out the error and demanded proof of his insured status, the Respondent wrote him a check for $2,990.50, a refund of the down payment and payments which James Earl Jones had made to Capital Premium Plan through that date. The records of Canal Insurance Company do not reflect insurance issued to James Earl Jones between July 1981 and March 1982. James Earl Jones was insured by Canal Insurance Company in April 1982 through an agency in Tampa not related in any way to the transaction with the Respondent. The records of Capital Premium Plan reflect that money was borrowed for insurance to be placed with Canal Insurance Company through New South Underwriters. Capital Premium Plan made money available to the Respondent for the premiums as indicated. The Hickerson Agency did not have records or produce records indicating that James Earl Jones was insured by the Hickerson Agency between July 1981 and March 1982, when the Respondent refunded Jones's premiums. Count XII In September 1981, Hugh Shaw of Ridge Printing purchased workmen's compensation insurance from the Respondent and paid for said insurance with two checks, each for $426.50. Shaw was contacted in May 1982 by officials of the Department of Commerce and advised that he had no workmen's compensation insurance. Shaw referred the officials to the Respondent. Shaw never received a policy of insurance from the Respondent for insurance purchased in September 1981. A search of the records of Mr. Hurst's agency revealed no insurance placed by the agency for Shaw. No evidence was introduced by the Respondent that Shaw was insured against workmen's compensation loss. No evidence was received that any portion of the premiums paid by Shaw were returned to him. Count IV (In addition to this count, many of the other counts in this Administrative Complaint allege that records related to various insureds were not present at the Hickerson Agency, and that the Respondent failed to maintain records as required by law. The findings made relative to this count are applicable to similar allegations contained throughout the Administrative Complaint and constitute the findings of fact relative to those allegations.) The Respondent sold his insurance agency to James Hurst, Jr., effective March 1, 1982. Testimony was received that some of the records alleged to have been missing later were present prior to that date. Evidence was received that many records were not present at the agency after that date. No evidence was received that the Respondent was responsible for removal of the records. Pursuant to their contract, James Hurst, Jr., was responsible for the office after March 1, 1982, and the Respondent is not vicariously liable for missing records after that date. No evidence was presented as to any specific record at issue in these charges that was discovered to be missing prior to March 1, 1982. Count XV On October 2, 1981, Harold Scott purchased insurance on a camper from the Respondent. On that date, Scott gave the Respondent a check for $123 and signed a premium financing agreement for the balance of $287. Scott never received a copy of the insurance policy. No evidence was introduced by the Respondent that Scott was insured. In September 1982, the Respondent paid to Scott the down payment and other money that Scott. had paid on his insurance. Count XVI On April 7, 1981, Joseph Simmons purchased workmen's compensation coverage and a bond from the Respondent. Simmons paid $798 as a down payment and executed a premium financing agreement with Sesco Premium Plan. Simmons never received a copy of the policy or a payment book. Sesco Premium Plan never financed an insurance policy for Joseph Simmons of Winter Haven, Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 64.) No evidence was introduced by the Respondent that Simmons was insured against workmen's compensation claims after April 7, 1981. The Respondent accepted a premium for insurance from Simmons and did not provide the requested coverage.
Recommendation While violations of Section 626.621, Florida Statutes, permit the Department discretion in disciplining a licensee, violations by the Respondent of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes, as found above, mandate that the Department must discipline him. Considering the number and the severity of the violations, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer revoke each and every license held by the Respondent, James Edward Hickerson. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 17th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Department of Insurance Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 1145 Lake Alfred, Florida 33850 Marvin B. Wood, Esquire 2600 Industrial Park Drive Lakeland, Florida 33801 Tom Pobjecky State Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1309 Bartow, Florida 33838 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund from the State of Florida Group Health Self Insurance Plan of pre-tax supplemental insurance premiums in the amount of $47.46 or $47.45 a month that were deducted from his pay for the 2007 and 2008 insurance plan years.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Detrick Murray ("Petitioner" or "Mr. Murray") was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, employed by the Florida Department of Corrections. As a state employee, he was given the option to participate in a pre-tax supplemental accident/disability insurance plan. Benefits, including insurance plans, are administered by a private contractor, Convergys, through a project called "People First," operated on behalf of Respondent, Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance ("Respondent or the Division"). During the 2005 open enrollment period for the 2006 plan year, Mr. Murray elected to participate in a state- sponsored supplemental/accidental policy offered by Colonial Insurance Company ("Colonial"). The reverse side of the enrollment provided the following information and instructions: The enrollment form must be used to enroll in or change coverages. No changes will be accepted by e-mail or letter. Enrolling in a supplemental insurance plan, or changing options, does not automatically stop other coverages you currently have. To stop an existing coverage, you must place an "S" in the box provided for that Plan on the front of this form (Part 1). Only complete Part 2 on the front of this form if you wish to stop plans currently not offered. The Supplemental Enrollment Form must be submitted to the People First Service Center. Enrollment changes will not occur if forms and/or applications and the Supplemental Company Application are submitted directly to the supplemental insurance company. If you cancel or do not enroll in supplemental insurance, you will not be able to enroll again until the next annual open enrollment period, unless you experience a Qualifying Status Change. Supplemental premiums are deducted on a pre- tax basis. It is your responsibility to ensure that your enrollment selections are in effect. Check your payroll warrants to ensure that your deductions properly reflect your selections. Contact the People First Service Center immediately if these deductions are not correct. I understand my enrollment and/or changes will be effective the first of the month following a full payroll deduction. I also understand my elections are IRREVOCABLE until the next annual open enrollment period, unless I have a Qualifying Status Change as defined by the Federal Internal Revenue Code and/or the Florida Administrative Code. I understand that I must request such changes within thirty-one (31) calendar days of the Qualifying Status Change. The open enrollment period for the next year, the 2007 plan year, began on September 19, 2006, and ended on October 18, 2006. On October 14, 2006, Mr. Murray notified Colonial that he wanted to cancel the supplemental insurance for the 2007 plan year. He used a Colonial Request for Services form and sent it to the Colonial Processing Center in Columbia, South Carolina. In a letter dated February 14, 2007, Colonial acknowledged receiving Mr. Murray's request to cancel the insurance during the 2006 enrollment period, and informed him of its receipt of an "overpayment" of $47.46 monthly beginning January 1, 2007. Colonial directed Mr. Murray to contact his personnel officer "which will then work through the Division to issue your refund." After the open enrollment period ended, Mr. Murray had also contacted People First on November 14, 2006, and gave notice of his attempt to cancel with Colonial. He was informed that Colonial had not informed People First of the cancellation. Mr. Murray contacted People First again on January 29, 2007, questioning the continued payroll deductions and requesting a refund, as Colonial had suggested. He was told that he would have to cancel with People First during the open enrollment period, but he could send a letter of appeal to try to get a refund of premiums and try to cancel sooner. Despite repeated contacts, requests for refunds, and appeals to People First during 2007, Mr. Murray continued to have premiums for supplemental insurance deducted from his pay check. Ultimately, the Division denied his appeal. Although Mr. Murray was trying to get a refund for 2007 payroll deductions, he again failed to notify People First to cancel the insurance during the open enrollment period between September 17, 2007, and October 19, 2007, for the 2008 plan year. There is no evidence that Mr. Murray had a qualifying status change, as required by federal and state law, that would have permitted him to cancel the insurance at any time other than during open enrollment periods for the 2007 and 2008 plan years. The enrollment period for the 2009 plan year began on September 22, 2008, and ended on October 17, 2008. On September 24, 2008, Mr. Murray cancelled the supplemental insurance for the 2009 plan year by making a telephone call to a People First representative. In a late-filed exhibit produced by a manager for Convergys at the request of Petitioner, the Division showed that payments were made to Colonial to insure Mr. Murray through November 24, 2008. Sandi Wade, the Division's benefits administrator, noted that Colonial should not have canceled Mr. Murray's insurance policy. Colonial had no authority to send the letter of February 14, 2007, incorrectly telling Mr. Murray he was entitled to a refund. Ms. Wade's observations prompted Mr. Murray to question what, if any, remedies he might have with regard to Colonial's error. That issue is not and cannot be considered in this proceeding. In the absence of evidence that the Division or its agents were notified to cancel the supplemental insurance during open enrollment periods for 2007 and 2008, or based on a qualifying status change, Petitioner's request for a refund of premiums must be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurnace, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Detrick Murray, a refund of his accident/disability insurance coverage premiums paid in 2007 and 2008. