The Issue At issue is whether Respondent represented to Ms. Renee Benton that she had to purchase an auto club in order to buy automobile insurance, which is not true, contrary to the law, and a violation of various statutes.
Findings Of Fact 1 On February 1, 1991, Renee Benton went to Mid County Insurance Agency in Jacksonville, Florida for the purpose of obtaining automobile insurance. At all times material hereto, Mid County Insurance Agency was a general lines insurance agency licensed by the State of Florida. Respondent, Eric Thomas Fromme, was the President and owner of Mid County Insurance Company. On February 1, 1991, Complainant, Renee Benton, purchased an automobile insurance policy from Mid County, more specifically from its owner, Eric Thomas Fromme. Complainant, Renee Benton, testified that the Petitioner told her that he could not sell her automobile insurance unless she purchased a membership in a motor club. Respondent, Eric Thomas Fromme, testified that he personally dealt with Complainant, Renee Benton, and that he did not tell Renee Benton that he could not sell her insurance without Motor Club Coverage. Complainant, Renee Benton, was in a hurry on the day and time she went to Mid County to purchase automobile insurance and as a result did not read any of the documents she signed on February 1, 1991. Renee Benton did not complain about the contract and was unaware of the matter until approached by agents of the Department. Until she reviewed the policy documents, she was unaware that she paid $100 to join the auto club. At the time of the purchase the automobile insurance policy from Respondent, Renee Benton paid Respondent $153.00 and entered into a premium finance agreement to finance a portion of the policy premium. That agreement stated that Renee Benton had paid a $53.00 down payment. (Pet. No. 4.) A fee of $100.00 for the motor club was deducted from her payment at the time she purchased the insurance and motor club. (Testimony of Renee Benton.) At the time that she purchased the automobile insurance, Renee Benton executed a form which stated that a motor club purchase was voluntary and that she was not required to purchase a motor club in order to purchase that insurance. (Pet. No. 7.) Renee Benton testified she would not have financed any of premium, had she been able to purchase the automobile insurance without purchasing a motor club. (Testimony of Renee Benton.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, recommended that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0019 The parties presented proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following findings, as indicated, were adopted, or rejected for the reason stated: Petitioner's Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1-3 Rejected in favor of Respondent's statement of these facts. Paragraph 4,5 Rejected as conflicting with more credible evidence. Paragraph 6-9 Adopted, but reordered. Respondent's Findings of Fact: Paragraphs 1-8 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: David D. Hershel, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Shane C. Maddox, Esquire 337-C East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Is Ann L. Bell (Ms. Bell) entitled to the issuance of a license to act as an independent motor vehicle dealer through A & B Auto Sales of Jacksonville, Inc. (A & B), that license to be issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department)? See Section 320.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Bell made application to the Department for an independent motor vehicle dealer license. The name of the business would be A & B. The location of the business would be 7046 Atlantic Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. In furtherance of the application Ms. Bell received a certificate of completion of the motor vehicle dealer training school conducted by the Florida Independent Automobile Dealers Association on January 26 and 27, 1999. Ms. Bell submitted the necessary fees and other information required by the Department to complete the application for the license, to include the necessary surety bond. At present Ms. Bell lives at 98 Kent Mill Pond Road, Alford, Florida, some distance from Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Bell intends to move to Jacksonville, Florida, if she obtains the license. Ms. Bell's work history includes a 35-year career with the State of Florida, Department of Insurance, from which she retired as a Deputy Insurance Commissioner. Her duties included supervision of employees and auditing. More recently Ms. Bell has worked as an insurance agent for approximately five years with Allstate Insurance. Ms. Bell also had 17 years' experience involving a business with her former husband in retail floor covering in which she dealt with sales staff and contracts. During another marriage, her then-husband was involved in the automobile business in Mobile, Alabama, as well as the Florida panhandle. Ms. Bell was not an employee of the automobile business conducted by her husband. Ms. Bell was "in and out" of the dealership and attended automobile auctions with her husband. Ms. Bell intends to locate her dealership at the address where Mr. Badreddine formerly operated an independent motor vehicle dealership. Ms. Bell has known Mr. Badreddine for approximately 10 to 12 years. Ms. Bell has purchased cars from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell has borrowed money from Mr. Badreddine. Mr. Badreddine has borrowed money from Ms. Bell. Ms. Bell has a lease related to the location where she would operate her dealership. At present Ms. Bell is using the prospective business location to collect on some accounts for automobiles purchased through Mr. Badreddine in which Ms. Bell has bought the accounts receivable from Mr. Badreddine. The arrangement concerning the accounts receivable is one in which Mr. Badreddine is expected to assist in the collection of monies owed on the accounts. The customers involved with those accounts are Arabs and African Americans. Mr. Badreddine is fluent in Arabic. The amount of money which Ms. Bell has invested is approximately $35,000, in relation to the purchase of the accounts receivable. If Ms. Bell obtains the license she intends to employ Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles at her lot and to be involved in the purchase of cars at automobile auctions. These duties would be in addition to the collection on the accounts receivable which Ms. Bell purchased from Mr. Badreddine. Ms. Bell does not intend to allow Mr. Badreddine access to the company bank accounts or the completion of the necessary paperwork when cars are sold to the public from her business. In the past, Mr. Badreddine held independent motor vehicle dealer licenses issued by the Department. He lost those licenses based upon unacceptable performance under their terms. Ms. Bell is not unmindful of Mr. Badreddine's performance as a licensee, being informed by the Department in the details. Mr. Badreddine held an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the name A & D Wholesale, Inc. (A & D), for a business at 9944 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. The Department issued an administrative complaint against that license in Case No. DMV-94FY-566, concerning problems in cars sold by A & D in which the titles and registrations were not transferred appropriately and emissions tests were not performed appropriately. This case was disposed of through an informal hearing and a $5,000 administrative fine was imposed. A further complaint was made against the licensee for the business A & D under an administrative complaint drawn by the Department in Case No. DMV-97FY-621. This complaint involved problems in title and registration transfer, failure to pay an existing lien on a trade-in, and the payment for automobiles obtained in automobile auctions upon which the drafts were not honored. No request for an administrative proceeding was received in relation to this administrative complaint. A final order was entered which revoked the independent motor vehicle dealer's license in relation to A & D. Subsequently, Mr. Badreddine made an application for an independent motor vehicle dealer's license under the business name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. (King Kar) for the address at which Ms. Bell would operate her business. The decision was made to grant Mr. Badreddine's request for an automobile dealer license for King Kar. Following the grant of the license to King Kar an administrative complaint was brought in Case Nos. DMV-99FY-165 and DMV-99FY-166. The complaint involved the failure to pay off a lien, in which a check intended to settle the account with the lien holder was dishonored and falsification of the application in support of the license for King Kar. The final order disposing of these cases was premised upon the recognition that the license for King Kar had been revoked by virtue of the failure to maintain the necessary surety bond, rendering the allegations in the complaint moot. In the conduct of his automobile business Mr. Badreddine was accused of obtaining property in return for a worthless check involved in dealings with GMAC Corporation. The check was in the amount of $16,671.38. This action was taken in the case of State of Florida vs. Amine Badreddine, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 98-13690CFCR-E. Mr. Badreddine entered a plea of guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check and was placed upon probation for a period of one year, with a requirement to make restitution. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In a discussion between Ms. Bell and Cindy King, Department Compliance Examiner and Nadine Allain, Regional Administrator for the Department, Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Ms. Bell would need Mr. Badreddine to go to the automobile auctions and that "she didn't think it was lady-like to go to an auction." This is taken to mean that Ms. Bell did not believe she should go to the automobile auctions. Ms. Bell also told the Department employees that she needed Mr. Badreddine to sell automobiles for her, that he was a good salesman and that he was good at dealing with Arabs and she was not. Ms. Bell noted that she didn't live in the area where the dealership would be operated and referred to her purchase of the accounts receivable. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that Mr. Badreddine would be given an office in the back of the dealership or in the dealership. Ms. Bell told the Department employees that "she knew absolutely nothing about selling cars." Ms. Bell indicated that she would be relying upon Mr. Badreddine for advise in running her dealership. The reliance on Mr. Badreddine to deal with Arab clients was mentioned pertaining to the circumstances with the previous accounts receivable. The Department offered to license Ms. Bell upon condition that Ms. Bell provide an affidavit to the effect that Mr. Badreddine would not be involved with her dealership. Ultimately, Ms. Bell did not accept this overture. In denying the application for the independent motor vehicle dealer's license the Department gave the following reasons: Your admission of not knowing anything about the car business coupled with your stated intention to rely on the advice and experience of Mr. Amine Badreddine to operate your dealership means that Mr. Badreddine is, de facto, the dealer. Mr. Badreddine previously held independent motor vehicle dealer license number VI-15265, as A & D Wholesale, Inc. An administrative complaint was filed by the department against his dealership involving consumer complaints filed by Gladys L. Stevens, complaint number 93110148; Merrian A. Coe, complaint number 94010340; and Richard Green, complaint number 94030339. As a result of the administrative action, Mr. Badreddine's license was found in violation and fined $5,000.00 for failure to apply for transfer of title within 30 days, issuing more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, violation of any other law of the state having to do with dealing in motor vehicles, failure to have a vehicle pass an emissions inspection within 90 days prior to retail sale and failure to transfer title. On December 23, 1996, a second administrative complaint was filed against A & D Wholesale, Inc. because of complaints received from Mark S. Smith, complaint number 96020168; Telmesa C. Porter, complaint number 96050435; Nijole Hall, complaint number 96070365; Ella Didenko, complaint number 96080083; Salih Ferozovic, complaint number 96100067; Charles R. Wells, complaint number 9610068; and Adessa Auto Auction, complaint number 96110372. As a result of this administrative action, a Final Order was issued on January 27, 1997 revoking Mr. Badreddine's independent motor vehicle dealers [sic] license for failure to apply for a transfer of title within 30 days, - failure to comply with the provisions of section 319.23(6), F.S., failure to have a vehicle pass an emission inspection prior to retail sale, issuance of more than two temporary tags to the same person for use on the same vehicle, failure to have a title or other indicia of ownership in possession of the dealership from the time of acquiring the vehicle until the time of disposing of the vehicle, failure of a motor vehicle dealer to honor a check or draft. Mr. Badreddine applied for and was issued another motor vehicle dealer's license on April 24, 1998, under the name King Kar Auto Sales, Inc. The license was revoked on October 20, 1998, because of a surety bond cancellation. On November 24, 1998, the department received a complaint from Treflyn N. Congraves, complaint number 98070299. Ms. Congraves filed a complaint with the state attorney which resulted in Mr. Bareddine [sic] being placed on probation for issuing a bad check to GMAC and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $16,571.38. Mr. Badreddine is currently on probation. The department's investigation showed that Mr. Badreddine had a history of bad credit, failed to continually meet the requirements of the licensure law, failed to honor a bank draft or check given to a motor vehicle dealer for the purchase of a motor vehicle by another motor vehicle dealer, and had failed to satisfy a lien. Consequently, Mr. Badreddine's poor performance as a dealer forces us to deny a license where he may have a financial interest, active participation in the management, sales or any part in the operation of the dealership.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Facts Found and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Ann L. Bell an independent motor vehicle dealer license for the business A & B. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 17th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. Jackson, Esquire Jackson & Mason, P.A. 516 West Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Florence Mounts Williams (Williams or respondent), was licensed as an insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department or petitioner). When the events herein occurred, Williams was an officer and director of Mr. Auto Insurance of Okeechobee, Inc. (Mr. Auto), an incorporated general lines insurance agency located in Okeechobee, Florida. She was also an officer and director of Florida Insurance Agency, Inc. (FIA), an insurance agency doing business in the same city. Respondent sold insurance to the public through both businesses. Williams is charged with violating the Florida Insurance Code while dealing with nine customers during the period between 1984 and 1986. These business transactions were made either through Mr. Auto or FIA, and, with certain exceptions, generally relate to Williams accepting a premium for a policy and then failing to procure a policy for the customer, or falling to refund the premium after the customer cancelled the policy. Some of these customers eventually filed complaints with the Department, and after an investigation was conducted, the administrative complaint, as amended, was issued. That prompted this proceeding. The State of the Industry and Williams in 1984-86 Before discussing the specific charges, it is appropriate to describe the industry conditions and practices as they existed in 1984-86. These were established without contradiction by expert witness Beverly. It is within this broad framework that Williams operated when the transactions in question occurred. The expert's bottom line conclusion, after reviewing the nine customers' files, was that no impropriety had occurred. The agent-customer interface normally begins when a customer visits an insurance agent to purchase a policy. The agent will generally get a rate quotation by telephone from a managing general agent (MGA) who brokers policies on behalf of various insurance companies. An MGA may more accurately be described as a branch office of the insurance company under contract. If the rate quoted by the MGA to the agent is acceptable to a customer, the agent has the applicant complete an application and pay the quoted premium, or at least make a down payment on the same. The application and premium are then forwarded by the agent to the MGA for risk review to determine if the applicant meets underwriting requirements. At the same time, the agent will issue a binder to the customer which evidences temporary coverage until the application is accepted or rejected by the insurance company. In the event coverage is later declined, industry practice dictates that the agent obtain coverage with another company as soon as possible since the agent has the responsibility to maintain coverage on a customer. However, what constitutes a reasonable period of time to do so was not disclosed. In obtaining new coverage, the agent need not have the customer execute a new application since the validity of the original application is not affected. The customer should, however, be notified at the earliest convenient time that coverage is with a different company. In some cases, a customer may choose to finance his premium through a premium finance company. If he does, the finance company pays the entire premium to the MGA or insurer when application is made, and the customer pays the amount owed (plus a finance charge) to the finance company through installment payments over an agreed period of time. If for some reason an application is not accepted by the insurer, it is the responsibility of the MGA or insurer to so notify the premium finance company and return the money. The finance company must then refund any money paid by the insured. When the events herein occurred, it was established through expert testimony that the Florida insurance marketplace was in a "chaotic" condition and could be described as a "zoo." During this time, a small agent such as Williams might find herself doing business with as many as fifteen different MGAs, each with a different set of rules. Thus, it was common for an agent to be confused as to her binding authority with a particular MGA and whether the proper amount of coverage was obtained. Moreover, because of the chaotic marketplace, it became increasingly difficult to find companies who would write coverage on certain types of policies. It was further established that in 1984-1986 the MGAs were "overflowed with work" thereby causing delays of up to "months" for an agent to learn from an MGA if the risk had been accepted and a policy issued. Applications and checks were also lost or misplaced by the MGA and carrier during this time period. Consequently, the agent would think that coverage had been obtained, and so advise the customer, but would later learn that the application had been rejected, or the company had no record of one ever being filed. There were also lengthy delays in MGAs and insurance companies returning unearned premiums to the agent for repayment to the customers. According to industry practice, once a refund is received by an agent, checks to customers would typically be issued only once a month. In Williams' case, she made refunds on the twenty-fifth day of each month. A further prohibition on an agent is that a refund can be paid to a customer only after the agent receives the refund check from the insurance company or MGA. In other words, refunds from an agent's own funds are prohibited. As a result of this confusion, the number of occasions when an agent was cited for an error or omission (E&O) went up "astronomically." Indeed, industry statistics tell us that one in six insurance