The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of transacting insurance business in violation of Sections 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed as a general lines insurance agent, holding license number A274461. He has been so licensed for over 20 years. The record discloses no previous discipline. Respondent bought L.N.V., Inc., d/b/a Federal Insurance (Federal Insurance), when he first became licensed in Florida. Respondent has retained ownership control of Federal Insurance since its purchase, except for a one-year period starting in June 2002, when Federal Insurance sold its assets to an unrelated party. However, after the party defaulted on its purchase obligations, Federal Insurance recovered the assets. Prior to June 2002, Respondent was, at all material times, the sole shareholder, the president, and a director of Federal Insurance. The acts and omissions alleged in Counts I, II, IV, and VII took place during this time period. After June 2003, Respondent's formal roles with Federal Insurance became less clear, although he continued to run the daily operations of the business and control the corporation. At minimum, though, Respondent was the Agency Owner from May 20, 2003, through November 7, 2003, and November 25, 2003, through December 29, 2003, according to the Agency Location Report, which is part of Petitioner Exhibit 2. The acts and omissions alleged in Counts V and VI took place, at least in part, during these time periods. Without doubt, regardless of his formal roles after June 2003, Respondent personally committed the acts and omissions that are the subject of Counts V and VI. Michael Smith is a licensed property and casualty insurance agent. He is also licensed to sell life and health insurance. He has held insurance licenses since 1983. Mr. Smith has been employed by Federal Insurance twice: from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s and 1999-2001. At all material times, Nicholas Polyviou, d/b/a Polyviou Corporation, was a self-employed manufacturer of office furniture. Mr. Polyviou did his insurance business at Federal Insurance where he dealt with Michael Smith. On October 13, 1999, Mr. Polyviou visited Michael Smith at Federal Insurance to purchase workers' compensation and liability insurance. Mr. Polyviou completed an application for workers' compensation insurance and delivered four Notices of Election to be Exempt, which had already been filled out and signed by Mr. Polyviou and the other three employees who were the subjects of the notices. The notices represented elections by qualified persons not to be covered by workers' compensation. To process the Notices of Election to Be Exempt and file them with the Division of Workers' Compensation, Federal Insurance charged Mr. Polyviou $75 per form, for a total of $300. The $75 fee per form consisted of a $50 fee charged by the Division of Workers' Compensation to file the notices and a $25 fee charged by Federal Insurance to process the notices and send them to the Division of Workers' Compensation. However, Federal Insurance never sent these notices to the Division of Workers' Compensation. Eventually, following an audit, Mr. Polyviou was assessed about $20,000 in unpaid workers' compensation premiums for these four individuals. Mr. Polyviou's injury was considerably less than $20,000 because the other three employees were ineligible to elect out of coverage in the first place. At all material times, David Wagner was self-employed in landscape maintenance. On August 21, 2000, Mr. Wagner visited Mr. Smith at Federal Insurance to purchase workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Wagner completed an application for workers' compensation insurance and delivered a Notice of Election to be Exempt, which had already been filled out and signed by Mr. Wagner. Respondent notarized the Notice of Election to be Exempt. To process the Notice of Election to Be Exempt and file them with the Division of Workers' Compensation, Federal Insurance charged Mr. Wagner $75. The $75 fee consisted of a $50 fee charged by the Division of Workers' Compensation to file the notice and a $25 fee charged by Federal Insurance to file the notice. However, Federal Insurance never filed the notice with the Division of Workers' Compensation. Eventually, an audit uncovered the absence of a filed notice, but the workers' compensation insurer and Petitioner were able to give effect to the notice, as of the date that it should have been filed, so that Mr. Wagner was not subject to any fines, fees, or penalties. Mr. Smith and other Federal Insurance employees described the office procedures at the time of the Polyviou and Wagner transactions. After completing the applications and notices and collecting the customers' checks, Mr. Smith typically placed the documents and checks in a basket where employees not performing other tasks would process the notices and payments, prepare checks for deposit, prepare money orders, and mail completed packages to the Division of Workers' Compensation. Because the Division of Workers' Compensation required the payment of filing fees by money order, not corporate check, Federal Insurance would not know if the Division of Workers' Compensation had received a package. On August 28, 2000--one week after the Wagner transaction--Evelyn Grenyer visited Mr. Smith at Federal Insurance to purchase renter's insurance. She informed Mr. Smith that all correspondence had to be mailed to a post office box, not her street address. Mr. Smith agreed to do so. Ms. Grenyer paid Federal Insurance a premium of $242.17. Over the next several days, Mr. Smith called Ms. Grenyer with questions about her residence, but he consistently assured her that she had insurance. In May 2001, Ms. Grenyer's home was robbed of property worth $2000. When she called Federal Insurance, she learned that she had not been insured because they had been unable to find her residence. Someone at Federal Insurance explained that they had sent mail to her residence, rather than, as instructed, her post office box, and the mail had been returned. Mr. Smith testified that Federal Insurance submitted the premium of $202.64 to the renter's insurance company. He thought that the difference may have been a charge to inspect the house. When the insurer required additional information, Federal Insurance attempted to contact Ms. Grenyer through her street address, rather than, as instructed, by her post office box. When she did not respond, the insurer canceled coverage, as of October 18, 2000, and refunded $149.53 of the premium to Federal Insurance, by check dated November 14, 2000. Federal Insurance deposited the check to its account. Only after Ms. Grenyer contacted Federal Insurance about the loss did it issue a check, in the same amount and dated May 10, 2001, to Ms. Grenyer. Obviously, no one at Federal Insurance visited the residence or tried calling Ms. Grenyer, whose phone number had not changed for five years and was in the records of Federal Insurance. Ms. Grenyer never recovered any insurance proceeds for the $2000 loss that she suffered. From 1995-1998, Federal Insurance employed Juan C. Montoya as an insurance agent. On January 22, 1998, Federal Insurance designated Mr. Montoya as the primary agent of Federal Insurance. In May 1998, Mr. Montoya's employment with Federal Insurance terminated. Federal Insurance failed to designate a new primary agent until July 9, 2001. For nearly three years, Federal Insurance operated without a designated primary agent. A few months after selling the insurance business, Respondent filed a notice with Petitioner, on September 25, 2002, identifying JEMS Services, 4207 Lake Avenue, West Palm Beach, as his new principal business address. When filing the notice, Respondent knew that he did not intend to transact insurance business at the JEMS Services address. In fact, Respondent used the JEMS Services address without the consent of the insurance agent conducting insurance business at that address. JEMS Services is an insurance agency owned by Janet Travieso-Otero, a friend of Respondent and his wife. Ms. Travieso-Otero never gave Respondent permission to use her address as his principal business address. Respondent has never been employed by JEMS Services, nor has he ever transacted business from this address, which has never been the principal business address of Respondent or any insurance business that he has owned or operated. Respondent accused Ms. Travieso-Otero of lying when she testified that she had never told Respondent that he could use her business as his principal place of business. To the contrary, Respondent is lying, and, even if he were not lying, Respondent intentionally provided Petitioner an incorrect business address. With Mr. Montoya and Ms. Travieso-Otero, Respondent has used friends and business associates, without their knowledge, to satisfy regulatory requirements. At all times during which Mr. Montoya was designated as the primary agent, including while he was employed by Federal Insurance, Respondent was the primary agent because Respondent, not Mr. Montoya, was responsible for the supervision of the insurance agents and their hiring and firing. The common thread in both situations is that Respondent, not someone on his behalf, has intentionally filed false information with Petitioner. Petitioner's expert witness, Wilford Ghioto, testified about Respondent's obligations. Mr. Ghioto, who has considerable relevant experience in the retail property-and- casualty insurance business, described the procedures that his office followed when processing and filing Notices of Election to be Exempt from workers' compensation insurance coverage. In particular, the insurance agent, but not the supervising agent, was responsible to ensure that the completed package was mailed to the proper location, and the supervising agent, if aware of any problems with an insurance agent, opened all of the insurance agent's mail to discover any problems. The supervising agent also ensured that the office routinely ran account receivable reports to find any money due an insured.