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Detrick Murray 4370 Northwest 187th Street Miami, Florida 33055 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of State Group Insurance Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents offered and sold securities in Florida, in violation of the registration requirements of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes; offered and sold securities in Florida while Respondents were unregistered, in violation of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; or committed fraud in the offer, sale, or purchase of securities in Florida, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is the penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent James A. Torchia (Respondent) held a valid life and health insurance license. Respondent was the president and owner of Respondent Empire Insurance, Inc. (Empire Insurance), a now-dissolved Florida corporation. Empire Insurance was in the insurance business, and Respondent was its sole registered insurance agent. At no material time has Respondent or Empire Insurance held any license or registration to engage in the sale or offer for sale of securities in Florida. At no material time were the investments described below sold and offered for sale by Respondent or Empire Insurance registered as securities in Florida. These cases involve viaticated life insurance policies. A life insurance policy is viaticated when the policy owner, also known as the viator, enters into a viatical settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the viator sells the policy and death benefits to the purchaser for an amount less than the death benefit--the closer the viator is perceived to be to death, the greater the discount from the face amount of the death benefit. The viatical industry emerged to provide dying insureds, prior to death, a means by which to sell their life insurance policies to obtain cash to enjoy during their remaining lives. As this industry matured, brokers and dealers, respectively, arranged for the sale of, and bought and resold, life insurance policies of dying insureds. Prior to the death of the viator, these viaticated life insurance policies, or interests in such policies, may be sold and resold several times. In these cases, viators sold their life insurance policies to Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc. (FinFed). Having raised money from investors, American Benefit Services (ABS) then paid FinFed, which assigned viaticated policies, or interests in the policies, to various trusts. The trusts held the legal title to the policies, and the trust beneficiaries, who are the investors from whom ABS had obtained the funds to pay FinFed, held equitable title to the policies. Sometimes in these cases, a broker or dealer, such as William Page and Associates, intervened between the viator and FinFed. At some point, though, ABS obtained money from investors to acquire policies, but did not pay the money to FinFed to purchase viaticated life insurance policies. The FinFed and ABS investment program eventually became a Ponzi scheme, in which investor payouts were derived largely, if not exclusively, from the investments of other investors. ABS typically acquired funds through the promotional efforts of insurance agents, such as Respondent and Empire Insurance. Using literature provided by ABS, these agents often sold these investments to insurance clients. As was typical, Respondent and Empire Insurance advertised the types of claims described below by publishing large display ads that ran in Florida newspapers. Among the ABS literature is a Participation Disclosure (Disclosure), which describes the investment. The Disclosure addresses the investor as a "Participant" and the investment as a "Participation." The Disclosure contains a Participation Agreement (Agreement), which provides that the parties agree to the Disclosure and states whether the investor has chosen the Growth Plan or Income Plan, which are described below; a Disbursement Letter of Instruction, which is described below; and a Letter of Instruction to Trust, which is described below. The agent obtains the investor's signature to all three of these documents when the investor delivers his check, payable to the escrow agent, to purchase the investment. The Disclosure states that the investments offer a “High Return”: “Guaranteed Return on Participation 42% at Maturity.” The Disclosure adds that the investments are “Low Risk”: “Secured by a Guaranteed Insurance Industry Receivable”; “Secured by $300,000 State Insurance Guarantee Fund”; “Short Term Participation (Maturity Expectation 36 Months)”; “Principal Liquid After One Year With No Surrender Charge”; “State Regulated Participation”; “All Transactions By Independent Trust & Escrow Agents”; and “If policy fails to mature at 36 months, participant may elect full return of principal plus 15% simple interest.” The Disclosure describes two alternative investments: the Growth Plan and Income Plan. For the Growth Plan, the Disclosure states: “At maturity, Participant receives principal plus 42%, creating maximum growth of funds.” For the Income Plan, the Disclosure states: “If income is desired, participation can be structured with monthly income plans.” Different rates of return for the Growth and Income plans are set forth below. For investors choosing the Income Plan, ABS applied only 70 percent of the investment to the purchase of viaticated life insurance policies. ABS reserved the remaining 30 percent as the source of money to "repay" the investor the income that he was due to receive under the Income Plan, which, as noted below, paid a total yield of 29.6 percent over three years. The Disclosure states that ABS places all investor funds in attorneys’ trust accounts, pursuant to arrangements with two “bonded and insured” “financial escrow agents.” At another point in the document, the Disclosure states that the investor funds are deposited “directly” with a “financial escrow agent,” pursuant to the participant’s Disbursement Letter of Instruction. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction identifies a Florida attorney as the “financial escrow agent,” who receives the investor’s funds and disburses them, “to the order of [FinFed) or to the source of the [viaticated insurance] benefits and/or its designees.” This disbursement takes place only after the attorney receives “[a] copy of the irrevocable, absolute assignment, executed in favor of Participant and recorded with the trust account as indicated on the assignment of [viaticated insurance] benefits, and setting out the ownership percentage of said [viaticated insurance] benefits”; a “medical overview” of the insured indicative of not more than 36 months’ life expectancy; confirmation that the policy is in full force and effect and has been in force beyond the period during which the insurer may contest coverage; and a copy of the shipping airbill confirming that the assignment was sent to the investor. The Disclosure states that the investor will direct a trust company to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. When the life insurance policy matures on the death of the viator, the insurer pays the death benefits to the trust company, which pays these proceeds to the investor, in accordance with his interest in the trust. Accordingly, the Letter of Instruction to Trust directs FinFed, as the trust company, to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. The Letter of Instruction to Trust provides that the viaticated insurance benefits obtained with the investor's investment shall be assigned to this trust, and, at maturity, FinFed shall pay the investor a specified sum upon the death of the viator and the trustee's receipt of the death benefit from the insurer. The Disclosure provides that, at anytime from 12 to 36 months after the execution of the Disclosure, the investor has the option to request ABS to return his investment, without interest. At 36 months, if the viator has not yet died, the investor has the right to receive the return of his investment, plus 15 percent (five percent annually). The Disclosure states that ABS will pay all costs and fees to maintain the policy and that all policies are based on a life expectancy for the viator of no more than 36 months. Also, the Disclosure assures that ABS will invest only in policies that are issued by insurers that are rated "A" or better by A.M. Best "at the time that the Participant's deposit is confirmed." The Disclosure mentions that the trust company will name the investor as an