agents has a claim filed against his E&O policy for failure to provide coverage as promised. For this reason, no reasonable agent, including Williams, would do business without an E&O policy. When the policies in question were sold, Williams had approximately 4,000 active and inactive files in her office. Her office help was mainly persons with no prior training in insurance, and who only stayed on the job for a matter of weeks or months. Consequently, there was some confusion and disarray in her two offices. Even so, Williams was responsible for the conduct of her employees. At the same time, however, it was not unreasonable for Williams to assume that, due to the overload of work on the MOAs, an agent could expect no action on an application to be taken by an MGA or carrier for many months, and that applications and checks might be misplaced or lost. Count I This count involves an allegation that Williams violated nine sections of the Insurance Code in conjunction with the sale of a boat insurance policy to David and Margaret Copeland on September 19, 1984. The evidence reflects that Margaret Copeland applied for insurance on her boat with Mr. Auto on or about September 19, 1984. Copeland had previously been turned down for insurance by several other local agents. After Williams received a telephonic quote of $168 per year from an MGA, and relayed this advice to Copeland, Copeland gave a $30 check as a down payment on her policy. The remaining premium was paid by two partial payments made on October 6 and November 7, 1984, respectively. Copeland was issued a binder to evidence her insurance coverage, and a receipt for the $30 down payment. The binder indicated that Barnett Bank was the loss payee and that coverage was with "Professional." In actuality, "Professional" was Professional Underwriters Insurance Agency, Inc. (Professional), an MOA in Altamonte Springs for various insurance companies doing business in the state. According to Williams, the application and check were forwarded to Professional shortly after the application was executed. Because the boat was being financed with Barnett Bank, and the lender required evidence of insurance, Copeland instructed Mr. Auto to furnish a copy of the policy to the bank. A copy of the binder was furnished by Williams to the bank on November 19, 1984, and again on December 7, 1984. However, after Margaret Copeland did not receive a copy of a policy, she contacted Mr. Auto on several occasions to obtain a copy but was given "excuses" why one had not been issued. At this point Williams simply believed Professional was "dragging its feet" since past experience had taught her Professional typically took three to four months to forward a copy of the policy. Nonetheless, in response to Copeland's requests, Williams wrote Professional on December 3, 1984, asking that it "please check on the (Copelands') boat policy which was written 9-19-84" because the lienholder needed a copy. Professional did not respond to Williams' request. After no policy was received, Margaret Copeland contacted Professional's office in Altamonte Springs by telephone and learned no policy had been issued by that firm. The Copelands then requested Mr. Auto to cancel their policy on March 12, 1985, and demanded a full refund of their premium. After having the Copelands execute a notice of cancellation, the same was forwarded by Williams to Professional with a note reading "Karen, check this out and see what is happening," together with a copy of her previous request that Professional check on the whereabouts of the policy. Again, Professional did not respond to this inquiry. Williams then telephoned Professional and spoke to its office manager seeking advice on the amount of refund due the Copelands. She was told to make a proration. On May 19, 1985, Williams offered David Copeland a partial refund ($89) of his premium but he declined. This amount of refund was based on Williams' belief that coverage existed from September 18, 1984, when she received a quotation, until March 12, 1985, or for approximately six months, and $59 represented the remaining unearned premium. Given the climate of the industry at that time, it was reasonable for Williams to make such an assumption. After Copeland declined her offer, Williams wrote Professional seeking further assistance and stating that "Insured was in here today, wanted his refund. I tried to prorate it and give it to him." Again, Williams received no formal reply from the MGA. To date, a policy has not been produced. Williams eventually refunded the entire premium to the Copelands in February 1987. Through testimony from a Professional representative, it was established that Williams had no binding authority with Professional except on homeowners and dwelling fire policies. On all others, including the type the Copelands desired, it was necessary for the agent to first telephone Professional and receive a "telephone bind" from a Professional representative. In a letter to petitioner dated August 7, 1985, Professional acknowledged that there was "a possibility this risk may have been quoted," but it could find no record of an application having been filed or verification of coverage bound through a binder number or cashed check. It did acknowledge receiving the Copelands' request to cancel their policy in March 1985. If a binder had been authorized, it would have been recorded in a binder book with a number assigned to that binder unless the company lost the policy or otherwise inadvertently failed to record this information. The representative also confirmed that Professional routinely brokered this type of policy in 1984, and that it binds several thousand policies per year. Given this volume of work, the representative acknowledged it was possible that Williams or an employee of her firm may have been given a telephone quote for the Copeland policy, or that the application could have been misplaced. C. Count III On June 19, 1985, William C. Norton, a retired railroad conductor, went to Mr. Auto to purchase an insurance policy for two automobiles. After being quoted an annual premium of $315 by an MGA (Jergen & Roberts), Williams gave this advice to Norton who then gave her a check in that amount. Norton was given a receipt and a binder to evidence his coverage. The binder reflected Norton's application had been placed with "Foremost," which is Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost) in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Williams forwarded the application to the MGA but it was later returned unbound because of several traffic violations by Norton. She then "shopped" the application around and was able to procure a policy from Orion Insurance Company (Orion) through Standard Underwriters, an MGA, at an estimated cost of $528.70 instead of the previously quoted rate of $315 per year. It should be noted that during this period of time, Norton was covered through binders executed by Williams. After Williams paid the amount ($528.70) due the MGA, a policy number (PA-102390) was issued. However, through "neglect" Williams never billed Norton for the difference between the originally quoted premium and the $528. After Orion reviewed Norton's driving record, it increased the annual premium to $622. When Williams received a bill for $622 per year, she sent Norton a notice on October 24, 1985, requesting an additional $144. 2/ When he refused, the policy was cancelled by the company for nonpayment in February 1986. By this time, Norton had gone to another company to obtain coverage. He had also requested from Williams a copy of his policy on four or five occasions but one was never produced. Norton also demanded a full refund of his money even though he had been covered by binders and a policy from June 1985 until February 1986, and was not entitled to a refund. When Williams refused, Norton filed an action in small claims court in February 1986, and won an uncontested judgment for $315. Williams stated she did not contest the matter because of several stressful events then occurring (e.g., a divorce and an employee theft) and the expense of hiring legal counsel. Mobile Home Division of Florida (MHD) is an MGA in Fort Lauderdale that reviews applications for automobile insurance with Foremost (and others), and determines if the applicant meets Foremost's underwriting requirements. It is one of five MGAs in the State representing Foremost. A representative of MHD reviewed his firm's records, and found no evidence of having received the Norton application. However, this was not surprising since Williams had not used MHD to obtain Norton's policy. Count VI Terryl J. Wisener is a college student with numerous traffic violations on his record. Because of this, he was forced to obtain automobile insurance through the Florida Joint Underwriters Association (FJUA), a small group of companies who write policies for high risk drivers such as Wisener. Insurance agents are "assigned" to one of the companies writing policies, even though they are not a regular agent of that company. Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) happened to be a servicing carrier for FJUA in 1986, and Williams accordingly filed FJUA applications with that carrier when seeking insurance for high-risk customers. Under then existing rules, Williams could temporarily "bind" Allstate by writing a binder on a policy, but approval of the application and issuance of permanent coverage rested with Allstate. Until the application was rejected by Allstate, the driver was insured through the binder. During this same time period, it was "commonplace" for an FJUA carrier to return an application because of an "insignificant error" to avoid having to write a policy on a high-risk customer. On December 30, 1985, Wisener purchased a six-month automobile insurance policy through Williams. When the policy was due to expire on June 30, 1986, he returned seeking a renewal. Williams attempted to place the liability coverage with Allstate and the physical damage coverage through "Coastal," an MGA for Adriatic Insurance Company. She was quoted premiums of $996.70 and $814.70, respectively, for the two policies. After accepting a down payment of $552 from Wisener, she issued a binder and mailed the application to Allstate and Coastal with drafts for the entire premiums due. Because Wisener's Chevrolet Camaro was an eight-cylinder automobile, Coastal rejected the application in October 1986. Williams then attempted to replace the physical damage coverage with Allstate in November 1986. By virtue of Williams' binding authority, Wisener had coverage with Allstate until it rejected his application. The application, along with about fifty or sixty others, was eventually rejected by Allstate on February 27, 1987, because of a lack of "information." Until this occurred, Williams properly assumed that Wisener was covered and that Allstate was reviewing his application. In the meantime, and apparently without advising Williams, Wisener decided in October 1986 to purchase a policy through his parents' Allstate insurance agent in Port St. Lucie. He did so because he "believed" he had no insurance. However, he never made inquiry with Williams to confirm or deny this, or asked for a refund of his money. A representative of Allstate searched his firm's records and could find no evidence that a policy was ever written for Wisener through Williams. The company does acknowledge that it received Wisener's application and that it eventually returned the same "unbound" almost four months later. It gave no explanation for the delay. Although Wisener had not received a refund as of the time of hearing, this responsibility rests with Allstate (and not Williams) since it has never refunded to Williams the money paid by her for Wisener's policy. Count VII This count concerns a mobile home insurance policy purchased by Samuel and Mary Jo Moore in June 1985 from FIA. On June 25, 1985, Mary Jo Moore made application to renew her insurance policy on the mobile home. The policy had been in force for some ten years. Moore paid Williams $118 by check which was deposited and cashed by Williams. A check for $23 was also paid at a later date due to a premium increase. Williams issued Moore a binder evidencing coverage with Mobile Home Insurance Association (MHIA), an MGA in Gainesville, Florida. Shortly afterward, Williams learned from the MGA that the Moores' previous carrier, American Pioneer, had gone bankrupt and that there was a limited market for the Moores' application. Williams thereafter forwarded the application to another MGA, Jerger & Sons, Inc. (Jerger), in early August 1985. Temporary coverage was eventually issued by Jerger on August 23, 1985. However, the application was deemed to be incomplete because information regarding the number of spaces in the Moores' trailer park was lacking. This was not surprising since the Moores lived on private property and not in a trailer park. The application was returned to Williams with a reminder that unless the missing information was submitted to Jerger by September 6, 1985, coverage would be terminated. When no information was filed by that date, Jerger cancelled its coverage and returned the unbound policy on September 12, 1985. The Moores were not notified of this lapse in coverage. By allowing the coverage to lapse, and not notifying the Moores, Williams was negligent in her duties as an agent. After Jerger returned the application to Williams in late August 1985, Williams attempted to get the Moores to furnish photographs of the trailer site, and to sign the new application. Because both worked at jobs during business hours, Williams claimed she was unable to reach them prior to September 6, 1985. Williams continued her efforts to place the insurance and eventually filed the application with Foremost in March 1986. Although Williams concedes a lapse in coverage did occur, there is no evidence that this was an intentional or debilitate act on her part. After having the application returned twice, coverage was finally obtained for $201 in July 1986, or almost a year after the Moores first approached her concerning a renewal of their policy. This policy is effective through July 1987. Williams paid out of her own funds the difference between the original premium ($141) and the $201. In view of the original premium being applied to the 1986-87 premium, the Moores are not due a refund. On October 31, 1985, a tornado struck in the Okeechobee area causing damage to the Moores' trailer. The Moores contacted respondent who, at her own expense, had an adjuster from Vero Beach survey the damage in November. The adjuster learned no coverage was in force. The Moores then contacted respondent who, for some reason, had Jerger search for a policy. As might be expected, none was found, and Jerger would not agree to cover the loss. Williams instructed the Copelands to proceed against her E&O carrier for payment of their claim. At the time of final hearing, the claim had not yet been resolved. Count VIII On or about February 19, 1986, William A. McClellan, a retiree, purchased an automobile insurance policy from FIA. He paid $201 by check to Williams and received from her a receipt and binder evidencing coverage with "AIB" (Associated Insurance Brokers), the MGA for Balboa Insurance Company in Newport Beach, California. After the application was forwarded to AIB, it was initially returned because the agency check was drawn on insufficient funds. Thereafter, the check was made good (with no lapse in coverage) and Williams subsequently received a bill from Balboa for $247, or $46 more than she had previously quoted McClellan. When McClellan was presented the bill for an additional premium on May 1, 1986, McClellan told Williams to cancel his policy and to refund the unearned premium. She relayed this request to AIB and coverage was cancelled effective June 13, 1986. Thereafter, McClellan visited Williams' office at least seven or eight times seeking his refund, but was always told it was still being processed. This was a correct representation by Williams since AIB was less than diligent in processing a refund check. McClellan also filed a complaint with petitioner. Upon inquiry by petitioner, Williams advised the Department that McClellan would be paid as soon as AIB issued her a check. On or about July 29, 1986, AIB finally cut a check in the amount of $91.22 payable to Williams, and eventually issued a second check in the amount of $25.38 on October 1, 1986. The delay in issuing the checks was attributable to AIB and not Williams. After Williams received the first check, she offered McClellan a partial refund of $91.22 but he declined the offer. On October 10, 1986, or the day after Williams received the second check by mail, a representative of AIB flew by private plane to Okeechobee and obtained $133 in cash from Williams, who by then had received the second check from AIB. 3/ The representative paid McClellan the same day. Count IX On or about March 16, 1985, Luther B. Starnes purchased an insurance policy for his two automobiles from Mr. Auto for which he paid $473 by four installments over the next few months. After Williams received a telephone bind, Starnes was issued a binder evidencing insurance with a company called "Integrity." He also received a "Florida Vehicle Identification Card" evidencing PIP and liability coverage on his vehicles. In this case, Williams placed the coverage by telephone with AIB, the MGA for Integrity, which authorized her to temporarily bind the coverage. The application and check were thereafter sent by Williams to the MGA. After not receiving a policy by the fall of 1985, Starnes telephoned a district office of Integrity and learned his name was not on its computer. However, he did not contact Williams after that, or ask for a refund of his premium. Despite the accusation that Williams had no basis to believe that a policy had ever been issued by Integrity, an AIB representative confirmed at hearing that Starnes' application and premium had been received by AIB, and that AIB had issued a policy number covering Starnes. Indeed, respondent's exhibit 10 reflects that Integrity cashed the check, and simultaneously placed a sticker on the check which read "Integrity Insurance Co. Private Passenger Auto 100-FAB- 0206809." This indicated that AIB had assigned a policy number on behalf of Integrity and that Starnes' coverage was in effect. Indeed, Williams properly relied upon her cancelled check in believing that Starnes was insured. Moreover, it was appropriate for Starnes to pay for this coverage until Integrity formally rejected his application. Although Starnes never received a copy of a policy, the responsibility to issue one rested upon MGA or Integrity, but not Williams. Count X On or about July 11, 1986, David and Carolyn Douglas purchased an insurance policy for two trucks owned by David. The policy cost $1300 per year and Carolyn paid Williams this amount by check. A binder was given to Carolyn reflecting coverage through Dana Roerig and Associates (Roerig), an MGA in St. Petersburg for Canal Insurance Company (Canal). Under the MGA's then existing policy, it was necessary for Williams to forward the application to Roerig and request a rate quotation. After receipt of the application Roerig would normally telephone the agent, quote a rate, and then bind if the rate was acceptable. In this case, the quoted rate was unsatisfactory, and Roerig returned the application unbound on August 10, 1986. Williams then attempted to place the coverage through an MGA in Lakeland (E&S Agency). However, Williams was quoted a rate on September 25 which she knew was too expensive. After obtaining the second excessive quote, Williams immediately bound coverage with Allstate and forwarded the Douglas application to that carrier with an agency check on September 25, 1986. Because Allstate accepted only money orders or cashiers checks, and the application was undated, the application and check were returned by Allstate to Williams on October 7. Williams then sent Allstate a dated application and a money order in the amount of $1500, or $200 more than the original Douglas policy required. Although Allstate did not formally issue a policy, it assigned the Douglas application a policy number on December 15, 1986, and simultaneously issued a refund check for $121 to Douglas, since the policy cost $1,179 and not $1,300 as had been originally quoted to Carolyn Douglas. Therefore, at that point the coverage remained in effect. On December 