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing Counts I-IV, finding Respondent guilty of Counts V-VII, imposing an administrative fine of $1250, and suspending Respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2004, 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 20th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregg S. Marr David J. Busch Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Orrin R. Beilly Law Office of Orrin R. Beilly Citizens Building, Suite 705 105 South Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capital, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capital, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, by entering a plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit workers' compensation fraud, demonstrated a lack of fitness and trustworthiness to sell insurance in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was eligible for licensure and licensed in the following areas: (a) as a health insurance agent; (b) as a life insurance agent; (c) as a life and health insurance agent; (d) as a life, health, and variable annuity agent; (e) as a surplus lines insurance agent; and (f) as a general lines insurance agent. In June 1992, the insurance agency that Respondent worked for was purchased by another insurance agency. Ronald Palmerton was a client of the owner of Respondent's former employer. Mr. Palmerton held a workers' compensation policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual). After the owner of Respondent's former employer left the new agency, Respondent handled Mr. Palmerton's requests for additional insurance with Liberty Mutual. Respondent was never paid a commission for any work performed on Mr. Palmerton's behalf. Even so, Respondent's testimony that Mr. Palmerton was not up front with information that he provided to Respondent and that Respondent never told Mr. Palmerton that he could avoid his workers' compensation experience modification if he started another company is not persuasive. In a Fourth Amended Information dated April 16, 2001, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton, were charged in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District, in and for Escambia County, Florida, Case No. 99-2081 CF, with several felony and misdemeanor violations. Specifically, Respondent was charged as follows: (a) with racketeering, a first-degree felony in violation of Section 895.03, Florida Statutes; (b) with conspiracy to commit racketeering, a first-degree felony in violation of Sections 895.03(4) and 777.04(3), Florida Statutes; and (c) conspiracy to commit workers' compensation fraud, a misdemeanor in violation of Sections 440.37(4) and 777.04(3), Florida Statutes. The misdemeanor criminal charge was based on allegations that, beginning on April 4, 1993, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton did unlawfully and knowingly conspire to commit workers' compensation fraud by knowingly making false or misleading oral or written statements and representations and/or knowingly omitting or concealing material information required by Section 440.381, Florida Statutes. According to the Fourth Amended Information, the purpose of the conspiracy was to avoid or diminish the amount of payment of any workers' compensation premiums to be paid by Mr. Palmerton and/or his related companies to a carrier or self-insurance fund. The criminal trial was scheduled for April 16, 2001. On April 12, 2001, the State of Florida offered a plea agreement to Respondent. Respondent initially refused the offer but changed his mind after learning that Mr. Palmerton had agreed to plead guilty to felony charges for perjury and racketeering, with a sentence for 18 months' house arrest and 15 years of probation. Respondent understood that Mr. Palmerton would testify against Respondent if he elected to proceed to trial. On April 16, 2001, Respondent entered into a Plea Agreement in which he agreed to plead no contest to one count of conspiracy to commit workers' compensation fraud, a first-degree misdemeanor. The agreement included a provision for a sentence of one year of probation. Under the agreement, a sentence of nine months' incarceration in the Escambia County jail would be suspended pending Respondent's successful completion of all terms and conditions of probation. The agreement also provided that Respondent's probation would include the payment of any restitution ordered by the Court during a subsequent hearing. On April 16, 2001, the Court adjudicated Respondent guilty, withholding imposition of sentence and placing Respondent on one year of probation. The terms of Respondent's probation included, but are not limited to, the following: payment of a fine and court costs in the amount of $1,000; payment of the costs of prosecution in the amount of $5,000; and (c) payment of restitution as determined at a subsequent hearing. A few days after being adjudicated guilty, Respondent contacted Petitioner's staff to determine the effect of his nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor offense on his licensure status. Petitioner's staff subsequently informed Respondent that a misdemeanor offense would not result in an automatic suspension of an insurance license. On April 11, 2002, the Court conducted a restitution hearing. During the hearing, the State of Florida and Respondent agreed and stipulated to the entry of a restitution order and judgment satisfactory to the victim, Liberty Mutual. On June 3, 2002, the Court entered a Restitution Order and Judgment against Respondent. The Order required Respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $225,000. Pursuant to the Order, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton are jointly and severally liable for payment of the restitution, with Respondent receiving credit toward the total obligation for $200,000 previously paid by Mr. Palmerton and $10,000 paid by Respondent on April 11, 2002. As such, the effective amount of the Restitution Order and Judgment was a $15,000 balance due from Respondent. In June 2002, Petitioner issued a renewal notice for Respondent's surplus lines insurance license. The notice requested the appointing insurance company or agency to certify that Respondent had not pled guilty, or nolo contendere to, or had not been found guilty of a felony since originally being appointed by the appointing entity. The notice did not inquire whether Respondent had pled guilty, or nolo contendere to, or found guilty of a misdemeanor. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton were still jointly and severally obligated to pay $15,000 in unpaid restitution. Respondent had successfully completed his probation in all other respects. During the hearing, Petitioner denied any wrong doing in relation to the misdemeanor offense to which he pled no contest. Specifically, Respondent denied that he ever intended to assist Mr. Palmerton in any type of scheme to defraud or otherwise do harm to Liberty Mutual. Respondent's testimony in this regard in not persuasive. Respondent has been a licensed insurance agent for 32 years. Prior to the instant proceeding, Respondent's insurance licenses have not been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding or lawsuit. Liberty Mutual did not name Respondent as a party in its civil suit against Mr. Palmerton. Instead, Respondent cooperated with and testified on behalf of Liberty Mutual in that proceeding. Until Respondent committed the offense at issue here, his reputation in the insurance community indicates that he was an honest and trustworthy agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order imposing a six-month suspension of Respondent's insurance licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas E. Wheeler, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 12564 Pensacola, Florida 32573-2564 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Does Petitioner, Department of Financial Services (DFS), have authority to determine if Respondent, Alberto Luis Sotero (Mr. Sotero) and Respondent, FalconTrust Group, Inc. (FalconTrust), wrongfully took or witheld premium funds owed an insurance company while a civil action between the insurance company and Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust pends in Circuit Court presenting the same issues? Should the insurance agent license of Mr. Sotero be disciplined for alleged violations of Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), and 626.621(4), Florida Statutes (2007)?1. Should the insurance agency license of FalconTrust be disciplined for alleged violations of Section 626.561(1), 626.6215(5)(a), 626.6215(5)(d). 626.6215(5)(f), and 626.6215(5)(k), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Sotero is licensed by DFS as an insurance agent in Florida and has been at all times material to this matter. He holds license number A249545. FalconTrust is licensed by DFS as an insurance agency in this state and has been at all times material to this matter. It holds license number L014424. Mr. Sotero is an officer and director of FalconTrust and held these positions at all times material to this proceeding. Mr. Sotero also controlled and directed all actions of FalconTrust described in these Findings of Fact. Zurich American Insurance Company is a commercial property and casualty insurance company. FalconTrust Commercial Risk Specialists, Inc., and Zurich-American Insurance Group entered into an "Agency-Company Agreement" (Agency Agreement) that was effective January 1, 1999. The Agency Agreement bound the following Zurich entities, referred to collectively as Zurich: Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch; Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company; American Zurich Insurance Company; and Steadfast Insurance Company. The Agreement specified that FalconTrust was an "independent Agent and not an employee of the Company [Zurich.]". . .. The Agency Agreement also stated: All premiums collected by you [Falcontrust] are our [Zurich's] property and are held by you as trust funds. You have no interest in such premiums and shall make no deduction therefrom before paying same to us [Zurich] except for the commission if any authorized by us in writing to be deducted by you and you shall not under any circumstances make personal use of such funds either in paying expense or otherwise. If the laws or regulations of the above state listed in your address require you to handle premiums in a fiduciary capacity or as trust funds you agree that all premiums of any kind received by or paid to you shall be segregated held apart by you in a premium trust fund account opened by you with a bank insured at all times by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and chargeable to you in a fiduciary capacity as trustee for our benefit and on our behalf and you shall pay such premiums as provided in this agreement. (emphasis supplied. The Agency Agreement commits Zurich to pay FalconTrust commissions "on terms to be negotiated . . . ." It requires FalconTrust to pay "any sub agent or sub producer fees or commissions required." The Agency Agreement also provides: Suspension or termination of this Agreement does not relieve you of the duty to account for and pay us all premiums for which you are responsible in accordance with Section 2 and return commissions for which you are responsible in accordance with Section 3 [the Commission section.] The Agency Agreement was for Mr. Sotero and Falcontrust to submit insurance applications for the Zurich companies to underwrite property and casualty insurance, primarily for long- haul trucking. The Agency Agreement and all the parties contemplated that Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust would deduct agreed-upon commissions from premiums and remit the remaining funds to Zurich. On September 14, 2000, Zurich and Mr. Sotero amended the Agency Agreement to change the due date for premium payments and to replace FalconTrust Group, Inc. (FalconTrust) for FalconTrust Commercial Risk Specialists, Inc., and to replace Zurich-American Insurance Group and Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch, with Zurich U.S. Mr. Sotero and Zurich's authorized agent, Account Executive Sue Marcello, negotiated the terms of the commission agreement as contemplated in the Agency Agreement. Mr. Sotero confirmed the terms in a July 20, 1999, letter to Ms. Marcello. The parties agreed on a two-part commission. One part was to be paid from the premiums upon collection of the premiums. The second part, contingent upon the program continuing for five years, was to be paid by Zurich to Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust. The total commission was 20 percent. FalconTrust and Mr. Sotero were authorized to deduct 13 percent of the commission from premiums before forwarding them to Zurich. The remaining seven percent Zurich was to pay to Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust at the end of the program or after the fifth year anniversary date. The letter spelled out clearly that Zurich would hold the money constituting the seven percent and was entitled to all investment income earned on the money. The passage describing the arrangement reads as follows: Our total commission is 20 percent however Zurich will hold and retain the first 7 percent commission where they are entitle [sic] to earn investment income. I understand that FalconTrust will not benefit from this compounded investment income. However you mentioned you would increase our initial commission that is set at 13 percent currently from time to time depending on FalconTrust reaching their goals, but it will never exceed a total commission of 20 percent. It is to our understanding that the difference will be paid at the end of the program or after the fifth year anniversary date being 12/31/2005, but not earlier than five years. I do understand that if Zurich and/or FalconTrust cancels the program on or before the fourth year being 12/31/2004 that we are not entitle [sic] to our remaining commission that you will be holding. If the program is cancelled after 12/31/2004 by FalconTrust and/or Zurich it is understood that all commission being held will be considered earned. (emphasis added.) Until the program ended, the parties conducted themselves under the Agency Agreement as described in the letter. At some point the parties agreed to decrease the percentage retained by Zurich to five percent and increase the percentage initially paid to and kept by FalconTrust to 15 percent. During the course of the relationship FalconTrust produced approximately $146,000,000 in premiums for Zurich. At all times relevant to this matter, all premium payments, except for the portion deducted by sub-agents and producers before forwarding the payments to Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust were deposited into a trust account. The various sub-agents of FalconTrust collected premiums and forwarded them to FalconTrust, after deducting their commissions, which were a subpart of the FalconTrust 13 percent commission. FalconTrust in turn forwarded the remaining premium funds after deducting the portion of its 13 percent left after the sub-agent deduction. This was consistent with the Agency Agreement and accepted as proper by Zurich at all times. All parties realized that the held-back seven percent, later five percent, was money that Zurich would owe and pay if the conditions for payment were met. The parties conducted themselves in keeping with that understanding. Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust described the practice this way in their Third Amended Complaint in a court proceeding about this dispute: "In accordance with the Commission Agreement, Zurich held the contingency/holdback commission and received investment income thereon." (Emphasis supplied.) In 2006 Zurich decided to end the program. In a letter dated December 8, 2006, Tim Anders, Vice President of Zurich, notified Mr. Sotero that Zurich was terminating the Agency-Company Agreement of January 1, 1999. The letter was specific. It said Zurich was providing "notification of termination of that certain Agency-Company Agreement between Zurich American Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Co. of Illinois, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., American Zurich Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company . . . and FalconTrust Grup, Inc. . . ., dated January 1, 1999, . . .." Mr. Sotero wrote asking Zurich to reconsider or at least extend the termination date past the March 15, 2007, date provided in the letter. Zurich agreed to extend the termination date to April 30, 2007. At the time of termination FalconTrust had fulfilled all of the requirements under the Agency-Agreement for receipt of the held-back portion of the commissions. Mr. Sotero asked Zurich to pay the held-back commission amounts. He calculated the amount to exceed $7,000,000. Zurich did not pay the held- back commission amounts. As the program was winding down and the termination date approached, FalconTrust continued to receive premiums. As the Agency Agreement and negotiated commission structure provided, FalconTrust deducted its initial commission from the premium payments. But, reacting to Zurich's failure to begin paying the held back commission amounts, Mr. Sotero engaged in "self help." He deducted at least $6,000,000 from the premium payments from customers, received and deposited in the trust account. He took the money as payment from Zurich of earned and held back commissions.3 Nothing in the Agency Agreement or negotiated commission agreement authorized this action. In March of 2007, Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust also brought suit against Zurich in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida. The issues in that proceeding include whether Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust wrongfully took premiums and how much Zurich owes them for commissions. As of the final hearing, that cause (Case Number 07-6199-CA-01) remained pending before the court and set for jury trial in August 2010. There is no evidence of a final disposition. But the court has entered a partial Summary Judgment determining that FalconTrust wrongfully took premium funds for the commissions that it maintained Zurich owed. The court's Order concludes that the issue is not whether Zurich owed money to FalconTrust, but whether FalconTrust was entitled to take the funds when it did. Like the undersigned, the court determines that it was not. Between December 8, 2006, the date of the cancelation letter, and April 30, 2007, the program termination date, Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust did not remit to Zurich any of the approximately $6,000,000 in premium payments received. Despite not receiving premiums, Zurich did not cancel or refuse to issue the policies for which the premiums taken by Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust were payment. The policies remained in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services suspend the license of Adalberto L. Sotero for nine months and suspend the license of FalconTrust Group, Inc. for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 15th day of October, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Charles Lee Anderson, was licensed as a general lines insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer. Respondent presently resides at 2291 Northwest 12th Court, Pompano Beach, Florida. He has been licensed by petitioner since 1968, and, prior to this proceeding, had no blemishes on his record. When the events herein occurred, Anderson was the president and director of Payless and Save Insurance Underwriters Corporation (Payless), an insurance agency located and doing business at 2401 Northwest 21st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Anderson was also the general lines agent of record for the corporation. Count I In early January, 1984 Anderson was working from midnight until 8:00 a.m. as a security guard. Because of this, he hired one Mamie Baugh as an independent contractor to operate his insurance agency. Anderson authorized Baugh to sell policies and sign his name on insurance applications and other documents. Anderson would drop by his office two or three times a week to "check on (Baugh)" and "look at the paperwork." On or about January 3, 1984 Blanche Jones went to Payless to purchase an automobile insurance policy. She chose Payless because it was located just around the corner from her home in Fort Lauderdale, and was more convenient than her former insurance agent in Hallandale. Because Anderson was not present, Jones met with Baugh and discussed her insurance needs. Baugh filled out an application on behalf of Jones for automobile insurance with Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (Industrial) in Hollywood, Florida. Anderson was a licensed agent with Industrial, and authorized to act as a brokering agent for that company. Baugh signed Anderson's name on the application as brokering agent. Jones then gave Baugh a check for $456 as payment for the policy and was given a receipt. In February Jones had not received her policy or any evidence that she was insured. Her husband decided to visit the Payless office and obtain an insurance identification card in the event they had an accident. He met with Anderson who promised to give him a card. The following day, Anderson went to Jones' house and dropped off a business card. 1/ While there, Jones told Anderson she had paid for a policy but had never received anything. Anderson promised to "check into the particulars." After not hearing from Anderson for two months, Jones' husband went to Payless' office and found it closed. Jones thereafter went to her old insurance agent in Hallandale, and then to Public Insurance Agency (Public) in Hollywood. Public was the managing general agent for Industrial, the insurance company with whom Jones thought she had a policy. Public had no record of having received Jones' application or the $456 premium paid to Anderson. It also had no record of Anderson having telephoned Public on its "application telephone", a procedure that Anderson should have followed in order to have a binder issued on the policy. Consequently, Public never issued a policy insuring Jones. In late 1985 Jones was reading a copy of the Hollywood Sun Tattler, a local newspaper, and noticed an article about Anderson, who was then running for chief of police in Dania. She contacted the reporter who wrote the story who in turn contacted