irrevocable assignee of the policy benefits. The irrevocable assignment of policy benefits mentioned in the Disclosure and the Disbursement Letter of Instruction is an anomaly because it does not conform to the documentary scheme described above. After the investor pays the escrow agent and executes the documents described above, FinFed executes the “Irrevocable Absolute Assignment of Viaticated Insurance Benefits.” This assignment is from the trustee, as grantor, to the investor, as grantee, and applies to a specified percentage of a specific life insurance policy, whose death benefit is disclosed on the assignment. The assignment includes the "right to receive any viaticated insurance benefit payable under the Trusts [sic] guaranteed receivables of assigned viaticated insurance benefits from the noted insurance company; [and the] right to assign any and all rights received under this Trust irrevocable absolute assignment." On its face, the assignment assigns the trust corpus-- i.e., the insurance policy or an interest in an insurance policy--to the trust beneficiary. Doing so would dissolve the trust and defeat the purpose of the other documents, which provide for the trust to hold the policy and, upon the death of the viator, to pay the policy proceeds in accordance with the interests of the trust beneficiaries. The assignment bears an ornate border and the corporate seal of FinFed. Probably, FinFed intended the assignment to impress the investors with the "reality" of their investment, as the decorated intangible of an "irrevocable" interest in an actual insurance policy may seem more impressive than the unadorned intangible of a beneficial interest in a trust that holds an insurance policy. Or possibly, the FinFed/ABS principals and professionals elected not to invest much time or effort in the details of the transactional documentation of a Ponzi scheme. What was true then is truer now. Obviously, in those cases in which no policy existed, the investor paid his money before any policy had been selected for him. However, this appears to have been the process contemplated by the ABS literature, even in those cases in which a policy did exist. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction and correspondence from Respondent, Empire Insurance, or Empire Financial Consultant to ABS reveal that FinFed did not assign a policy, or part of a policy, to an investor until after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In some cases, Respondent or Empire Insurance requested ABS to obtain for an investor a policy whose insured had special characteristics or a investment plan with a maturity shorter than 36 months. FinFed and ABS undertook other tasks after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In addition to matching a viator with an investor, based on the investor's expressed investment objectives, FinFed paid the premiums on the viaticated policies until the viator died and checked on the health of the viator. Also, if the viator did not die within three years and the investor elected to obtain a return of his investment, plus 15 percent, ABS, as a broker, resold the investor's investment to generate the 15 percent return that had been guaranteed to the investor. Similarly, ABS would sell the investment of investors who wanted their money back prior to three years. The escrow agent also assumed an important duty--in retrospect, the most important duty--after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents; the escrow agent was to verify the existence of the viaticated policy. Respondent and Empire Insurance sold beneficial interests in trusts holding viaticated life insurance policies in 50 separate transactions. These investors invested a total of $1.5 million, nearly all of which has been lost. Respondent and Empire Insurance earned commissions of about $120,000 on these sales. Petitioner proved that Respondent and Empire Insurance made the following sales. Net worths appear for those investors for whom Respondent recorded net worths; for most, he just wrote "sufficient" on the form. Unless otherwise indicated, the yield was 42 percent for the Growth Plan. In all cases, investors paid money for their investments. In all cases, FinFed and ABS assigned parts of policies to the trusts, even of investors investing relatively large amounts. On March 21, 1998, Phillip A. Allan, a Florida resident, paid $69,247.53 for the Growth Plan. On March 26, 1998, Monica Bracone, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $900,000, paid $8000 for the Growth Plan. On April 2, 1998, Alan G. and Judy LeFort, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on June 8, 1998, the LeForts paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In the second transaction, the yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement notes a 36-month life expectancy of the viator. The different yields based on life expectancies are set forth below, but, as noted above, the standard yield was 42 percent, and, as noted below, this was based on a 36-month life expectancy, so Respondent miscalculated the investment return or misdocumented the investment on the LeForts' second transaction. On April 29, 1998, Doron and Barbara Sterling, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on August 14, 1998, the Sterlings paid $100,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield for the second transaction is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement notes that the Sterlings were seeking a viator with a life expectancy of only 30 months. When transmitting the closing documents for the second Sterling transaction, Respondent, writing ABS on Empire Insurance letterhead, stated in part: This guy has already invested with us (15,000) [sic]. He gave me this application but wants a 30 month term. Since he has invested, he did some research and has asked that he be put on a low T-cell count and the viator to be an IV drug user. I know it is another favor but this guy is a close friend and has the potential to put at least another 500,000 [sic]. If you can not [sic] do it, then I understand. You have done a lot for me and I always try to bring in good quality business. If this inventory is not available, the client has requested that we return the funds . . . In a third transaction, on February 24, 1999, the Sterlings paid $71,973 for the Growth Plan. The yield is only 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects the typical 36-month life expectancy for the viator. Although the investors would not have received this document, Respondent completed an ABS form entitled, "New Business Transmittal," and checked the box, "Life Expectancy 2 years or less (28%). The other boxes are: "Life Expectancy 2 1/2 years or less (35%)" and "Life Expectancy 3 years or less (42%)." On May 4, 1998, Hector Alvero and Idelma Guillen, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $6000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on October 29, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a third transaction, on November 30, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. For this investment, Ms. Guillen requested an "IV drug user," according to Respondent in a letter dated December 1, 1998, on Empire Financial Consultants letterhead. This is the first use of the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants, not Empire Insurance, and all letters after that date are on the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants. In a fourth transaction, on January 29, 1999, Ms. Guillen paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On April 23, 1998, Bonnie P. Jensen, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $120,000, paid $65,884.14 for the Growth Plan. Her yield was 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 20, 1998, Michael J. Mosack, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $70,600 for the Income Plan. He was to receive monthly distributions of $580.10 for three years. The total yield, including monthly distributions, is $20,883.48, which is about 29.6 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 27, 1998, Lewis and Fernande G. Iachance, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On June 3, 1998, Sidney Yospe, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $1,500,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 30-month life expectancy. On June 12, 1998, Bernard Aptheker, with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 10, 1998, Irene M. and Herman Kutschenreuter, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 9, 1998, Daniel and Mary Spinosa, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 5, 1998, Pauline J. and Anthony Torchia, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000 and the parents of Respondent, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 29, 1998, Christopher D. Bailey, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction on the same day, Mr. Bailey paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. Petitioner submitted documents concerning a purported purchase by Lauren W. Kramer on July 21, 1998, but they were marked "VOID" and do not appear to be valid. On July 22, 1998, Laura M. and Kenneth D. Braun, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $150,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan, as Respondent completed the Participation Agreement. However, the agreement calls for them to receive $205.42 monthly for 36 months and receive a total yield, including monthly payments, of 29.6 percent, so it appears that the Brauns bought the Income Plan. In a second transaction, also on July 22, 1998, the Brauns paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Roy R. Worrall, a Florida resident, paid $100,000 for the Income Plan. The Participation Agreement provides that he will receive monthly