23 Allstate issued another refund check to Douglas in the amount of $776 and advised it was cancelling coverage effective February 6, 1987. Allstate later returned the remainder of the $1,300 owed David and Carolyn Douglas. Therefore, even though they had coverage for some six months through various binders and the policy itself, the Douglases paid no premium. Although Carolyn Douglas made several attempts to obtain a copy of the policy, Williams could not produce one since the two MGAs and Allstate had held the application almost continuously for six months. It is noted that Allstate has never repaid Williams the $1500 sent by her with the Douglas application in October, 1986. Count XI Francis Carr is a locktender on Lake Okeechobee whose duties require him to open and close the locks. The job is subject to bids, and all bidders must have evidence of general liability insurance. Desiring to submit a bid, Carr purchased a one-year general liability policy from Mr. Auto on September 20, 1985, and paid Williams $540.75 for the coverage. Carr received a copy of a policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) on a later date. On April 15, 1986, Carr asked that his policy be cancelled. This was done the next day. Carr was due a $181 refund as unearned premium. Through no fault of Williams, the refund check was not issued by Scottsdale until October 21, 1986, or some six months later. Williams later endorsed the check without recourse to a local dress shop. In July 1986, Carr again bid on the locktender job, and, through his wife, made application on July 7 for a new policy so that he could submit a bid. Although the annual premium had now increased to approximately $1,500 per year, Mrs. Carr paid only a $215 down payment. Under this type of policy, Carr was responsible for thirty-five percent of the entire year's premium even if he cancelled the policy after one day. Therefore, the policy had a minimum cost of $525 regardless of its term. Because he had not paid this minimum amount, Williams applied Carr's $181 refund check from the prior year to the minimum amount owed. This was consistent with the industry practice of agents applying credit refunds to new policies of this nature. She also paid $85 from her own funds in early October 1986 to meet the thirty-five percent threshold amount. By then, however, Carr had instructed another employee to cancel his policy since his bid had not been accepted. When he didn't get a refund from the prior year, Carr filed a complaint with petitioner. However, Carr is not entitled to a refund from either year since he still owes Williams $85 for the 1986-87 policy, even after the 1985-86 refund is applied to the second policy. I. Count XII Frank I. Henry and Margaret J. Henry (no relation) lived together in a rented mobile home in 1984. Margaret purchased a policy on the mobile home contents from Mr. Auto in July 1984. She paid Williams a $40 premium, and then made three payments of $47.28 each to Envoy Finance Corporation (Envoy), a Deerfield Beach finance company which financed the balance of the amount owed. Margaret received a binder from Williams reflecting coverage with Mobile Homes Division (MHD), an MGA in Fort Lauderdale Envoy submitted a check for $118.50 to MHD on July 16, 1984, reflecting full payment for the policy. After forwarding the application to MHD, Williams assumed Henry had coverage through American Fidelity Company (AFC), a company which later went out of business that fall. According to MHD, however, the application should have been returned to Williams a few days after it was received because it had no insurance company writing those types of policies. Williams denied receiving the application, and MHD had no record of the application being returned. Williams' version is corroborated by the fact that MHD never advised Envoy that the policy had been returned, something MHD should have done if coverage was rejected. Moreover, MHD has never refunded the $118.50 paid by Envoy in July 1984. According to uncontradicted expert testimony, it is the responsibility of the MGA or carrier to advise the finance company of a coverage denial, and to make a refund to the finance company, which then makes a refund to the customer. Therefore, MHD or AFC, but not Williams, is at fault for not refunding Henry's money. Around April 20, 1985, Frank's mobile home was damaged by a fire. His claim was rejected by MHD since it had no record of coverage. Prior to this time, no request for a copy of the policy had been made by Henry, and Williams properly assumed that Henry's coverage was in effect. Williams has since notified her E&O carrier of a possible liability. As of the time of hearing, Henry's claim was still unpaid and he has not received a refund of his premium from MHD, AFC or Envoy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of a single violation of Subsection 626.621(6), Florida Statutes (1985), and that all other charges be dismissed. Respondent should be given a reprimand for this violation. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jeffrey Allan Azis, is licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance as a General Lines Agent and did business as the American Automobile Insurance Agency, Inc., 603 NW 10th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, during the period of time delineated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent transacted the sale of motor vehicle insurance and an automobile club membership to the persons identified in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Administrative Complaint. Each of the persons identified in Counts I, II, IV and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint was charged for membership in an automobile club by the Respondent or his employees. With respect to Counts I through VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the following findings are made: Count I James E. Rippy, Jr., purchased automobile insurance directly from the Respondent at the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc., Gainesville, Florida, on or about June 10, 1979. He requested the minimum coverage necessary to insure his vehicle to obtain a license tag. (Vol. 1, T-35) Mr. Rippy did not request motor club coverage and was not aware of what a motor club covered. (Vol. 1, T- 32) Sometime after purchasing insurance from the Respondent, Mr. Rippy discovered that his coverage included membership in a motor club. (Vol. 1, T- 33-34) At the Respondent's office, Mr. Rippy and his wife Norma, signed documents which included a membership application in Nation Motor Club with a membership fee of $25.00 [Respondent Exhibit 2(1)] and an application for coverage which included the following disclosure statement also signed by Mr. Rippy in addition to the application form: I understand the Nation Motor Club (NMC) membership applied for this date 6/30/79, through the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included with my down payment. Applicant (signed) Mr. Rippy was not pressured by the Respondent to sign these documents and could have taken additional time to read and ask questions if he had desired. (Vol. 1, T-49-50) write and do mathematics at a basic level. Count II On or about December 4, 1979, Deborah M. Zapp purchased automobile insurance from American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. Gainesville, Florida, from an employee of the Respondent's identified as "Judy". (Vol. 1, T-17) Ms. Zapp was unclear regarding the coverage she requested from Judy, but was sure that she would not have purchased motor club membership since she regarded it as an "extra". (Vol. 1, T-18-20) While at the agency on December 4, 1979, Ms. Zapp was asked to sign various papers which she read before signing. (Vol. a, T-20) These included a membership application in Nation Motor Club (Respondent's Exhibit 1) and an application form which contained the following disclosure statement: I understand the Nation Motor Club membership applied for this date 12/4/79, though the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included in my down payment. Applicant (signed) (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Ms. Zapp was not rushed while reading the documents presented to her for signing and could have taken as much time as she wanted to go over them. (Vol. 1, T-20) However, notwithstanding reading and signing the membership application and disclosure statement regarding the motor club, Ms. Zapp did not know she had purchased motor club coverage when she left the Respondent's office. (Vol. 1, T-21) Ms. Zapp is a graduate of Sante Fe Community College and attended a university for one year following her graduation. (Vol. 1, T-16) At the hearing on February 5, 1981, she appeared bright and fairly assertive. Count III In Count III, Petitioner alleges that the Respondent in the conduct of business under his license violated various provisions of the Insurance Code. The allegations of Count III requires an application of the facts found in Counts I and II to Sections 626.9521, 626.9541(11)(a), 626.9541(5)(a), 626.9541(15)(b), and 626.621(b), Florida Statutes. Count III is duplicated by Count VI and calls for legal conclusions which will be discussed in the conclusions of law section of this Recommended Order. Count IV The deposition of Charles D. Smith was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 10. Mr. Smith currently holds an insurance license and has a bachelor's degree. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 4) Mr. Smith purchased automobile insurance from the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. on or about May 1, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at Appendix) Mr. Smith thought he was purchasing only Personal Injury Protection (PIP). (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 4) In order to get an auto tag, Mr. Smith requested the minimum coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 5) Like Mr. Rippy and Ms. Zapp, Mr. Smith signed an application for motor club membership and disclosure statement stating he understood he was purchasing motor club coverage at the time of his application for insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 7) Mr. Smith intended to purchase the minimum amount of insurance at the lowest price but did not require of either the Respondent or his employees whether motor club coverage was included in the price quoted. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 8,9) Neither the Respondent nor his employees orally explained motor club coverage to Mr. Smith. At the bottom of Mr. Smith's insurance application the following disclosure statement was signed by him: I understand the interstate membership applied for this date 5/1/79, through the American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc. is a separate item that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included in my down payment. Applicant (signed) (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at Appendix) Mr. Smith's decision to purchase from the Respondent was based solely on cost and not on any information provided by the Respondent or his employees. (Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 13). Count V The deposition of Richard B. Divins was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 11. Mr. Divins' testimony parallels the other witnesses in that he also signed an application for motor club membership and a disclosure statement acknowledging the purchase and price. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 11, 15, 16, 26) He purchased insurance and motor club coverage on July 13, 1979, from an employee of the Respondent at American Auto Insurance Agency, Inc., 603 NW 10th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 4,5) Mr. Divins thought he was purchasing only minimum liability insurance and was unaware that he had also purchased motor club coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 7,8) Mr. Divins is a senior in the School of Architecture at the University of Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 4. Count VI In Count VI, Petitioner alleges that the Respondent in the conduct of business under his license violated various provisions of the Insurance Code. Count VI requires an application of the facts found in Counts IV and V to Sections 626.9521, 626.9541 (11)(a), 626.9541(5)(a), 626.9541(15)(b) and 626.621(b), Florida Statutes. Count VI duplicates Count III and calls for legal conclusions and will therefore, be discussed in the legal conclusion section of this Recommended Order. Assuming that the witnesses who testified at the final hearing were representative of the Respondent's customers, his business was generally directed at persons who desired minimum automobile insurance coverage at the lowest possible price. (Vol. 1, T-17 and 31, Petitioner's Exhibit 11 at 7-8, Petitioner's Exhibit 10 at 8,9) An economic incentive existed to sell motor club memberships among agents whose customers desired minimum coverage due to the high commission rates associated with motor club policies. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9, Vol. 1, T-94-95, 97) Mr. Andrew Beverly was qualified as an expert witness on insurance matters and testified on behalf of the Respondent. (Vol. 1, T-29) Mr. Beverly owns the Florida Insurance School, serves as a consultant for several hundred insurance agencies and is a member of the Advisory Committee on Insurance Education of the Florida Insurance Department. (Vol. 1, T-78-79) A study by Mr. Beverly completed in 1979 for the Professional Insurance Agents Association of Florida demonstrated that insurance agents have been contacted by claimants or attorneys for claimants for failure to provide coverage or what is known in the industry as "errors and omissions." (Vol. 1, T-81-82) The Respondent is the first agent that Mr. Beverly has ever encountered who had difficulties arising from selling too much coverage. (Vol. 1, T-82-83) Mr. Beverly's conclusion concerning the value of motor club coverage and supplemental coverage generally is shared by Dr. Ronald T. Anderson, a colleague of Mr. Beverly's on the national faculty of the Society of Certified Insurance Counselors and an Insurance Commissioner of Colorado. (Vol. 1, T-83-85) In particular regard to this case, Mr. Beverly examined the application and disclosure statement signed by the witnesses for the Petitioner and responded to questions from counsel as follows: Q. Now, these documents -- if you would just take a look through those, you'll see in Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4, I believe -- Respondent's Exhibit 1, for example, where in boldface type, the applicant for the insurance signs a statement regarding Motor Club. is that a common practice in the industry? A. It's a practice that is becoming extremely common with the careful and appropriate insurance agents to have a thorough documentation of each coverage, accepted or rejected by an injured. Q. And why is that? A. Partially because of the high incidents (sic) of Errors and Omissions insurance, claims coming in against insurance agents, and then partly so that the client himself will be completely aware of what it is that he's throwing away when he rejects a coverage so he'll know he hasn't bought that. Q. Does the type of procedure meet the standards of the industry in Florida for fire and casualty agents? A. It exceeds them. Q. Okay. What else, in your opinion, could Mr. Azis do in this type of situation other than have him sign the statements and advise him as he has testified to. A. Mr. Woods, there's nothing an insurance agent could possibly do, in my opinion, beyond explaining the coverage to the insured and then having him sign in his own handwriting. I can't believe that there is anything else that he could do. He's being as cautious as he possibly can. Q. You're not aware of any other practices or procedures that might even be better than this? A. I can't think of anything that you could do that could add to this great amount of documentation of the insurers election of what they purchased. Q. In your experience, is it common for people who have bought insurance to come back and question coverages? A. Yes, sir, it happens all the time. I have more than a hundred insurance agencies under contract at this hour, and I am constantly receiving long distance calls from agents: What do you do with this? What's the answer to it? Q. So, that's why they require the need for this documentation? A. Yes, sir. (Vol. 1, T-85-87) Mr. Beverly's testimony was not rebutted by the Petitioner and is accepted as credible. Although Respondent's license as a general lines agent in Florida expired as of August 30, 1980, he retains eligibility to become licensed for a period of two years from the date of licensure. Section 626.221(3)(f), Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8)
Recommendation It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the licensee, Jeffrey Allan Azis, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 1981. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard P. Harris, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent’s insurance license held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes? Although Respondent was unlicensed at the time of the specific insurance transactions enumerated in the Administrative Complaint, she since has become licensed. It is the existing license of Respondent that Petitioner seeks to discipline in this action.
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, and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent was not licensed by Petitioner to transact insurance. (Pet. Ex. 2) Respondent was employed by Beck-De Pratter, Inc., a Florida Corporation, doing business as William Dye Insurance, Inc./Brentwood (hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”) from 1996 until 2004. Count I: Aaron Curtis On August 16, 2000, Aaron Curtis came into the Agency to re-new the insurance on his vehicle. Respondent took down the information necessary for Curtis to re-new his insurance. The company that had insured Curtis' vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Curtis' coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count II: Stacy Collier On October 7, 2002, Collier came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Collier to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Collier's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Collier's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count III: Ruby Hubbard On October 11, 2002, Ruby Hubbard came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Hubbard's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Hubbard's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count IV: Mary Kennedy On March 6, 2002, Mary Kennedy came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed the related vehicle inspection report. Count V: Charles Howard On September 10, 2001, Charles Howard came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed the related vehicle inspection report. Count VI: Not appointed as Customer Representative Petitioner’s official records reveal that Respondent was not appointed as customer representative by any insurance agency at the time the preceding transactions occurred. Respondent’s employer, John Beck, testified that he never appointed Respondent as a customer representative. Count VII: John Kennedy On March 2, 2001, John Kennedy came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the allegations contained in the administrative complaint against Respondent, Sharon G. Taylor. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jed Berman, Esquire Infantino and Berman Post Office Box 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Ms. Morris, she was a resident of Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Patrick Marzouca, owned and operated and currently owns and operates American Exchange Car Rental with main office located in Clearwater and satellites located elsewhere in Pinellas County, Florida. In December, 1987, Marcia Morris, Petitioner herein, answered a newspaper advertisement for rental agents placed by American Exchange Car Rental, and was interviewed for the position by Susan Johnson. Shortly thereafter, she was telephoned by Mr. Marzouca, who had been in the office at the time Ms. Morris was interviewed, and who told her to come in to work the next day. Because Mr. Marzouca had been a bit too forward in his approach, reportedly stating, "I want you. I need you as bad as blood.", Ms. Morris declined employment at that time. However, in March, 1988, she did start work at American exchange because of her relationship with Kathy Higgins, also an associate at American, with whom she had worked at the airport. Ms. Morris had previously worked for several rental car agencies and at the time of her employment by American, had, she claims, never been terminated from employment with any of them for cause. As shall be seen below, she was terminated from employment with one agency for failure to disclose a prior DUI conviction which rendered her ineligible for insurance to operate an automobile. As compensation for her services to American, Ms. Morris was to receive $250.00 for a 40 hour work week as a rental agent, and was to have the use of a company car without restriction, if available. Her work hours were from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Work hours were set by the agents themselves so long as the office was covered, but the overall time each office was open, and the length of shift, was determined by Mr. Marzouca and Ms. Higgins who was the overall manager. Individual agents' times were not entered on a time card, but were determined by the agent's initials used when entering or leaving the computer at the time of beginning and ending work. The $250.00 per week compensation was paid regardless of the number of hours worked, and each agent received a commission of 10% on charges for collision waiver sold. The $250.00 per week compensation was paid weekly, but the commission was paid every three months. The car furnished by the company was in her possession the entire time she worked there. Ms. Morris considered herself an employee of American, and was never told by anyone that she was an independent contractor. When she questioned the fact that neither withholding taxes nor social security contribution were taken from her pay, she was advised not to worry about it as the Respondent's lawyer would handle it at the end of the year. The female rental agents were required to wear an American Exchange polo shirt, supplied by the company, and either slacks or skirts. Mr. Marzouca preferred the females wear short skirts, but Ms. Morris would not do that. From the start, even the first day of work, Mr. Marzouca began making comments to Ms. Morris such as, "You're so beautiful, Baby, I want to marry you." He tended to use the word, "Baby" a lot and not a day went by, she claims, without his offering her his unwanted attentions. Over the time she worked there, he offered to buy her clothes so he could attend parties with her; and he offered to buy her jewelry, stating, "I can see a gold necklace around your beautiful neck", and other similar comments. Ms. Morris contends she told Mr. Marzouca on an almost daily basis to "Leave me alone." She also complained to Ms. Higgins and to her coworkers about the situation, seeking advice as to where to draw the line. Since she was single, lived alone, and liked her income, she did not file a formal complaint at first, though she did not like what was going on, and did not like Mr. Marzouca's attentions. She never saw him behave this way or any comparable way toward a male employee. Ms. Morris also worked at Respondent's New Port Richey office. Things were better there, as opposed to the main office, because she was not being "hit on" every day, since Mr. Marzouca did not come to that office on a daily basis. She volunteered to staff that office primarily to get away from him, but this office did not remain open, and when it was closed, she was returned to the Cleveland Street office to work. From time to time, Ms. Morris was requested by Mr. Marzouca to take his aged mother shopping. She claims that when she protested, she was told that she had to do it and did so at least twice during working hours in the afternoon. Mr. Marzouca, on the other hand, claims his mother and Ms. Morris had a friendly relationship until all this ill feeling started. According to him, on at least one occasion, Ms. Morris suggested that his mother spend the day with her for lunch and shopping. Ms. Morris, he claims, used to call in the evenings to talk with his mother and would often ask about her. In response, his mother would often buy small gifts for Ms. Morris. Ms. Morris, he contends, never complained to him about having to take his mother shopping and he categorically denies ever threatening her with the loss of her job if she complained about his mother to him. There is no indication he ever did threaten her, and in any case, there is little relationship between forcing his mother's company on Ms. Morris and job discrimination based on sex. On one occasion, in June, 1988, she was in a car with Mr. Marzouca and another male employee en route to the Tarpon Springs location to shuttle cars. When the other employee went into a store to get some cigarettes, Mr. Marzouca allegedly said to Ms. Morris, "Oh Baby, I'd love to lay my head between your tits." At this time, she was seated in the front seat of the car with Mr. Marzouca. Mr. Marzouca categorically denies this happened. Considering his demonstrated proclivity toward this type of conduct, however, it is found that it did. On another occasion, Mr. Marzouca came up behind her at the rental counter and turned her upside down by the heels. Apparently this was in response to her comment that she needed more oxygen to her brain when she was having difficulty with the computer. Mr. Marzouca admits to doing this, but claims it was done in a jocular fashion at a time when all the employees were laughing and joking together. Though he claims Ms. Morris laughed about it at the time, she, nonetheless, felt strongly enough about it to make it a portion of her complaint. On another occasion, Ms. Morris was offered a television set as a gift by Mr. Marzouca. She had previously mentioned she was moving from one apartment to another and had no furniture or television. This comment was made in the presence of Mr. Marzouca who offered her a van to help her move. A few weeks later he took her to his car and showed her a television set he had bought for her as a gift. She declined to accept it. On another occasion, she accepted a ride with Mr. Marzouca on his boat and claims, now, that this was a form of harassment. She did not relate, however, that, as was brought out later, her sister and her sister's children were also on the boat at the time. Ms. Morris' sister was then and still is an employee of American. Ms. Morris also had breakfast with Mr. Marzouca on at least one occasion but never went on a date with him. Mr. Marzouca relates he has a charge account with a delicatessen located near his main office at which he has left standing orders that any employee who wishes to eat there and who cannot pay for the meal may do so at his expense. Ms. Morris concedes Mr. Marzouca never touched her sexually throughout their relationship, He never threatened her job because she would not go out with him, but she was annoyed by his continual asking her for a date. She states that her current feelings toward him are ambivalent. She neither likes nor dislikes him but because he was "pushy", and she didn't like what he was doing with regard to her, she filed the complaint. Though she first denied it, she admitted to telling others that she did not like the Respondent because of the way he treated her. In July, 1988, Ms. Morris' relationship with American Exchange was terminated at their request. At that time, she was told it was because she caused too much confusion in the office, and when she demurred, Mr. Marzouca advised her it was his company and he could do what he wanted. Other matters presented at the hearing indicate the termination was based on Ms. Morris' failure to remain at the office beyond the close of the business day on one occasion, July 4, 1988 to handle a rental that was to be picked up after office closing hours. When asked to stay by Ms. Higgins, her manager, she flatly refused and left the office just a few minutes after the close. As a result, the rental was not consummated. Ms. Morris claims she waited until shortly after 5:00 PM that day and then left believing that the reservation had been cancelled at three or four that afternoon, and there was no reason to stay. Immediately after their conversation, Ms. Higgins called Mr. Marzouca and reported the situation to him. In the course of that conversation, she described Ms. Morris as a "bitch" and recommended he get rid of her. When she left the office against Ms. Higgins' request on July 4, 1988, she took a company car with her. She did not work on July 5. On July 6, the car was picked up outside her home by Mr. Marzouca and Ms. Higgins. At the time, Ms. Morris had not yet left for work, and when she called in thereafter, requesting a ride to work, Mr. Marzouca told her to stay home and that he would come to her place to talk. She refused and hung up on him. When she called back a few minutes later, Mr. Marzouca told her she was fired but later offered her a job working in the Tarpon Springs office on Sundays from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. She declined this offer claiming she needed a full time job. Kathy Higgins worked for American from February, 1988 to August, 1988 as manager of the Cleveland Street office. At that time, American had four branch locations and employed 6 employees in addition to the bookkeeper. At one point, she worked with both Ms. Morris and Mr. Marzouca, and during that period, she heard Mr. Marzouca use the word, "Fuck"; observed him pick Ms. Morris up and put her over his shoulder; make comments about her such as, "That girl has a cute ass. I'd like to fuck her." on an almost daily basis. Each time Mr. Marzouca would approach Ms. Morris in Ms. Higgins' presence, he was always rebuffed. To the best of Ms. Higgins' observation, Ms. Morris never encouraged Marzouca's conduct, and from time to time Ms. Higgins would ask him to leave the girl alone. Whenever she did this, he would go off into the other room. Even Ms. Higgins indicates that male employees were treated differently than females in areas other than those sexually oriented. On one occasion, Mr. Portei, a male employee, left the office without permission