Anderson. Respondent telephoned Jones the next day and promised to return her money. A week later (January 10, 1986) Jones received a $456 money order from Anderson. A representative of Public established that Anderson was given a copy of an underwriting guide which contained explicit instructions on how to bind coverage and fill out applications. Among other things, the guide required that Anderson, and not his surrogate, sign all applications. Therefore, he was not authorized to allow Baugh to sign in his stead. Count II On or about December 20, 1983 Joseph V. Baxter visited Payless for the purpose of purchasing insurance coverage on various rental properties he owned. Baxter met with Anderson who prepared six "Homeowners Application for Quotation Only" with International Bankers Insurance Company (IBIC). Baxter gave Anderson a check for $818 as payment for the coverage. Anderson later endorsed the check. On January 11, 1984 Baxter returned to Payless and made application for a seventh insurance policy on another rental property. He gave Anderson a $318 check which Anderson subsequently endorsed. At that time Baxter was given a certificate of insurance indicating coverage with Great Southwest Fire Insurance Company (GSFIC). Several months later Baxter received a telephone call from a representative of the lending institution which held the mortgages on his property. Baxter then instructed Anderson to contact the institution and certify that Baxter had coverage on his properties. Anderson telephoned the institution in Baxter's presence and told the representative that Baxter was insured. Sometime later Baxter was again contacted by the mortgagee concerning his insurance coverage. Baxter attempted to visit Anderson but found Payless had closed its offices and gone out of business. Baxter then filed a complaint with petitioner. He never received insurance policies from IBIC or GSFIC. On January 10, 1986 Anderson repaid Baxter $1,136, the amount received by Anderson some two years earlier. A representative of IBIC established that Anderson never remitted the premiums or mailed the six quotation forms to the home office. It was further established that although GSFIC quoted a rate for Anderson on Baxter's seventh piece of property, it never received the follow-up application or premium. Respondent's Case Respondent blamed the Jones mishap on Baugh, who he claimed may have misplaced the application and taken the money. According to Anderson, she now lives in California and was unable to attend the hearing. However, he had no explanation for failing to follow up on Baxter's applications. Anderson said he closed his business in February, 1984 after a series of break- ins at his office, and left a note on the door giving a telephone number where he could be reached. However, he made no effort to personally contact those persons who held policies. Anderson further stated that he was unaware of the Jones and Baxter complaints until contacted by the newspaper reporter and petitioner, and then promptly repaid all monies due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the violations set forth in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order, and that his license and eligibility for licensure be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of September, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure as a resident general lines agent.
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 1998, Robert Manns, a representative for Butler County, Missouri, filed a consumer complaint with the Missouri Department of Insurance, which alleged that Petitioner financed a premium for an insurance policy when the premium had, in fact, been paid by the county. On June 9, 1999, Petitioner was assessed a fine of $10,000.00 by the Missouri Department of Insurance based on Petitioner's having practiced forgery and deception in an insurance transaction. Specifically, it was found that Petitioner signed the names of the city finance director and county commission clerk to premium finance documents and letters representing that the city and county had financed a premium when, in fact, the city and county had paid the insurance premium for the city and county accounts in full on an annual basis. At the time Petitioner forged the premium finance agreement, he was licensed as an insurance agent in the State of Missouri. The Missouri Department of Insurance did not revoke Petitioner's license as an insurance agent in the State of Missouri. On February 14, 2000, the Indiana Department of Insurance denied Petitioner’s application for licensure based upon the Missouri administrative action. On September 19, 2003, Petitioner applied for licensure as a resident general lines agent in the State of Florida. Based on its review of Petitioner's application and the administrative documents from the Missouri Department of Insurance described in paragraphs 2 above, the Department denied Petitioner’s application. In regard to the incident described in paragraph 2 above, Petitioner denied that he forged the insurance contract, but he admitted that he forged the premium finance agreement associated with the subject insurance contract. However, Petitioner testified that "no one lost money" as a result of his forging the premium finance agreement. Petitioner testified that he was not proud of the incident, that he was very sorry for doing it, and that his actions could not be justified. The Department considers the forgery of documents and deception related to insurance documents and transactions by an insurance agent to be serious matters. This is particularly true in light of the fiduciary role of an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a resident general lines insurance agent in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny R. Howe 4367 Winding Oaks Circle Mulberry, Florida 33860 Michael T. Ruff, Esquire Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent acted as an agent for a membership organization, International Water Safety Foundation (IWSF), and its insurance underwriter, North American Marine (NAM), that had been ordered to cease and desist transacting insurance related business in this state; if so, whether (and what) discipline should be imposed on Respondent's license to transact business as an insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of insurance agents in Florida and is responsible for administrating the disciplinary provisions of chapter 626, pursuant to section 20.121(2)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a licensed general lines insurance agent in the state of Florida. Respondent also is a director and officer of the Marta De La Paz Agency, Inc. (MDLPA), which she has co-owned with her daughter, Jenny Mondaca Toledo, since 2000. Respondent was a "captive agent" of Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) for the period of 2000 to 2010. During this time, pursuant to an agreement with Allstate, Respondent could only sell Allstate insurance products. If Allstate did not carry a particular insurance product line, Respondent was allowed to sell the products of other carriers to her clients if the other carrier was approved by Allstate. The Events Giving Rise to the Recommended Revocation Insurance agents licensed by the State of Florida are only permitted to sell insurance provided by entities which have a "certificate of authority" and which are authorized to sell in Florida. Agents are fiduciaries of the consumers who use their services. Sales of insurance through unauthorized entities place the consumer at risk because unauthorized entities do not participate in the Florida Insurance Guarantee Fund (FIGA), a fund maintained by the State to protect consumers from losses should an authorized insurance carrier become insolvent or unable to pay claims. IWSF is a membership organization which offers various benefits and services to its members, including watercraft insurance through a master policy with NAM. NAM, an unlicensed and unauthorized insurer, through IWSF, solicited Florida consumers to purchase insurance from NAM. On October 15, 2003, the Office of Insurance Regulation issued a cease and desist order (Order) against IWSF and NAM from conducting insurance related activities in Florida, including but not limited to, "transacting any new or renewal insurance business in this state, and from collecting any premiums from Florida insureds." The unlicensed, unauthorized, and, therefore, illegal transaction of insurance by IWSF and NAM was deemed to present an immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare of Florida residents. On or about April 14, 2009, Carlos Guzman (Guzman), on behalf of himself and his brother-in-law, Jorge Saez (Saez), sought to purchase watercraft insurance for a boat which they co-own. Guzman went to MDLPA and met with employee, Odayls Chiullan (Chiullan). Chiullan, who has held a 2-20 Florida general lines insurance license for approximately 15 years, worked at MDLPA as an agent for approximately three months during the spring of 2009. Respondent, as the principal agent of MDLPA, had the responsibility to supervise Chiullan during the period she worked for MDLPA. In April 2009, Allstate was not providing watercraft insurance for customers in Florida. To determine which carrier, if any, could provide the insurance sought by Guzman and Saez, Chiullan referred to a list maintained in the office of MDLPA. Chiullan found the name of IWSF on the list and assumed that it was approved by Allstate as a licensed entity with which MDLPA could do business. Chiullan was unaware of the 2003 Order against IWSF and NAM. Chiullan contacted IWSF and secured an insurance price quote for Guzman and Saez. Chiullan arranged for Guzman and Saez to become members of IWSF, thereby enabling their boat to become insured under the master policy of IWSF with NAM for the initial period of May 6, 2009, through May 6, 2010, which was subsequently renewed for an additional year. Chiullan contacted Standard Premium Finance Company (Standard) on behalf of Saez and Guzman to assist them in financing the premium payments for their boat insurance. Respondent was on a cruise and not in contact with Chiullan during the period when Chiullan assisted Saez and Guzman with securing boat insurance or the financing for their premium payments. Although correspondence to and from IWSF and MDLPA was on MDLPA letterhead and fax transmittal sheets, Respondent had no contact with Saez, Guzman, IWSF, or NAM regarding this May 2009 transaction. Respondent became aware of the purchase of insurance from IWSF by Saez and Guzman when she was asked by Chiullan to sign the premium finance agreement with Standard as the owner of MDLPA. That was the full extent of Respondent's connection to this particular transaction which is at issue. Saez and Guzman renewed their policy through MDLPA with IWSF and NAM for the period of May 6, 