payments of $821.66 and a total yield of 29.6 percent. On July 16, 1998, Earl and Rosemary Gilmore, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on February 12, 1999, the Gilmores paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of two years or less. On July 14, 1998, David M. Bobrow, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $700,000 on one form and $70,000 on another form, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction, on the same day, Mr. Bobrow paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 27, 1998, Cecilia and Harold Lopatin, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 30, 1998, Ada R. Davis, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Income Plan. Her total yield, including monthly payments of $246.50 for three years, is 29.6 percent. In a second transaction, on the same day, Ms. Davis paid $30,000 for the Income Plan on the same terms as the first purchase. On July 27, 1998, Joseph F. and Adelaide A. O'Keefe, Florida residents with a net worth of $300,000, paid $12,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 5, 1998, Thurley E. Margeson, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 19, 1998, Stephanie Segaria, a Florida resident, paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 26, 1998, Roy and Glenda Raines, Florida residents, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of 30 months or less. In a second transaction, on the same day, the Raineses paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy, although, again, the New Business Transmittal notes the life expectancy of 30 months or less. On November 24, 1998, Dan W. Lipford, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan in two transactions. In a third transaction, on January 13, 1999, Mr. Lipford paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 1, 1998, Mary E. Friebes, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 4, 1998, Allan Hidalgo, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 17, 1998, Paul E. and Rose E. Frechette, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including monthly payments of $205.41 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 26, 1998, Theodore and Tillie F. Friedman, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 19, 1999, Robert S. and Karen M. Devos, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Arthur Hecker, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $410.83 for 36 months, is 29.6 percent. On February 11, 1999, Michael Galotola, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on the same day, Michael and Anna Galotola paid $12,500 for the Growth Plan. On November 3, 1998, Lee Chamberlain, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 23, 1998, Herbert L. Pasqual, a Florida resident, paid $200,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $1643.33 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 1, 1998, Charles R. and Maryann Schuyler, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. Respondent and Empire Insurance were never aware of the fraud being perpetrated by FinFed and ABS at anytime during the 38 transactions mentioned above. Respondent attempted to verify with third parties the existence of the viaticated insurance policies. When ABS presented its program to 30-40 potential agents, including Respondent, ABS presented these persons an opinion letter from ABS's attorney, stating that the investment was not a security, under Florida law. Respondent also contacted Petitioner's predecessor agency and asked if these transactions involving viaticated life insurance policies constituted the sale of securities. An agency employee informed Respondent that these transactions did not constitute the sale of securities.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Finding James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., not guilty of violating Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes; Finding James A. Torchia guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; Finding Empire Insurance, Inc., guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes, except for transactions closed on or after December 1, 1998; Directing James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., to cease and desist from further violations of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $120,000 against James A. Torchia. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Fred H. Wilsen Senior Attorney Office of Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation South Tower, Suite S-225 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1799 Barry S. Mittelberg Mittelberg & Nicosia, P.A. 8100 North University Drive, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33321
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the respondent Jules Maxwell Hanken was licensed as an ordinary life, including disability, agent in Florida, and was the President of Gulf Health/Life, Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida. Though some administrative and supervisory duties were delegated to other individuals, respondent was the ultimate supervisor of insurance agents and employees at Gulf Health/Life. Respondent assumed the primary and major responsibility for training, directing and instructing employees to work as insurance salesmen within the agency. COUNTS I and VI The American Benevolent Society, Inc. was formed by the respondent and others in mid-1978, and was incorporated on November 22, 1978. The organization was described as "a society devoted to the welfare and benefit of independent Americans." Among its stated purposes was the provision of information and referral services dealing with medical, legal, benevolent, financial and recreational matters. The ABS also provided a newsletter and discounts to its members from numerous area businesses and dining establishments, as well as travel discounts and information. The membership fee was $15.00 for an individual and $25.00 for a family. New members were advised that one of the functions of the ABS was to solve the problem of high medical costs, and that members having difficulties with insurance claims could receive aid from the ABS. The offices of the ABS were located in the same building as Gulf Health/Life, Inc., but a separate telephone number and listing was maintained for the ABS. Employees of Gulf Health/Life, Inc. who answered the ABS telephone were instructed to not let callers know that the ABS office was in the Gulf Health office and to inform ABS callers that their insurance agent was not located at that office. In the sale of accident and health insurance, which was a major portion of the insurance sold at Gulf Health/Life, Inc., efforts were made by the respondent to offer insurance which would provide a discount in premium to members of the ABS. Apparently, respondent attempted to have the ABS endorse various insurance companies in return for members of the ABS receiving a "group" or "association" premium which would be less than the premium for an individual purchasing the same insurance. CNA did provide such a plan on one of its policies for individual members of the ABS, as well as for other associations, whereby the premiums for ABS members were slightly lower (approximately $10.00 per individual) than for members of the general public purchasing the same insurance. Neither Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Co. nor Founders Life Assurance Co. offered any group rate or reduction in insurance premiums to members of the ABS. Insurance salesmen employed at Gulf Health/Life, Inc. were instructed and directed by the respondent to also sell membership in the ABS. They received a commission for each membership sold and most sales were made at the same time as sales of insurance policies were made. It is estimated that approximately ninety-five percent (95 percent) of the ABS members also had insurance with a company represented by Gulf Health/Life, Inc. Respondent's insurance salesmen were directed in writing to always explain to the customer the difference between the ABS and the insurance company, to always collect separate checks and give separate receipts for the ABS membership fee and the insurance premium, and to require new ABS members to sign a form whenever they purchased insurance expressly acknowledging that the ABS was not the insurance company and that the endorsement and recommendation of insurance by the ABS did not imply or guarantee any discount in insurance premium. The respondent's agents were also required to place their signature on this form. In addition, the printed application form for membership in the ABS stated, in relevant part, as follows: I . . . am not joining as a prerequisite to obtaining insurance . . . and I realize that the A.B.A. insurance endorsement in no way implies or guarantees any discount or deviation from the ordinary premium established for the policies included. It is understood that the Society is not the insurance company." Respondent's salesmen were directed to obtain from each new ABS member the names of other persons who might be interested in ABS membership, and the amount of the salesman's commission for each ABS sale was dependent upon the number of referrals contained in each application. For example, an individual application for ABS membership with no referrals earned the salesperson a commission of $4.50, while an application with three referrals merited a commission of $7.50. Membership agents for the ABS, who were also licensed insurance agents, were required to sign a document acknowledging their understanding that monies collected for ABS were to be maintained separately from insurance premiums, that no preferential recommendations were to be made for insurance plans endorsed by the ABS over other plans which the agent was licensed to represent