for a couple of hours to get his taxes done, leaving the office unattended. When Ms. Higgins told Mr. Marzouca about this, he merely called Mr. Portei to ask why he had left. Nothing else was done about it. Ms. Higgins was on vacation when Ms. Morris was terminated. She had previously discussed Ms. Morris' performance with Mr. Marzouca. At first, during their association, he appeared to like Ms. Morris, but his attitude changed and he advised Ms. Higgins he wanted Ms. Morris out because she was argumentative. As a result, Ms. Higgins talked with Ms. Morris at the New Port Richie office to try to work things out. Sometime thereafter, she advised Mr. Marzouca to stop asking Ms. Morris out, and in response, Marzouca indicated that if he continued, Ms. Morris might quit. Mr. Marzouca admits to having Ms. Morris out on his boat with him and her sister; to having invited her to his home, which she accepted; to offering her the TV which, he claims, he had purchased for his girlfriend and which he offered to Ms. Morris when she admired it; to asking Ms. Morris out on a date once or twice; to allowing Mr. Portei to take off without discipline, but contends Portei had an entirely different type of job; and to using the "F" word "once or twice." He denies, however, having asked Ms. Morris her dress size; having suggested a sexual relationship to her; having asked her to go to Jamaica with him, as she alleged; and he doubts he ever asked Ms. Morris if he could put his head between her breasts. He had several repeated "discussions" with Ms. Morris about the way she treated customers, but did not seem to be able to get through to her and he fired her because of her attitude and because of her failure to stay at work the evening when requested. Even after that, however, he offered her several days work but then could no longer use her in the organization because business, at that time, was bad. Ms. Morris contends she never received any complaints regarding the way she treated customers, but considering the evidence on balance, it is clear that her performance over an extended period with American was below acceptable standards and was the basis for her termination. Mr. Marzouca's "open" approach to Ms. Morris, much of which he admits to, was observed by Mr. Cote, then an employee of American and an admitted recovering alcoholic and drug abuser. The first time Cote saw Ms. Morris was when Mr. Marzouca brought her to the office where he was working and described her as his "new girl". From this introduction and the descriptions used by Mr. Marzouca, such as "pretty" and "nice" girl, he inferred that there was a personal relationship, as well as a professional one between them. Soon after this, Mr. Cote left Mr. Marzouca's employment but remained in the area in another job. He saw Mr. Marzouca in the office several times and heard the conversations between him and Ms. Morris. Mr. Marzouca's language included the regular use of curse words and it was obvious he did not treat Ms. Morris with respect. He made suggestive remarks to her which were, in Cote's opinion, out of place in an employer/employee relationship. At no time when he saw Mr. Marzouca and Ms. Morris together was Mr. Cote ever under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Similar activity by Mr. Marzouca was observed by Mr. Puglia, Marzouca's landlord at the New Port Richey office. Mr. Marzouca introduced Ms. Morris to him as his new employee and his "future wife." Ms. Morris laughed at that. Over a period of time he noticed that whenever Mr. Marzouca would come to the office where Ms. Morris was working, he would get into an argument with her and use abusive language which Puglia found embarrassing. Mr. Puglia declined an invitation by Mr. Marzouca to go out on his boat with him and Ms. Morris but believes Ms. Morris went. He also recalls her indicating to him that Marzouca made her take his mother shopping and she didn't like it. By the same token, Ms. Katheryn M. King, who was working for Mr. Marzouca when Ms. Morris started, frequently saw the relationship between Mr. Marzouca and Ms. Morris. From what she observed, it was clear they were "not fond" of each other but Mr. Marzouca would flirt with her as he did with all female employees. It was obvious, however, that Ms. Morris did not like it nor did she like to be there when Mr. Marzouca was present. Ms. King was also employed by American when Ms. Morris was terminated. In her opinion, the discharge was the culmination of the bad feelings between them topped off by her refusal to stay one evening for a late pickup. Notwithstanding Ms. Higgins' prior testimony that when she worked for American there were at least 6 employees in addition to the bookkeeper, Mr. Kelly, who fulfills that function for Mr. Marzouca at the Cleveland Street office, indicates that the staff varies, usually being 4 or 5 full time employees plus two part timers, including himself. He writes the payroll checks weekly. The rental people are paid a $250.00 per week draw or guarantee against commissions in addition to a 10% commission on the collision waiver charges. In his opinion, a rental agent can earn between $200.00 and $275.00 per week, depending on experience. However, the $250.00 has consistently been paid to the rental agents each week even if no rental commissions are earned. Hiring of agents and the setting of the draw is done by the manager. Ms. Higgins used to be the manager. Mr. Marzouca claims no knowledge of how Mr. Kelly runs the business books. He gives him only the most basic instructions and trusts Kelly implicitly to do what has to be done. Considering the evidence regarding compensation in its entirety, Mr. Marzouca's claim that he exercises little control over this matter is ingenuous at best and it is found that the $250.00 sum is salary paid to an employee, regardless that no withholding or social security contribution is taken out. Ms. King indicated that she paid the taxes due on her earnings even though Mr. Marzouca agreed to withhold them when she spoke with him about it on several occasions. He never did. In her opinion, she was an employee of American, not an independent contractor, because she had a set number of hours to work, worked regular hours, and had no authority to come and go as she pleased. Her opinion as to her status was, on the basis of the evidence, correct. This brings up the factual issue of the true status of the individuals who worked as rental agents. Here, the facts clearly demonstrate that each rental agent, the individuals being so considered, was paid a flat amount per week "draw" against "commissions", plus an additional 10% commission on sales of collision waiver. Mr. Kelly indicated that the draw was paid regardless of whether any "commissions" were earned and no evidence was presented by American to indicate that any "commissions" on rentals were ever calculated and applied against the draw. Consequently, it must be concluded, and it was so found, that the weekly stipend was not a draw but a salary which was supplemented by the free use of a company car. Further, the working hours were set by the company. Though schedules may have been arranged by the individual employee, the employee was to work a set number of hours on certain days designated by management, and the facility at which they worked was open over hours dictated by management. In addition, the employee was required to wear a particular type of clothing provided by the employer. Taken together, all indicia of employment clearly lead to the conclusion that the relationship was an employer/employee relationship and not that of an independent contractor, regardless of American's possible improper failure to take withholding and Social Security contribution out of the earnings, and it is so found. Since being terminated by American Exchange and Mr. Marzouca, Ms. Morris has been employed by several other car rental agencies, A Plus and USA Car Rentals, with compensation by both being a salary and company car. The job with USA was on an on-call basis but neither job was permanent, nor, she claims, was she fired from either. She was, however, terminated at A Plus because, due to a previous DUI conviction on her record, she was uninsurable, a prerequisite for working at a car rental agency. While working there, she earned $300.00 per week and had the use of a company car, valued at $50.00 per week. She worked there from August through November, 1988 and when she left there, applied for unemployment compensation which was initially denied because there was no record of her having been employed. Upon appeal, however, the decision to deny was reversed and she was awarded unemployment compensation for 6 weeks to 2 months. Ms. Morris had failed to disclose her prior DUI conviction when she went to work at A Plus. Also, when she applied for employment with American, she again failed to disclose her prior conviction because, "She would have preferred to discuss it in person." This contention is without merit, however. She has not disclosed her DUI conviction to any employer since being terminated by Respondent. At the end of 1988, Ms. Morris received a IRS Form 1099 from American but never a Form W-2. She has been working for 10 years, and in addition to the previously mentioned employment, was hired and fired by National Car Rental because, she claims, of a personality conflict with the new female manager. After that, she worked for Payless Rental Car with the old National manager, with whom she got along.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Community Relations Board of the City of Clearwater, acting as the Commission administering Pinellas County Ordnance 84-10, codified under Chapter 17.5 of the Pinellas County Code, enter a Final Order finding the Respondent, American Exchange Car Rental and Patrick Marzouca not guilty of actionable sexual discrimination against Marcia Morris. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Lykes, Esquire 300 Turner Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 John D. Tubhill, Esquire 4695 Ulmerton Road Suite 440 Clearwater, Florida 31622 Ronald McElrath, Director Office of Community Relations City of Clearwater, Florida P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater Florida 34618-4748