2010, through May 6, 2011. Saez and Guzman made no claims against the policy or policies in effect from May 6, 2009, through May 6, 2011. Prior to receipt of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was unaware of the Order against IWSF and NAM. Respondent was also unaware that neither entity was authorized to transact business in Florida. Respondent received no notice of the Order from Petitioner, Allstate, IWSF, NAM, or Standard. While serving as a captive agent for Allstate, Respondent did not receive alerts from Petitioner regarding unauthorized insurers. Although Respondent was aware of her obligations under Florida to stay apprised of which entities were authorized to issue insurance in Florida, she did so by maintaining a list in MDLPA, provided by Allstate, which she presumed was vetted and approved as state-authorized insurers. In fact, Respondent sold her son, Osmany Mondaca, insurance for his boat through IWSF and NAM for the period of November 26, 2007, through November 26, 2008, and this policy was renewed for two additional years. Respondent also sold boat insurance through IWSF and NAM for the coverage period of June 24, 2010, through June 24, 2011, to her boyfriend for a boat which they co-own. Prior to purchasing insurance through IWSF for her boyfriend and son, Respondent checked with Petitioner regarding the status of IWSF and was told there was no problem. As recently as December 2013, Respondent checked again with Petitioner and was advised there was no problem writing insurance through IWSF and NAM. Respondent credibly testified that, had she known about the Order, she certainly would not have sold policies through IWSF and NAM for a boat she co-owns with her boyfriend or for her son's boat. Although Petitioner offered evidence that it regularly provides updates on its website and in newsletters alerting agents to unauthorized insurers attempting to do business in Florida, including but not limited to alerts about IWSF and NAM, no evidence was provided that these communications were sent to, received, or reviewed by Respondent or Chiullan. Further, Respondent's testimony, that this information was not available by telephone from Petitioner, was not contradicted.1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Agents and Agency Services, enter a final order which dismisses the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 28th day of March, 2014.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Resident General Lines Insurance Agent was properly denied by the Department of Financial Services.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns two insurance agencies, All Florida Insurance and Tax Services ("All Florida") and One Florida Insurance Agency, Inc. ("One Florida"). On or about January 5, 2010, Gardonal Marcellot ("Marcellot") filled out an application and interviewed with Petitioner for an insurance agent position. The same day, Petitioner offered Marcellot a job at All Florida as an insurance agent.1/ Marcellot accepted the job and provided Pierre a copy of his 2-20 General Lines Insurance Agent license and Social Security card. Pierre informed Marcellot that his start date for employment with All Florida would be January 15, 2010. Soon thereafter, there was a major earthquake in Haiti, and Petitioner informed Marcellot by email that she had to go out of the country to help her family and she was pushing back his start date with the company. Marcellot never reported to work or started his employment with All Florida after Pierre left the country.2/ On or about February 12, 2010, Petitioner applied for agency licensure with the Department for All Florida and named Christopher Jeremie as the Agent in Charge. Pierre also named Marcellot as the secretary and treasurer of All Florida on the application. Marcellot never held a corporate officer position at All Florida. While operating All Florida, Pierre engaged in all the activities that require an insurance agent license. She admitted during the hearing that she ran the office, met with customers by phone and in person, responded to fax and email insurance requests, provided insurance quotes for customers, completed forms for customers, input the insurance information in the computer to get quotes for customers to review, input the information online, and processed numerous insurance applications. On February 26, 2010, Petitioner filled out an application for a Change of Agent in Charge for All Florida and named Marcellot Agent in Charge without his permission. 3/ Pierre continued to utilize Marcellot's licensure information and name him Agent in Charge without his permission to obtain Agency appointments with companies4/ for at least five insurance applications. On May 22, 2010, Pierre next utilized Otto Latimer's ("Latimer") licensure information without his permission and changed the Agent in Charge for All Florida by naming Latimer to the position.5/ On June 22, 2010, Petitioner submitted an Application for Agency Licensure online to the Department on behalf of One Florida and also named Latimer as the Agent in Charge without his permission. Latimer never worked at or served as Agent in Charge for All Florida or One Florida. Latimer owns his own business, Service Ace Corporation, where he works full time. He has been licensed since 1983 as a General Lines Insurance agent. At some point, Latimer discovered that Pierre was having problems getting a 2-20 license agent. He offered to help her by allowing her to rent space at his agency location and for her to work under his license. He never gave her permission or allowed her to use his license or name him as Agent in Charge for appointments. Pierre utilized Latimer's licensure information without his permission for her insurance companies and named him Agent in Charge for both Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("Citizens") insurance appointments for a total of about 19 insurance applications. On August 11, 2010, Citizens terminated All Florida's Agent Appointment Agreement after determining that Pierre had committed forgery and larceny based on false personification because Pierre signed Marcellot's name to the agent appointment application and named him as agent of record. On December 13, 2010, Pierre filed an application with the Department for a Resident General Lines Agent license. On December 21, 2010, Petitioner signed and issued All Florida check number 1003 to Del Rio Discount Corporation, in the amount of $1,000.00. Pierre cut check number 1003 as the gross down payment on a premium finance agreement dated October 1, 2010, for the homeowner policy purchased by Bernard and Eleanor Woodside. The check was returned for insufficient funds. Del Rio Finance filed a complaint with the Department against Petitioner for Pierre issuing check 1003 on behalf of All Florida because the check bounced for insufficient funds. Wendi Cameron ("Cameron"), the Department's investigator in this matter, started investigating the complaint in January 2011. She went to Pierre's office location to see Latimer, whom she believed was the Agent in Charge based on the paperwork Pierre had falsely completed and filed. Latimer was not present and so Cameron spoke to Pierre, who told Cameron that Latimer was out of the office. On May 29, 2011, while Pierre's insufficient funds investigation was still pending, Cameron received another complaint about Pierre namely that Citizens Insurance Company had terminated Pierre's appointment after being advised by Marcellot that Pierre had used his identity without his knowledge and forged his name on applications. Cameron visited Petitioner's office three times during Petitioner's investigations and an Agent in Charge was never present. Pierre was managing the office on each visit. On the fourth visit to the office, it was closed with a note on the door. Cameron was never able to speak to an Agent in Charge and was always informed that one was not available each time she called or visited. The Department concluded its investigation of Pierre and denied her application for licensure based on the Department's sections 626.112(1)(a), (b)4, 626.112(9), 626.172(2), (3), 626.611(7), (8), 626.621(2),(3), and (6).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a General Lines Insurance Agent in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2012.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's insurance agent licenses as, Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), and Health (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner was created in accordance with Section 20.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been conferred general power by the Legislature, to regulate the insurance industry in Florida, in accordance with Section 624.307, Florida Statutes. Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. Petitioner issued Respondent license No. A140590. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent has been licensed in Florida as agent for insurance in Life (2-16), and Life and Health (2-18). On December 2, 1992, Respondent had been issued a Health (2-40) license, but that license is no longer valid having been voluntarily cancelled. The cancellation occurred at a time previous to December 18, 2003, when a license history document was prepared, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1. Respondent conducts business as an insurance agent under the name Business Insurance Cafeteria. The business is located at 828 Hamilton Avenue, St. Augustine, Florida. Respondent has been licensed as an insurance agent for over 50 years, 44 years of which have been in Florida. Acting as an insurance agent has been Respondent's principal occupation. During that time the emphasis in his business has been on health insurance. TRG Affiliation In April 2001, an acquaintance and insurance agent Ellen Averill introduced Respondent to Robert Trueblood, Sr. Respondent understood that Mr. Trueblood was the Managing General Agent for TRG. Mr. Trueblood, at the time, was from Hobe Sound, Florida. Mr. Trueblood gave information to Respondent about TRG pertaining to its involvement in the insurance business. Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that individuals within TRG were personal friends of Mr. Trueblood. In turn, Respondent made a call to Petitioner at the end of April or first part of May 2001. Someone that he spoke to, whose identity and position within the Petitioner's hierarchy was not established in the record, made a comment which cannot be established as fact given its hearsay nature. Nonetheless, following this conversation, Respondent became affiliated with the TRG organization which Respondent understood to be an ERISA program, not subject to Petitioner's oversight. At that time, Respondent's knowledge of what an ERISA program entailed was based upon reading he had done in the past. Respondent was of the impression that the ERISA program was under the auspices of the federal government, as opposed to the state government. Respondent had never taken specific courses concerning the ERISA program before his engagement with TRG. Respondent's involvement with TRG was his first effort to market what he considered to be ERISA program insurance. When Respondent commenced his participation with TRG, he believed that an ERISA program was instituted by a document filed with the Department of Labor outlining insurance benefits and that TRG had put up reserves associated with the ERISA program. Respondent did not obtain anything in writing from the Department of Labor concerning TRG as an ERISA program. To begin with, Respondent believed that ERISAs had to involve 51 or more lives in being before coverage could be obtained. Again, this was not a market that Respondent had worked in but he understood that ERISAs involved coverage of that number of individuals. From conversations with Mr. Trueblood and Tom Dougherty, another managing General Agent for TRG, of Cocoa Beach, Florida, Respondent became persuaded that ERISAs could be marketed to companies with a single life being insured or two to three lives in a small group market. Respondent relied on Mr. Trueblood when Mr. Trueblood told Respondent that ERISA, as a federal program did not have to be licensed by the state. Mr. Dougherty made a similar comment to Respondent. Ms. Averill also commented to Respondent concerning her impression about TRG as an ERISA program. From this record, Respondent was not officially told by persons within the Petitioner's agency, that the TRG program was an ERISA program that did not have to be licensed in Florida. TRG provided Respondent marketing material. Respondent was impressed with the "very professional" appearance of that material. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 admitted into evidence is constituted of material provided to Respondent by TRG. It refers to the TRG health plan under "the Redwood Group." It refers to marketing under an organization identified as Premier Financial Group USA, Inc. It describes PPO networks available with the TRG products. The document refers to the TRG/USA health plan (the Redwood Group, L.L.C./USA Services Group, Inc.) and various versions of employer health and welfare benefit plans and a client fee schedule effective May 1, 2001, for enrollees in the 80/60 plan and 90/70 plan. Participant co- pays for physician office visits are related. Those plans identified in the material describe the amount of deductibles according to age groups and participation by members and additional family participants. The TRG document speaks of benefits attributable to the 80/60 and 90/70 health plans. This information contained comments about the Redwood Companies- Corporate Overview. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 comments upon the ERISA program and the provision of health benefits for employees through self-funded employee health and welfare benefit plans as a means, according to the document, to exempt those plans from state insurance regulation. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 touts what it claims are savings to be derived compared to current health insurance plans held by prospective purchasers. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an associate application agreement setting forth policies and procedures that Respondent would be obligated to meet as an associate with TRG acting as an independent contractor. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 contains an application format for prospective enrollees in the TRG preferred provider plans to execute in applying for coverage. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 refers to Robert W. Trueblood, Sr., as being affiliated with Premier Financial Group, USA Inc., under the TRG banner. Mr. Trueblood sent Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1 to Respondent. Respondent began his contacts with TRG in May 2001 and wrote his first enrollment contract in association with TRG in August or September 2001. Beyond that time, Respondent was notified on November 27, 2001, that effective November 30, 2001, a cease and desist order had been issued against TRG's offering its health coverage in Florida. The commissions earned by Respondent in selling the TRG health insurance product ranged from five to seven percent. Respondent earned less than $1,000.00 in total commissions when selling TRG health insurance products. The persons who participated with TRG in its preferred provider plan were referred to the claims administrator of USA Services. Participants in the TRG preferred provider plan sold by Respondent received information outlining the benefits. Participants received medical I.D. cards. This information was provided directly to the participants. Respondent was aware of the information provided to the participants. An example of this information is set out in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 2. In offering the TRG health coverage, Respondent told his customers that this plan was not under the purview of the Department of Insurance in Florida, that this was an ERISA program. Respondent told his customers that any problems experienced with the program could be addressed through resort to the federal court. Respondent did remind the customers that making the Florida Department of Insurance aware of their claims could create a record in case they went to federal court. Respondent is familiar with the prohibition against acting as an insurance agent for companies not authorized to transact business in Florida. But he held to the opinion that TRG was an ERISA program under the federal auspices and not subject to Petitioner's control. At the inception, Respondent believed that offering the TRG health insurance coverage would be an acceptable choice. That proved not to be true. When it was discovered that TRG would not pay claims related to health coverage for policies Respondent sold to his customers, Respondent made an attempt to find replacement coverage. To this end, Respondent had received information reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 5. The document discussed the prospect that insurance would be provided from the Clarendon Insurance Company (Clarendon), using the provider Network Beechstreet, with Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance Brokers in Plantation, Florida, being involved in the process to substitute coverage for TRG. Baftal is the shorthand reference for Bertany Association for Travel and Leisure, Inc. Baftal is an insurance agency. Respondent made some explanation to his customers insured through TRG of the prospect of using Clarendon to take over from TRG, which had not honored any of the claims for reimbursement made by Respondent's customers. A copy of this December 28, 2001, correspondence from Respondent to TRG's insureds who had been sold policies through Respondent, is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. As described in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 7, Baftal sent information concerning health care coverage to business owners, to include Respondent's customers, as described in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This correspondence indicated that the benefit plan would become effective December 1, 2001, upon condition that the insured meet applicable underwriting standards. This communication was made following receipt of premiums paid by the insured. Reimbursement for claims were to be processed through Advancement Administration in Maitland, Florida. Baftal did not assume the claims that had not been honored by TRG, and Clarendon did not become the insurer for those customers. Baftal did not follow through with the offer to provide health benefits to Respondent's customers who had begun with TRG. On February 11, 2002, as evidenced by Respondent's Exhibit numbered 8, Baftal wrote the customers to advise that health benefits would not be provided. That exhibit mentions American Benefit Plans through a Mr. David Neal and some intention for Mr. Neal's organization to provide a benefits program, including insurance through Clarendon, as administered through Advanced Administration. The Baftal communication goes on to say that Baftal had learned that Clarendon was not an insurer on the program, that the only insurer on the program was an offshore insurance company about which Baftal had not received credible information. The letter remarks that premiums paid to Baftal by the customers were being returned. On April 4, 2002, as related in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 9, TRG wrote to persons who were identified as health plan participants, to include Respondent's customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The letter stated that due to a problem with USA Services Group, the claims administrator on November 30, 2001, when the TRG plan ended, claims were not being paid. The correspondence remarks about difficulties with USA Services experienced by TRG, promising that TRG would fulfill obligations to the customers who were participants in the health plan. Contrary to this promise, TRG has not honored claims for those customers who are the subject of the Amended Administrative Complaint. On December 12, 2001, as reflected in Respondent's Exhibit numbered 4, Petitioner had written consumers who had enrolled in the TRG health plan to advise that the Petitioner did not consider the TRG health plan to be an ERISA program. Under the circumstances, the correspondence indicated that TRG should have sought authorization from Petitioner to sell health plans in Florida, which had not been done. The correspondence refers to some acknowledgement by TRG that it was not an ERISA program and needed to be licensed in Florida to conduct business. The correspondence advises the consumer to cease payment of any further premiums to TRG, to include the cancellation of automatic bank drafts for payment of premiums. The correspondence advises the consumer to obtain replacement insurance through Florida licensed insurance companies or HMOs. The letter goes on to remind the consumer of certain plans that were not licensed in Florida to conduct business because they were perceived to be illegitimate companies. The communication urged the consumer not to enroll in those health insurance plans. Respondent was made aware of this communication. Count I: Vicki Brown Vicki Brown has a business known as Rainbows End Ranch located in St. Johns County, Florida. This is a one-person business involving boarding and training of horses. Ms. Brown was interested in obtaining permanent health insurance, in that her COBRA policy was expiring. As a consequence, she was referred to Respondent by a friend. Respondent met Ms. Brown at her place of business. She explained to him her health insurance needs. Respondent suggested obtaining