and "that solicitation of ABS members is in no way connected to or reliant upon insurance plans, programs, or policies, as no person's ability to obtain any insurance is helped or hindered by ABS membership; however, membership must be established prior to insurance solicita- tion through the American Benevolent Society. In contrast to the above-discussed specific written instructions and disclaimer forms requiring the signatures of agents and new customers, several agents employed by the respondent were of the opinion that those written forms and instructions were not consistent with what agents were verbally directed by respondent to use as a sales presentation. These agents believed that respondent, during the training sessions, was instructing them to blur together the presentations for sales of insurance and ABS membership so that the customer would believe that they could obtain better insurance (either in terms of coverage or lower premiums) through membership in the ABS. The agents were instructed in a sales technique which would begin with an explanation to the customer as to how difficult it is, because of the customer's age and/or physical condition, to obtain proper insurance coverage and then to explain that the ABS was formed for the purpose of solving those problems, could help its members in obtaining better and lower cost insurance, and could ultimately help them in their claims with the various companies. These agents admitted that they were instructed to avoid the term "group insurance," but stated that they were to use other terminology to suggest an association or group. Several former agents and employees testified that they received a "negative commission," or a reduction in their usual insurance commission, if they sold insurance to a customer without simultaneously selling that customer a membership in the ABS. No documentary evidence was offered to substantiate this testimony. Some of the respondent's insurance agents did tell customers that they had to be a member of the ABS before they could obtain certain insurance. These agents did, however, sell insurance without ABS membership and did sell ABS membership without insurance. They also sold ABS memberships simultaneously with the sale of insurance policies with companies which offered no benefits for ABS members. As noted above, CNA did offer a slight discount in premium on one of its policies to members of the ABS. The only three customers called as witnesses by the petitioner in this proceeding did join the ABS in order to acquire what they believed to a be a cheaper, group rate for their CNA policies, and to obtain discounts on other products. These customers did receive the discount provided to ABS members on at least one of the CNA policies purchased through respondent's agents. The agent did not explain the exact amount of the discount to them as compared with the ABS membership fee, nor did the agent compare the premiums with individual, as opposed to group, premiums. No other members of the ABS (which at one time had a membership of 700 or 800 persons) or the general public were called by the petitioner to testify in this proceeding. 1/ The only other member of the ABS who testified was called by the respondent, and he testified that he purchased a membership in the ABS after he bought insurance from one of the respondent's agents. He was told membership in the ABS would bring him certain services, benefits and discounts, but was not told he would receive a discount or reduction in his insurance premium. This witness was named in the Administrative Complaint as being one of the victims of the deceptive sales practices directed or authorized by the respondent. Insurance agents at Gulf Health/Life used various titles on their business cards and in reference to themselves. Some utilized the word "counselor," while others were referred to as "Regional Group Director." The purpose of utilizing the term "counselor" was not to disguise the fact that an agent was an insurance salesman, but rather to avoid the often poor public image associated with an insurance salesman. Upon inquiry to the State Insurance Commissioner's Office, the respondent's office was informed by letter dated January 21, 1980, that there was no statutory prohibition against use of the term "counselor" by insurance agents. An Insurance Department rule was referenced which prohibits the representation by an agent that he is a "counselor, advisor or similar designation" for any group or association of medicare eligible individuals, which representation does not reflect the true role of the agent in the solicitation of insurance. Salesmen were encouraged by respondent to avoid discussions with customers regarding the commission they may make on a potential sale. This was emphasized in training sessions for the purpose of illustrating what the proper attitude of an insurance salesman should be; to wit: to sell customers what they need and not what the salesman desires in terms of a commission. Respondent's employees and agents were not instructed to inform customers that they were not insurance salesmen or that they did not receive remuneration by way of commission. COUNT II Some thirty years ago, Earl Jacobs, a professional photographer prior to joining respondent's insurance company, constructed what he calls a "safe light." This is a wooden box which has a lightbulb in it and a glass filter across the face. The light can be openly used in a darkroom while working with light-sensitive photography paper. For some period of time, this device was kept on the premises of Gulf Health/Life, Inc. because the agency was putting together a brochure with each agent's picture. The restroom area was considered to be an ideal darkroom facility for the processing of prints. The "safe light" is referred to as a "light box" in the Administrative Complaint. Former employees and agents observed this device either in the closet of the woman's restroom or under the desk of Lynda C. Rushing, Vice President of Gulf Health/Life, Inc. Five witnesses observed the device in use by Lynda Rushing while either kneeling on the floor near her desk or while in another room. While it appeared to these witnesses that Ms. Rushing was using the device to trace customers' signatures onto insurance documents, no such documents were produced, no insured's name was given, nor did any customer or member of the general public present testimony as to a signature which was not genuine. 2/ Respondent ordered the device removed immediately after he was informed by a secretary that an irate customer had been in the office complaining that a signature on an insurance policy was not his signature. Applications and other insurance documents were frequently returned to respondent's agents for the purpose of obtaining an omitted signature. There was no testimony or other evidence in this proceeding to indicate that respondent Hanken ever used the device known as a "light box," or that he directed other employees to use this device to trace signatures. COUNT III Many, if not most, of the individuals employed by the respondent as insurance agents had no prior insurance experience. Sales techniques and practices were taught them by the respondent through extensive training sessions and the use of a sales manual called Psaleschology, which was primarily authored by the respondent. Agents were instructed to learn and were tested on the concepts expressed in the sales manual. The training sessions involved role- playing between the respondent and an agent, utilizing the concepts expressed in the manual. During the early stages of an agent's training, he was required to complete a form when he did not effectuate a sale, listing which steps in the manual were not followed by the salesman. While some salesmen believed that they were expected to follow the manual "verbatim" in their sales presentation, others, including the respondent, felt that the manual and the concepts expressed therein were simply guidelines or reminders of the principles of the psychology of salesmanship. Respondent considered the manual's purpose to be one of introducing to the salesman a formal attitude about selling and a demonstrative learning instrument. The sales manual under which the respondent's agents were trained does utilize the concepts of "MID/TIA" (Make It Difficult/Take It Away"); fear and greed, and fabrication. As explained by the respondent, these concepts of reverse psychology, motivation by relating to strong human emotion and demonstrations of risk are common techniques in salesmanship. They can as readily be described as concepts concerning the theory of supply and demand, the recognition of people's concerns and desires as motivating factors and the personalization of real events by fabrication of the characters. During a training session, the respondent related to his salesmen that he had once used the technique of telling an insurance customer who was reluctant to speak with him that he had come there to give the customer a Maas Brothers gift certificate. This was cited as an example of a method to persuade the unreceptive customer to open the door. There was no testimony that any of the respondent's salesmen ever actually used that technique or that respondent ever actually directed his employees to use such a technique. Maas Brothers gift certificates were in fact given to customers by Gulf Life/Health employees for a period of time when the customer gave an agent referrals for other sales. The respondent's manual does contain suggested techniques of reinstating lapsed policies by providing option or adjustment alternatives. One agent, who testified that he followed the respondent's manual literally during his early months with the company, stated that he would tell customers whose policies were about to lapse that they had a specific refund or monetary adjustment due them. This technique was utilized to gain entrance to the customer's home and to resell them insurance. This agent's technique was reported to the respondent by another agent, and respondent directed him to cease using the "refund" approach to reinstate lapsed policies. There was no testimony from any purchaser of insurance, potential insurance customer or other member of the general public that the techniques set forth in the respondent's sales manual or emphasized in his training sessions were actually practiced to the extent that the customer was frightened, coerced or deceived into purchasing insurance from the respondent's agency. 