The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, who was hurt while working for Respondent as a law enforcement officer, suffered a catastrophic injury on or after January 1, 1995, making her eligible for lifetime health insurance benefits pursuant to Section 112.19(2)(h)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact From 1982 through January 1999, Petitioner Sheila Kiess (“Kiess”) was employed by Respondent Florida International University (“FIU”) as a law enforcement officer. On September 16, 1994, Kiess was injured at work in the course of subduing a violent young man who managed, in the struggle, to kick her right arm, causing severe pain. (This event will be referred to hereafter as the “First Accident.”) Kiess immediately reported to a clinic for medical attention, following which she returned to duty and completed her shift. Through workers’ compensation, Kiess received regular, ongoing medical treatment for her injured right arm, which continued to hurt and became even more painful as time passed. She continued to work as well but was not able to use her right arm. On December 17, 1994, Kiess’s doctor deemed her “unable to work,” at which point she stopped working. Kiess’s treating physician released her to return to modified duty on January 4, 1995. Accordingly, on or about that date, despite being still without the beneficial use of her right arm, Kiess resumed her duties as Shift Supervisor on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift. On January 24, 1995, while on duty, Kiess was called upon to help restrain an unruly person. Her previously injured right arm was twisted while wrestling with the combatant, causing great pain. (This event will be referred to hereafter as the “Second Accident.”) After the Second Accident, Kiess received medical treatment, again through workers’ compensation, at the same clinic where she had been seen regularly for the preceding four months as a result of the First Accident. She continued to work, with limitations on the use of her right arm. Some months later, Kiess came under the care of an orthopedic surgeon named Dr. Charles Virgin, who first saw her on June 12, 1995. Dr. Virgin determined that Kiess had sustained damage to the tendons around her right elbow. On April 23, 1996, Dr. Virgin operated on Kiess’s elbow, surgically removing damaged tissue and repairing the extensor tendon. At some point thereafter, Kiess returned to work. As Kiess healed from the surgery, the “old pain” associated with the preoperative trauma to her right arm gradually began to subside. In August 1996, however, Kiess began to experience “new pain” that was the result of a condition diagnosed as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (“RSD”).1 The RSD most likely was caused by the preoperative trauma, or by the surgery, or by some combination thereof. About one year later, Dr. Virgin determined that, as of August 14, 1997, Kiess had reached maximum medical improvement (“MMI”).2 For workers’ compensation purposes, Dr. Virgin assigned Kiess a permanent impairment rating of six percent of the body as a whole. Despite having achieved MMI, Kiess suffered——and as of the date of the final hearing continued to suffer——constant, crippling pain, muscle spasms, swelling, and other symptoms caused by RSD. On July 27, 1998, Dr. Virgin wrote that Kiess was “temporarily totally disabled and . . . unable to work as a result of her employment injury.” After that, Kiess did not regularly, if ever, resume her duties at FIU. Effective January 21, 1999, FIU terminated Kiess from her employment as a police officer because her physical limitations could not be reasonably accommodated. FIU’s workers’ compensation carrier accepted Kiess as permanently and totally disabled, effective November 26, 2001. Ultimate Factual Determinations The parties have stipulated and agreed, and consequently the undersigned determines as an ultimate fact, that Kiess has suffered a “catastrophic injury” as that term is defined in Section 440.02, Florida Statutes. There is likewise no dispute that both the First Accident and the Second Accident occurred in the line of duty; that each did so is, therefore, accepted and found as a matter of ultimate fact. Further, it is undisputed, and hereby found, that the injuries Kiess suffered as a consequence of the referenced accidents occurred as a result of her responses to situations involving either an emergency or an unlawful act perpetrated by another. Finally, for reasons more fully explained below, it is determined that Kiess, on or after January 1, 1995, suffered a “catastrophic injury” in the line of duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent FIU enter a final order accepting Petitioner Kiess’s claim for health insurance benefits pursuant to Section 112.19(2)(h)1., Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed as an Ordinary-Combination Life, including Disability Insurance Agent to represent Interstate Life and Accident Insurance Company and as a General Lines Agent Limited to Industrial Fire to represent Interstate Fire Insurance Company. (Exhibit 37) During the period June 1, 1974, until October 1, 1976, Respondent was an agent for Gulf Life Insurance Company. In his application for licensing by Petitioner on the application dated July 3, 1974, Respondent listed his date of birth as December 14, 1928 (Exhibit 36), on the application dated June 28, 1975, Respondent listed his date of birth as November 11, 1928 (Exhibit 35), and on his application dated October 5, 1976, Respondent listed his date of birth as November 14, 1926 (Exhibit 34). By affidavit dated January 4, 1978 (Exhibit 33), Respondent declared he was born November 14, 1926. On March 15, 1974, John L. Harris was issued life insurance field policy No. 745 676 678 (Exhibit 1) and weekly premiums were paid continuously on this policy. He was also issued whole life policy No. 715 090 733 on October 18, 1971 (Exhibit 2), and weekly premiums were paid continuously on this policy. Although Harris paid the premiums each week when due to the Respondent, at one period these premiums were not remitted to Gulf Life and the policies lapsed. Immediately thereafter, on May 1, 1975, an application for new policies (Exhibit 5), was submitted to Gulf Life by Respondent with the name of John Harris in the space for the signature of the proposed insured. This signature was not that of Harris and Respondent signed the application as a witness to Harris signature. Gulf Life issued a policy to Harris (Exhibit 4) based upon this application. Evidence was presented that similar procedures were followed by Respondent in Gulf Life policies issued to Frances Harris, Dorcas Cohen, James Cohen, Joe Bryant, Peggy Hanie Bryant, Wilma Hanie and Brenda Bryant, whereby policies serviced by Respondent were lapsed by Gulf Life who later issued new policies on forged applications submitted by Respondent.