health insurance through TRG. Ms. Brown agreed. Ms. Brown paid $165.00 to TRG by check to cover the premium for September 2001. Two additional amounts of $165.00 were withdrawn from her checking account to pay premiums to TRG for the months that followed. Subsequently, Ms. Brown received Petitioner's December 12, 2001, letter informing her that TRG was not allowed to conduct business in Florida, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered Beyond that point, Ms. Brown had difficulties in her attempt to be reimbursed for her medical treatment, presumably covered by the TRG plan, by seeking reimbursement through another insurance firm other than by TRG. That process was pursued through Baftal in relation to insurance offered by Clarendon. Ms. Brown made Respondent aware that she had problems with reimbursement and of the receipt of Petitioner's letter. Respondent told her not to worry about the situation, that things were going to be taken care of by Clarendon taking over where TRG left off. Ms. Brown received Respondent's form correspondence dated December 28, 2001, explaining the switch from TRG to Clarendon, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. Ms. Brown also received information from Advancement Administration concerning Clarendon as the insurance company, Beechstreet as the provider network, mentioning Baftal/Quik Quote Insurance as brokers, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7. Following her difficulties with TRG, on January 2, 2002, Ms. Brown wrote a check to the Baftal Escrow Account in the amount of $513.40 for premiums in relation to Clarendon. As can be seen, the payment to Clarendon represented an increase in premium compared to TRG. The check for $513.40 had been written out to LPI Clarendon and changed by Respondent to reflect the Baftal Escrow Account. In January 2002, Ms. Brown called Respondent and was told that the paperwork he was filling out was wrong and that he needed to complete new forms for Baftal "Insurance Brokers." According to Respondent, that explained why the coverage through Baftal had not gone into effect. Ms. Brown had received Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 11, the communication from Baftal calling for additional information as a prerequisite to obtaining insurance benefits effective December 1, 2001. Information provided in the document concerning issues related to her coverage was not useful to Ms. Brown when she made inquiry consistent with the instructions contained in the document. Concerning her claims for reimbursement, Ms. Brown had a health problem with her throat. In addressing the condition, she was told by her primary care doctor, that when trying to arrange for a specialist to attend her care through the Beechstreet Provider Network, which was part of the health care offered through the Baftal Agency, it was reported that Beechstreet was bankrupt. Then Ms. Brown called Respondent to ask his advice. Respondent told her he was not sure how to respond "right now things are in a haywire." Beyond that point Ms. Brown found out that Clarendon, part of the Baftal arrangement was not going to insure her business. In particular, Ms. Brown received the February 11, 2002, communication from Baftal commenting that insurance would not be provided through Baftal, remarking that Clarendon was not an insurer. This communication is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 12. After the TRG and Baftal experiences, Ms. Brown tried to be placed on her husband's health insurance policy but had trouble getting a certificate to allow her to obtain that coverage. This was in relation to the need for the existence of continuing coverage before being placed on the husband's policy. Fortunately, Ms. Brown was eventually able to get insurance through her husband's policy. Ms. Brown was dismayed by the difficulty experienced in obtaining health insurance when she discovered that TRG and Baftal would not meet her health insurance needs. From the evidence, it has been determined that the TRG plan purchased by Ms. Brown was the 80/60 plan with the $1,000.00 deductible. Although Ms. Brown testified that her medical bills in the period in question would total close to $1,000.00, the evidence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 8, constituted of medical bills around that time do not approximate than amount. Ms. Brown had received a TRG benefit handbook and membership card, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 9 and 10, associated with her participation in the 80/60 plan with a $1000.00 deductible and co-pay of $10.00 for a physician office visit and $20.00 for a specialist office visit. In summary, none of the companies from whom Ms. Brown purchased insurance through Respondent, commencing with TRG, have paid for any of her claims for reimbursement for medical care during the relevant time period. In addition to not receiving a reimbursement for premiums paid to TRG, Ms. Brown did not receive the return of her premium paid to Baftal either. Count II: Alicia Moore Alicia Moore at one time was employed by Respondent. The position Alicia Moore held with Respondent's insurance agency was that of general office clerk. Ms. Moore has never been licensed in any capacity by Petitioner, related to the sale of insurance and has not taken courses to educate herself about the insurance business. In addition to her employment with Respondent, she purchased health insurance through Respondent with TRG around September 2001. Ms. Moore purchased the TRG health insurance policy in the interest of her husband's subchapter S corporation, small business. Her husband's name is Randy Moore. The name of the company operated by the husband is M-3 Enterprises, Inc. The husband's company has one employee, Randy Moore. The Moores resided in St. Augustine, Florida, at times relevant to the inquiry. The husband's business had been insured for health coverage by Humana, until Humana determined that it was not willing to provide health insurance for the company and the Moores decided that the individual policies offered by Humana in substitution for the group policy were too expensive. The Moores chose TRG for health insurance after Respondent had discussed several health insurance plans including individual or group policies. The reason for the choice was the premium price. On September 19, 2001, Randy Moore paid $434.00 for the health insurance premium to Redwood Group, in the interest of obtaining health insurance from TRG. On November 2, 2001, an additional $434.00 was debited from the checking account for M-3 Enterprises, to TRG for premiums related to the health insurance coverage. Ms. Moore recalls Respondent telling her that the TRG health plan was an ERISA plan but she has no knowledge about ERISA plans being regulated under federal law. In that connection, Ms. Moore commented in a statement given by affidavit, that Respondent told her that TRG was not regulated by Petitioner. Respondent explained to Ms. Moore that the premium payments to TRG were lower in costs because TRG was an ERISA program. TRG sent correspondence to the Moores as participants in the health plan. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 15. It enclosed a membership issued to Randy Moore setting forth the $10.00 co-pay for a physician visit, $20.00 co-pay for a specialist office visit, and $50.00 co-pay for emergency room visits associated with the participation in Plan 8033. The nature of the plan that the Moores had was a member- plus family. The cover letter listed the telephone number for the claims administrator USA Services to address claims or customer services questions. Ms. Moore also received a packet from TRG explaining the process of filing claims for health care. After obtaining the TRG health coverage, Ms. Moore and her son received treatment for medical conditions contemplated under the terms in the TRG plan. Notwithstanding the submission of information for reimbursement related to the charges, the charges were not paid under the TRG plan. The total of these claims was approximately $727.00. That $727.00 was less co- payments already made for the medical services. Ms. Moore made the Respondent aware that TRG was not reimbursing her for medical bills. Respondent gave Ms. Moore the telephone number for Tom Dougherty, Managing General Agent for TRG, expecting Mr. Dougherty to be able to assist Ms. Moore in dealing with outstanding medical bills. Ms. Moore called Mr. Dougherty several times, but this did not lead to the payment of the medical bills. Ms. Moore also sent TRG a certified letter in August 2002 concerning bills outstanding since October 2001, attaching the bills and information concerning payment of premiums for the coverage. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 18. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 21 is a compilation of information concerning the outstanding medical bills, and a statement from Medical Accounts Services, Inc. (Medical Accounts) concerning a current balance on June 17, 2002, of $229.00. The Moores had to make an arrangement to repay the money which was being collected through Medical Accounts. It is not clear from the record the exact nature of the member with family plan that had been purchased by the Moores. Consequently, the deductible in force when claims were submitted for reimbursement is not readily apparent. Ms. Moore in her testimony was unable to recall the amount of the deductible for the policy issued from TRG. It does appear from a review of the fee schedule associated with the 80/60 plan and the 90/70 plan offered by TRG, that the premium payments made did not entitle the Moores to coverage associated with a $500.00 deductible or $250.00 deductible. The other possible amount for the deductible, by process of elimination is $1,000.00. The Moores received correspondence dated November 28, 2001, sent to Randy Moore as a TRG enrollee, indicating that the coverage would end effective November 30, 2001, and reminding Mr. Moore that, according to the correspondence, he would have to find other health coverage as of December 1, 2001. This correspondence, as with other similar correspondence that has been discussed, promised to continue to process claims for covered services incurred before the coverage ended. The TRG letter terminating coverage for the Moores was received by the Moores five days after the date upon which the correspondence indicated that the coverage would no longer be in effect. This circumstance was very disquieting to Ms. Moore. The claims by Ms. Moore and her child were within the covered period for the TRG policy as to their dates. The letter received from TRG is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17. Ms. Moore spoke to Respondent about obtaining coverage when TRG discontinued its coverage. Respondent suggested that the Moores affiliate with Baftal. The Moores made a