3/ COUNT IV Prior to becoming licensed to sell policies for Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company, agent Edmund Shoman solicited and obtained applications for insurance with that company. Vice President Lynda Rushing, who was licensed with that company, signed these applications for him. At the time, Mr. Shoman was licensed to sell insurance with another company. There was no evidence to suggest that respondent had any knowledge that Ms. Rushing signed applications brought into the office by Mr. Shoman, or that Mr. Shoman received any commissions on these sales Bradley Wasserman had never sold insurance prior to being employed by the respondent. After one week of training, and prior to receiving his license, according to Bradley Wasserman, he was given leads, made contacts and sold two insurance policies by himself. He signed his brother Phillip's name to the applications and, according to him, received a commission on the two sales. Bradley's brother, Phillip, was employed as a licensed insurance agent by the respondent, was one of the respondent's top producers, and was also in law school at the time. Phillip recalled that respondent gave his approval to this practice, but could not recall whether he knew in advance that Bradley would be signing his name to the applications. During his first two weeks of employment with the respondent, Bradley Wasserman entered into and signed a "Training Agreement," acknowledging that during his training program he would be given a training allowance for his presence with a licensed instructor during a sale. The specific oral agreement was that Wasserman was to receive $25.00 for each presentation of two or more hours which he observed. Between February 20 and March 6, 1981, three checks were made payable to Bradley Wasserman in the amounts of $150.00, $150.00, and $100.00. Each check bore the words "training remuneration" or "training allowance." These amounts do not correspondent with the amounts claimed by Bradley Wasserman as his commission on the two sales of insurance. COUNT V Howard Cunix, at a time when he was not a licensed life agent, referred a life insurance customer, Mr. Miller, to Phillip Wasserman. Phillip Wasserman, who was licensed to sell life insurance, made the sale, but received only one-half of the commission for that sale. What happened to the remainder of the commission was not known by Mr. Wasserman and was not otherwise established. At that time, Mr. Cunix was a salaried employee and received the same amount of remuneration each week. He did receive one-half a production or referral credit on a board maintained at Gulf Health/Life to illustrate the production level of the various agents.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint dated April 29, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 8th day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Teresa Jean Watson, at all times material to this proceeding was licensed as an ordinary life agent, a disability insurance agent and a general lines insurance agent. She was the only general lines agent licensed to sell insurance at the T. J. Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. and all insurance sold by that firm at times pertinent hereto was sold and issued under authority of her license. During times material to this proceeding, Teresa Jean Watson sold insurance coverage under authority of her general lines license either as direct agent for various insurance companies for whom she was general agent or, on behalf of MacNeill and Son, Inc. (MacNeill), her managing agency, which represented various insurance companies for whom the Respondent wrote coverage. Between February 1st and February 15, 1982, a homeowner's insurance policy was sold to Tony and Martha Williams by the Respondent's agency under the authority of the Respondent's general lines insurance agent's license. That homeowner's policy required a premium of $211.00. The policyholder, Tony Williams, wrote two checks to the T. J. Watson Agency dated January 22, 1982 and February 12, 1982. Those two checks totalled $174.00. The checks were cashed by the Respondent's agency on January 26, 1982 and on February 6, 1982. The Independent Fire Insurance Company issued the policy to Tony and Martha Williams and on August 4, 1982 a representative of the Independent Fire Insurance Company wrote the Respondent to advise her that she owed that company a balance of $179.35, as of May 1982. Petitioner asserts that the $179.35 represents the amount of Tony Williams' premium owed to the insurer, less the Respondent's commission, which if added together would equal the $211.00 premium on the Williams' policy. Although it was established that $179.35 was owed by the Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company, and never paid, it was not established that it represented the premium due specifically for the Williams' policy as was charged in count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. For instance, the checks paid by the Williamses to the Watson Agency total $174.00 and therefore there is a discrepancy between the total of those checks and the $179.35 amount Independent Fire Insurance company was owed by the Respondent. This fact coupled with the fact that the dates on the checks from the Williamses (January and February) substantially predate the May 1982 billing date to Respondent from Independent Fire, renders it unproven that the checks written to the Watson Agency which Respondent negotiated and retained the benefit of, related to the amount of unremitted premium owed by Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company. In short, it was established that $174.00 was paid the Respondent and her agency by the Williamses. But, it was not established that the premium paid by the Williamses became misappropriated fiduciary funds converted by the Respondent to her own use and benefit. It was merely established that as of May 1982 the Respondent owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company $179.35 as a past-due account It was not established that the Williamses ever suffered a lapse of insurance coverage or were otherwise harmed by the Respondent's failure to pay Independent Fire the $179.35. Indeed, the $179.35 figure was not proven to be more than a mere debt owed by Respondent to Independent Fire Insurance Company. The figure was not shown to have been related to any particular policy. The Respondent and her insurance agency in the regular course of business wrote insurance coverage for companies represented by MacNeill and Son, Inc., the Respondent's managing agency. The regular business practice between the Respondent and MacNeill was for the Respondent to write coverage on behalf of insurers represented by MacNeill and to remit on a regular open account" basis insurance premiums due MacNeill on behalf of its insurance company principals on a monthly basis. The Respondent became delinquent in submitting premiums to MacNeill and Son in November 1981. After unsuccessful efforts to collect the delinquent premium funds from the Respondent, MacNeill and Son, Inc. suspended T. J. Watson Insurance Agency and the Respondent from writing further coverage for companies they represented in January 1982. The Respondent purportedly sold her agency to one Thomas Zinnbauer in December 1981, but had already fallen into a pattern of failing to remit insurance premiums over to MacNeill before that time. In any event, the purported sale to Thomas Zinnbauer was a subterfuge to avoid collection of delinquent premiums inasmuch as the Respondent held herself out, in correspondence with MacNeill, (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) to be the president of the agency at least as late as April 1982 and, at that time and thereafter, the agency continued to sell insurance under the aegis of the Respondent's license. After the Respondent made up the delinquency in premium remissions to the MacNeill Agency that agency restored her underwriting authority in January 1982. Shortly thereafter however, the Respondent and the T. J. Watson Agency again became delinquent in remitting insurance premiums to the MacNeill Agency and followed a quite consistent pattern of failing to forward these fiduciary funds to MacNeill for some months. Ultimately the Respondent and her agency failed to forward more than $6500.00 in premium payment funds to MacNeill and Son, Inc. as was required in the regular course of business. MacNeill and Son, Inc. made repeated futile attempts to secure the misappropriated premium payments from the Respondent and her agency. MacNeill made several accountings of the amount of the acknowledged debt to the Respondent. The Respondent communicated with MacNeill concerning the delinquent premium payments and acknowledged the fact of the debt, but sought to reach an amicable arrangement for a repayment schedule. Re- payment was never made, however, and ultimately the Petitioner agency was informed of the deficiencies and prosecution resulted. The Respondent knew that the premiums had been collected by herself and her agency and had not been forwarded to those entitled