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s request for hearing should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact In a letter dated January 29, 2009,1/ DSGI informed Petitioner that his Level II appeal was denied. The appeal concerned Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida’s denial of coverage for a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Spectography procedure that Petitioner underwent in July 2008. The letter informed Petitioner of his right to request an administrative hearing on the denial of his appeal, and also informed Petitioner that the request must filed with DSGI within 21 days of his receipt of the letter. Copies of Florida Administrative Code Rules 28-106.201 and 28-106.301 were attached to the letter, as was an “informational page” that stated in pertinent part: Your request (petition) for a formal hearing must be in writing. We recommend you send your request by certified mail so you will have proof of the date the Department of Management Services (DMS) receives it. You lose your right to a hearing if we do not receive your request on time. (Bold in original and underlining added). * * * If you dispute the facts we used in our decision, state them in your written request for a hearing. Your request must meet the requirements of rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received the letter denying his appeal on February 9, 2009. The 21-day period for requesting a hearing on that decision expired on March 2, 2009. Petitioner requested a hearing on the denial of his appeal through a letter dated March 1, 2009. The letter stated in pertinent part: I am writing in protest of the decision rendered against a health insurance claim I submitted in July of 2008 by DSGI. I believe that the decision to DENY my health insurance is improper, the reasons for which actually encourage further health risks by limiting my health care options to only procedures that are inherently dangerous by promoting the spread of cancer. I am writing to request a formal hearing.... Petitioner mailed this letter to DSGI. The postmark date on the envelope in which the letter was mailed was March 5, 2009, which is after the applicable filing deadline. Petitioner’s request for hearing was received by DSGI on March 9, 2009 (seven days after the deadline), and was filed with the Clerk of the Department of Management Services on March 10, 2009 (eight days after the deadline). Petitioner’s request for hearing was untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after he received the letter denying his Level II appeal. The Order to Show Cause issued on April 23, 2009, gave Petitioner an opportunity to explain why his untimely petition should not be dismissed. The letter filed by Petitioner in response to the Order to Show Cause stated in pertinent part: I apologize for missing the 21 day deadline to file a request for hearing. I do not waive my rights. I cannot afford legal representation in this matter. I received the letter dated January 29 from the Department of Management Services [and] I was led to believe that a full and complete response -- one that was equal to the five-page letter I received -- was necessary. Because of the amount of information I felt that I was required to assemble, and demands on my life circumstances I [was] unable to file in a timely manner. The response to the Order to Show Cause also articulates what Petitioner believes to be the merit of his case,2/ which he argues “outweighs dismissal because of procedural technicalities.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DSGI issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s request for hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's licenses should be revoked, or whether lesser penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following Stipulation of the parties was entered into evidence: The Petitioner and Respondent through their undersigned attorneys hereby stipulate to the introduction into evidence at the hearing to be held in this matter the attach ed copies of insurance policy applications referenced in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause The Respondent further states that the applications were submitted to the respective insurers by Respondent, the Respondent signed the applications and received commissions on some of said appli cations. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) An application was submitted to the Midwestern National Life Insurance Company by Respondent Owens in the name of Julia Lea Anderson, a witness for Petitioner, in September of 1977. In addition a form was submitted authorizing the automatic withdrawal of premium payments from Ms. Anderson's checking account. Ms. Anderson did not authorize, request or sign either the application for insurance or the check authorization withdrawal form. Respondent's testimony as to how he obtained the information he certified to be true and correct was contradictory and not worthy of belief. The Hearing Officer finds that Respondent submitted the application and check withdrawal form to Midwestern without the permission, knowledge or consent of Ms. Anderson in order to obtain a fee, commission or other benefit. An application for insurance was submitted to the Centennial Life Insurance Company together with an authorization form for said company to draw checks from a checking account of witness Roger Barone at the Dania Bank in Dania, Florida. Barone had never had an account at said bank and did not authorize or sign either the insurance application or the withdrawal form. Other applications