premium payment to Baftal but within a week of being accepted for coverage, Baftal wrote to advise that coverage had been declined. Beyond that time, the Moores obtained coverage from Medical Savings Insurance, a company that they still use for health insurance. Concerning Baftal, by correspondence dated February 11, 2002, Baftal wrote the Moores as a member, the form letter that has already been described, in which the Moores were told that they would not be provided health benefits. Given the problem described with Clarendon Insurance Company, the letter noted the return of the premium paid for coverage through Baftal. A copy of the letter sent to the Moores is Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 19. Baftal did not reimburse the Moores for the outstanding claims totaling approximately $727.00. Count III: Bruce Chambers Bruce Chambers was another customer who bought TRG health insurance from Respondent. Mr. Chambers was a Florida resident at the time he purchased the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers and his wife moved to Florida from Georgia earlier in 2001. When they moved, the prior health insurance coverage that the Chambers held carried a high premium given Ms. Chambers diabetic condition. Moving from one state to the next also increased that premium. Under the circumstances, the Chambers agreed to purchase the TRG Health Plan. At one time related to the transaction promoted by Respondent, Mr. Chambers believed that TRG was licensed in Florida. He held this belief even in the instance where Respondent had commented that TRG was an ERISA program. Mr. Chambers also executed a coverage disclaimer in November 2001, upon a form from Respondent's agency noting that the health, welfare program applied for was not under the auspices of the Florida Department of Insurance. This is found as Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 36. After purchasing the TRG policy, the wife developed an illness, and costs were incurred for services by the family's personal physician and for hospitalization. In addition Mr. Chambers had medical expenses. Exclusive of co-pays and the deductibles that are applicable, Mr. Chambers paid $7,478.46 for the health care he and his wife received. None of that amount has been reimbursed through TRG as expected under the terms of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 a month, plus $18.00 in other fees, for two months related to coverage effective October 1, 2001, extending into November 2001, a total of $1,010.00 in premiums and fees paid to TRG. No premiums and fees paid to TRG have been reimbursed. The amount of premium paid by Mr. Chambers corresponds under the client fee schedule in effect May 1, 2001, associated with the TRG Health Plan, as pertaining to an 80/60 plan for a member and family with a $1,000.00 deductible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 26 is constituted of the calculation of the expenses, $7,478.46 and attaches billing information, some of which is for services and care received prior to December 1, 2001, and some of which is for services and care beyond that date. When Mr. Chambers discovered that TRG was not reimbursing the costs which it was obligated to pay for health care received by the Chambers, he contacted the Respondent and TRG to gain satisfaction. He also contacted Petitioner. When Mr. Chambers enrolled in the TRG plan he received the transmittal letter enclosing his benefits card, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 23. The membership card identified his participation in plan 8033, with a co-pay for physician office visits of $10.00, specialty office visits of $20.00, and emergency room visits of $50.00. Mr. Chambers received notice from the Petitioner, presumably the December 12, 2001, notification concerning the lack of authority for TRG to business in Florida and the advice that CHEA (Consumer Health Education Association) was not authorized to do business in Florida either. On December 20, 2001, the Chambers wrote Respondent concerning the unavailability of insurance through TRG and CHEA. The Chambers asked Respondent to give them advice about a list of "small group market carriers" they understood to offer health plans. This letter to Respondent is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25. Also, within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 was a copy of the letter from Respondent to TRG insureds dated December 28, 2001, which made mention of Clarendon as an alternative to TRG. Within that same exhibit is correspondence dated January 21, 2002, from the Respondent to enrollees in the TRG plan, to include the Chambers, discussing Baftal and the prospect that the latter company might honor TRG claims. Finally, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 25 contains an August 21, 2002, letter from Mr. Chambers to TRG asking TRG to pay for its portion of the medical expenses as reimbursement. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 27 is the December 1, 2001, application by Mr. Chambers to obtain medical benefits through CHEA. The application also refers to EOS Health Services. This predates Petitioner's warning about CHEA and EOS being licensed to do business in Florida. On December 1, 2001, Mr. Chambers paid $487.00 for premium payments to EOS Health Services and provided a voided check for future payments for premiums by automatic withdrawal from his account. This effort was made as a follow on to obtain health coverage when TRG no longer provided health insurance to the Chambers. To obtain health coverage, Mr. Chambers paid $1,465.88 to the Baftal Escrow Account. This payment was made by a check dated January 14, 2002. That money was refunded by Baftal on January 12, 2002, and no coverage was offered through that company for health insurance. Mr. Chambers had been provided information about the opportunity to obtain insurance from Baftal as reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 31. Respondent had also suggested that Mr. Chambers apply for health insurance from American Benefit Plan, following the discontinuance of the TRG coverage. Mr. Chambers applied for that coverage by documents dated February 18, 2002, in the interest of his company, Bruce A. Cambers, CFP. Information concerning that application is found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 32. American Benefit Plans was listed by Petitioner as an entity not allowed to conduct business in Florida in the December 12, 2001, letter of advice to insurance consumers following the problem with TRG. Mr. Chambers wrote two checks, one in the amount of $628.60 to Independent Managers Association and one for $799.68 to the Association of Independent Managers, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 35 and 33 respectively. The two checks were written on February 18, 2002. Those checks were voided in relation to payment for monthly insurance premiums and association dues. The effect was to not accept those checks for premium payments to obtain health insurance. On March 5, 2002, ACH Corporation of America wrote Mr. Chambers stating that because of incorrect procedures, or untimely submission, health coverage would not be extended, pertaining to an application for Ultra Med Choice EPO. Ultra Med was another health insurance business which Petitioner in its December 12, 2001, correspondence to health care consumers had been identified as unlicensed to conduct health insurance business in Florida. The letter declining coverage from ACH and application information for a policy sought to become effective December 1, 2001, is found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered This application was in relation to Bruce Chambers, CFP as employer. Mr. Chambers remains out of pocket for payments he had to make for health care extended, principally to his wife, for which TRG was obligated to provide reimbursement in part. None of the other policies that Mr. Chambers attempted to obtain worked out to substitute for the TRG obligation for reimbursement for health care claims. Eventually the Chambers were able to obtain health insurance. At present the Chambers have a two-man group policy through Mr. Chambers' business to provide health coverage. Because of the problem with health insurance coverage, Ms. Chambers was required to return to work. Her employment was outside Mr. Chambers' company, as well as within his company. As a result of Ms. Chambers' failure to make payments to Flagler Hospital, where Ms. Chambers had received care, under terms that should have involved TRG providing reimbursement for costs, the bills were turned over to a collection agency compromising the credit standing of the Chambers. For the most part, the credit problems have been resolved. Due Diligence As established by testimony from Linda Davis, Analyst II in Petitioner's Jacksonville Office, there is a means to determine whether an insurance company has the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida. This is accomplished by resort to the electronic data base maintained by Petitioner. A certificate of authority is an indication that the insurance company has completed the necessary requirements to be licensed or authorized to sell insurance in Florida. As established through Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 39, TRG/USA Health Plans, TRG Marketing L.L.C. was not authorized to do business in Florida. An insurance agent licensed in Florida, to include the time frame envisioned by the Amended Administrative Complaint, would have had access to the data base identifying whether an insurance company had the necessary certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Florida and could properly have been expected to seek this information before engaging in the sale of products from a company such as TRG. Rather than avail himself of that opportunity, Respondent made some form of inquiry to Petitioner on the subject of TRG, while apparently ignoring the more fundamental consideration of whether TRG had been granted a certificate of authority to conduct its business in Florida, which should have been pursued. Ascertaining the existence or nonexistence of a certificate of authority, constitutes "due diligence" incumbent upon an agent before engaging in the sale of insurance from a prospective insurance company. Respondent's Disciplinary History Petitioner has not taken disciplinary action against Respondent before this case.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 624.11, 626.611(7) and (8), 626.621(2) and (6), 626.901(1), Florida Statutes (2001); suspending his licenses for nine months; placing Respondent on two-years probation; and requiring attendance at such continuing education classes as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph O. Stroud, Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 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