to them. She knew of and actively participated in the improper withholding of the premium payments. This withholding and diversion of premium payments from the agency and companies entitled to them was a continuing pattern of conduct and Respondent failed to take action to halt the misappropriation of the premium payments. Further, it is established by the testimony of Matthew Brewer, who investigated the delinquent premium accounts for MacNeill, that Ms. Watson failed to advise MacNeill of the purported sale of her agency until November of 1982, almost a year after it is supposed to have occurred and then only in response to Brewer's investigation. When confronted by Mr. Brewer concerning the ownership of her agency Ms. Watson refused to tell him to whom she had sold the agency. When Mr. Brewer learned that Thomas Zinnbauer had apparently bought the agency from the Respondent Mr. Brewer conferred with him and he refused to release the agency records unless Ms. Watson gave her permission. This fact, together with the fact that Ms. Watson held herself out as president of the agency some four months after she had purportedly sold the agency to Zinnbauer, establishes that Respondent, by representing to Brewer and other personnel of MacNeill and Sons, Inc. that she had sold her agency, was attempting to evade liability for failure to forward the fiduciary premium funds obtained under the authority of her agent's license. As a result of the failure to forward the above- mentioned premium payments some of the insureds who had paid those premiums suffered lapses in coverage and cancellations of policies because MacNeill and Company and the insurers they represented believed that no premiums had ever been paid. Ultimately, MacNeill and Company learned that the premiums had been paid by the policyholders, but not remitted by the Respondent and her agency and undertook steps to reinstate coverage, but those policyholders in some instances had substantial periods of time when their coverage was lapsed due to the Respondent's failure to remit the premium funds to the managing agency and the insurance companies involved. MacNeill and Company ultimately reimbursed the appropriate insurers and insureds at its own expense, incurring substantial financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's failure to have premium payments obtained under her licensed authority properly forwarded. Had the insureds who had their policies cancelled suffered losses for which claims could have been filed during the period of the lapses of coverage, they could have encountered substantial financial difficulty.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the General Lines Insurance Agent's license of Respondent Teresa Jean Watson be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX RULING OF PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted, although the amount represented by the two subject checks totalled $174.00 instead of $175.00. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible evidence adduced. Rejected inasmuch as it was not established that the amount of $179.35 owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company represented the premium on the Williamses' insurance policy. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, although the last sentence in that Proposed Finding constitutes, in reality, mere argument of counsel. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence actually before the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Respondent submitted a post-hearing document entitled "Proposed Findings of Fact." There are few actual Proposed Facts in that one-and-a-half page pleading which is interlaced throughout with argument of counsel. However, to the extent the six paragraphs of that document contain Proposed Findings of Fact they are ruled on as follows: This Proposed Finding is rejected, but for reasons delineated in the above Conclusions of Law, Count 1 has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. This Finding is accepted but is immaterial and irrelevant to, and not necessary to, the Findings of Fact reached herein and the Conclusions of Law based thereon. Paragraph Number 3 does not really constitute a Proposed Finding of Fact or even multiple Proposed Findings of Fact in the same paragraph. In reality, it constitutes argument of Respondent's counsel concerning admissibility of certain documents into evidence which have already been ruled to be admissible by the Hearing Officer during the course of the hearing. To the extent that the last two sentences in the third paragraph of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are proposed findings of fact, they are accepted, but are immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary to the findings of fact made herein and the conclusions predicated thereon and recommendation made herein. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as constituting mere argument of counsel and not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence adduced. Rejected as not in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented as to Count 2. In reality, counsel obviously intended to refer to the two checks referenced in Count 1 of the complaint which has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Steinberg, Esquire Post Office Box 2366 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners’ Interim Rate Request (IRR) for an increase should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency of state government responsible for the implementation and administration of the Medicaid Program in the State of Florida. AHCA is authorized to audit Medicaid Cost Reports submitted by Medicaid Providers participating in the Medicaid Program. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud are licensed nursing homes in Florida that participate in the Medicaid Program as institutional Medicaid Providers. On May 23, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville entered into a settlement agreement with the representative of the estate of one of its former residents, D. P. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at Jacksonville would pay $350,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at Jacksonville paid the personal representative the sum of $350,000.00. By letter dated July 16, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville requested an IRR effective August 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.2., for additional costs incurred from self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at Jacksonville submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the costs exceeded $5,000.00 and that the increase in cost was projected at $2.77/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at Jacksonville was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,627.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated July 18, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of Section IV J. of the Plan, necessary and proper for granting the request. Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Subsequently, Avante at Jacksonville became concerned that, perhaps, the incorrect provision of the Plan had been cited in its IRR. As a result, a second IRR was submitted for the same costs. By letter dated October 22, 2007, Avante at Jacksonville made a second request for an IRR, this time pursuant to the Plan Section IV J.3., for the same additional costs incurred from the self-insured losses as a result of paying the $350,000.00 settlement. The same supporting documentation was included. Avante at Jacksonville was of the opinion that the Plan Section IV J.3. specifically dealt with the costs of general and professional liability insurance. By letter dated October 30, 2007, AHCA denied the second request for an IRR, indicating that the first request was denied based on “all sub-sections of Section IV J of the Plan”; that the second request failed to satisfy the requirements of the Plan Section IV J.3. and all sections and sub-sections of the Plan “necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at Jacksonville contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. On October 19, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud entered a settlement agreement with the personal representative of the estate of one of its former residents, G. M. The settlement agreement provided, among other things, that Avante at St. Cloud would pay $90,000.00 as settlement for all claims. Avante at St. Cloud paid the personal representative the sum of $90,000.00. By letter dated December 10, 2007, Avante at St. Cloud requested an IRR effective November 1, 2007, pursuant to the Plan Section IV J, for additional costs incurred as a result of paying the $90,000.00 to settle the lawsuit. Avante at St. Cloud submitted supporting documentation, including a copy of the settlement agreement, and indicated, among other things, that the increase in cost was projected at $2.02/day, exceeding one percent of the current Medicaid per diem rate. At all times pertinent hereto, the policy held by Avante at St. Cloud was a commercial general and professional liability insurance policy. The policy had $10,000.00 per occurrence and $50,000.00 general aggregate liability limits. The policy was a typical insurance policy representative of what other facilities in the nursing home industry purchased in Florida. The policy limits were typical limits in the nursing home industry in Florida. By letter dated December 12, 2007, AHCA denied the IRR on the basis that the IRR failed to satisfy the requirements of “Section IV J of the Plan necessary and proper for granting [the] request.” Avante at St. Cloud contested the denial and timely requested a hearing. Insurance Policies and the Nursing Home Industry in Florida Typically, nursing homes in Florida carry low limit general and professional liability insurance policies. The premiums of the policies exceed the policy limits. For example, the premium for a policy of Avante at Jacksonville to cover the $350,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $425,000.00 and for a policy of Avante at St. Cloud to cover the $90,000.00 settlement would have been approximately $200,000.00. Also, the policies have a funded reserve feature wherein, if the reserve is depleted through the payment of a claim, the nursing home is required to recapitalize the reserve or purchase a new policy. That is, if a policy paid a settlement up to the policy limits, the nursing home would have to recapitalize the policy for the amount of the claim paid under the policy and would have to fund the loss, which is the amount in excess of the policy limits, out-of-pocket. Florida’s Medicaid Reimbursement Plan for Nursing Homes The applicable version of the Plan is Version XXXI. AHCA has incorporated the Plan in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. AHCA uses the Plan in conjunction with the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB.15-1)3 to calculate reimbursement rates of nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The calculation of reimbursement rates uses a cost- based, prospective methodology, using the prior year’s costs to establish the current period per diem rates. Inflation factors, target ceilings, and limitations are applied to reach a per patient, per day per diem rate that is specific to each nursing home. Reimbursement rates for nursing homes and long-term care facilities are typically set semi-annually, effective on January 1 and July 1 of each year. The most recent Medicaid cost report is used to calculate a facility’s reimbursement rate and consists of various components, including operating costs, the direct patient care costs, the indirect patient care costs, and property costs. The Plan allows for the immediate inclusion of costs in the per diem rate to Medicaid Providers under very limited circumstances through the IRR process. The interim rate’s purpose is to compensate for the shortfalls of a prospective reimbursement system and to allow a Medicaid Provider to increase its rate for sudden, unforeseen, dramatic costs beyond the Provider’s control that are of an on-going nature. Importantly, the interim rate change adjusts the Medicaid Provider’s individual target rate ceiling to allow those costs to flow ultimately through to the per diem paid, which increases the amount of the Provider’s overall reimbursement. In order for a cost to qualify under an interim rate request, the cost must be an allowable cost and meet the criteria of Section IV J of the Plan. The Plan provides in pertinent part: IV. Standards * * * J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem rate. If new State or Federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure and certification requirements, or new interpretations of existing laws, rules, regulations, or licensure and certification requirements require providers to make changes that result in increased or decreased patient care, operating, or capital costs, requests for component interim rates shall be considered for each provider based on the budget submitted by the provider. All providers’ budgets submitted shall be reviewed by the Agency [AHCA] and shall be the basis for establishing reasonable cost parameters. In cases where new State or Federal requirements are imposed that affect all providers, appropriate adjustments shall be made to the class ceilings to account for changes in costs caused by the new requirements effective as of the date of the new requirements or implementation of the new requirements, whichever is later. Interim rate adjustments shall be granted to reflect increases in the cost of general or professional liability insurance for nursing homes if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause change of 1 percent or more in the provider’s current total per diem. CMS-PUB.15-1 provides in pertinent part: 2160. Losses Arising From Other Than Sale of Assets 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. Where a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider as a result of such losses may not be included in allowable costs. * * * 2160.2 Liability Losses.—Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Insurance against a provider’s liability for such payments to others would include, for example, automobile liability insurance; professional liability (malpractice, negligence, etc.); owners, landlord and tenants liability; and workers’ compensation. Any settlement negotiated by the provider or award resulting from a court or jury decision of damages paid by the provider in excess of the limits of the provider’s policy, as well as the reasonable cost of any legal assistance connected with the settlement or award are includable in allowable costs, provided the provider submits evidence to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage carried by the provider at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. Also, the reasonable cost of insurance protection, as well as any losses incurred because of the application of the customary deductible feature of the policy, are includable in allowable costs. As to whether a cost is allowable, the authority to which AHCA would look is first to the Plan, then to CMS-PUB.15- 1, and then to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). As to reimbursement issues, AHCA would look to the same sources in the same order for the answer. The insurance liability limit levels maintained by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud reflect sound and prudent management practices. Claims that resulted in the settlements of Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud, i.e., wrongful death and/or negligence, are the type of claims covered under the general and professional liability policies carried by Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both had a general and professional liability insurance policy in full force and effect at the time the wrongful death and/or negligence claims were made that resulted in the settlement agreements. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud filed a claim with their insurance carrier, even though they could have, for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud both chose not to file a claim with their respective insurance carrier for the liability losses incurred as a result of the settlements. AHCA did not look beyond the Plan in making its determination that neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud should be granted an IRR. Wesley Hagler, AHCA’s Regulatory Analyst Supervisor, testified as an expert in Medicaid cost reimbursement. He testified that settlement agreements are a one time cost and are not considered on-going operating costs for purposes of Section IV J.2. of the Plan. Mr. Hagler’s testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Hagler testified that settlement agreements and defense costs are not considered general and professional liability insurance for purposes of Section IV J.3. of the Plan. To the contrary, Stanley William Swindling, Jr., an expert in health care accounting and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, testified that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs. Mr. Swindling’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Hagler’s testimony, and, therefore, a finding of fact is made that general and professional liability insurance costs include premiums, settlements, losses, co-insurance, deductibles, and defense costs.4 Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted any documentation with their IRRs to indicate a specific law, statute, or rule, either state or federal, with which they were required to comply, resulted in an increase in costs. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud experienced an increase in the premiums for the general and professional liability insurance policies. Neither Avante at Jacksonville nor Avante at St. Cloud submitted documentation with its IRRs to indicate that the premiums of its general and professional liability insurance increased. Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud could only meet the $5,000.00 threshold and the one percent increase in total per diem under the Plan, Sections IV J.2. or J.3. by basing its calculations on the settlement costs. Looking to the Plan in conjunction with CMS-PUB.15-1 to determine reimbursement costs, CMS-PUB.15-1 at Section 2160A provides generally that, when a provider chooses not to file a claim for losses covered by insurance, the costs incurred by the provider, as a result of such losses, are not allowable costs; however, Section 2160.2 specifically includes settlement dollars in excess of the limits of the policy as allowable costs, provided the evidence submitted by the provider to the intermediary (AHCA) shows to the satisfaction of the intermediary that the insurance coverage at the time of the loss reflected the decision of prudent management. The policy coverage for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud set the policy limits for each facility at $10,000.00 for each occurrence. Applying the specific section addressing settlement negotiations, the loss covered by insurance would have been $10,000.00 for each facility and the losses in excess of the policy limits--$340,000.00 for Avante at Jacksonville and $80,000.00 for Avante at St. Cloud—would have been allowable costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the interim rate requests for an increase for Avante at Jacksonville and Avante at St. Cloud. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2008. 1/ The corrected case-style.