not authorized or signed by Barone were submitted to the State Mutual Insurance Company and the Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Company. The application and the check withdrawal authorization were submitted by Respondent without the knowledge, consent or approval of Barone for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission or other benefit. Applications for insurance were submitted to the Midwestern National Life Insurance Company by Respondent in the name of Chris E. Konopinski, John Scott Konopinski and Troy Allen Konopinski, all children of Carol Konopinski. Ms. Konopinski did not sign or request such applications, although she was listed as the applicant and beneficiary (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). The applications were made by Respondent Owens to secure a benefit for himself. Respondent filled out an application for insurance and check withdrawal form for Heather Gouvert without her signature or consent. Respondent admitted he thereafter sent a check dated November 13, 1976, to Ms. Gouvert in the amount of $24.25 marked "deposit only" to reimburse her for the amount the insurance company had drafted out of her account. Herman J. Zottie, a regional director of agencies for the Midwestern National Life Insurance Company, explained that his insurance company has a plan for new applications: When a premium is paid through a bank authorization (called a pre-authorization check plan), the company pays ninety (90) percent of two years' commission to the agent upon the payment of one month's premium. If the policy is thereafter cancelled, the unearned amount paid to the agent is charged back to the agent's account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that all licenses and eligibility for licenses of the Respondent, Grady Harold Owens, be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick F. Maroney, Esquire Legal Division Department of Insurance Room 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David R. Farbstein, Esquire 2610 West Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 24, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing, regulating, and imposing discipline on insurance agents in Florida. See §§ 626.016(1); 626.601, Fla. Stat. Ms. Sykes was licensed as a 2-14 "life including variable annuity agent" and as a 2-20 general lines agent in January 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Sykes worked at an insurance agency owned by David J. Heiny ("Heiny Agency"). Deena Buell also worked for the Heiny Agency, and Ms. Sykes, Ms. Buell, and Mr. Heiny were the only three employees who were licensed as 2-20 general lines agents. The remaining two employees of Heiny Agency during the times pertinent to this proceeding held 4-40 licenses as customer service representatives. Certificate of Liability Insurance The Heiny Agency marketed the insurance products of the Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") and also the products of other insurance companies at the times material to this proceeding. In 2003, Mr. Heiny decided to expand his business to include workers' compensation insurance. In July 2003, he submitted an application to the Florida Workers' Compensation Joint Underwriting Association ("FWCJUA"), the insurer of last resort in Florida for workers' compensation insurance, for authority to submit applications to it for workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Heiny was notified by the FWCJUA in a letter dated July 29, 2003, that he was authorized to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA until July 29, 2004. Mr. Heiny did not have authority to bind coverage for the FWCJUA, nor did he have authority to issue certificates of liability insurance showing workers' compensation insurance coverage through the FWCJUA. Under his agreement with the FWCJUA, Mr. Heiny was required to meet with and explain the workers' compensation insurance coverage to applicants and to sign all of the application forms. Mr. Heiny was unfamiliar with workers' compensation insurance, and he intended for Ms. Buell to handle all of the workers' compensation insurance business because she had experience at another agency with workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Heiny's office submitted one application for workers' compensation insurance, which was rejected, and he decided that the FWCJUA required too much paperwork. Mr. Heiny decided that he did not want to be involved with workers' compensation insurance, and he did not apply to renew his authorization to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA. As a result, his authority to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA expired on July 29, 2004. Mr. Heiny informed both Ms. Sykes and Ms. Buell that he did not intend to renew his authorization with the FWCJUA. Ms. Sykes is fluent in Spanish and was the only licensed agent at the Heiny Agency who spoke Spanish at the times pertinent to this proceeding. Because of her fluency in Spanish, Ms. Sykes worked with the Heiny Agency's Spanish- speaking customers, and most of her business consisted of referrals from these customers. One of Ms. Sykes' long-standing customers was Mayola Campos, who owned Form Construction, Inc. ("Form Construction"), with her husband, Fortino Campos, and Ms. Sykes handled the commercial insurance for Form Construction. Mrs. Campos came into the Heiny Agency's office regularly to pay premiums and to discuss with Ms. Sykes's the corporation's various insurance policies and changes in coverage. As a result, Ms. Sykes and Mrs. Campos were well-acquainted, and Ms. Sykes received a number of referrals from Mrs. Campos. Form Construction was a trim and roofing company working in the construction industry. According to Ms. Sykes, Mrs. Campos came to her in or around July 2004 seeking workers' compensation insurance. Ms. Sykes was not familiar with workers' compensation insurance because she had never sold that type of insurance, and it was not a product normally sold through the Heiny Agency. Nonetheless, she completed an application and submitted it to Ms. Buell for processing. At the time, Ms. Sykes was aware that Mr. Heiny did not intend to renew his authority to submit applications for workers' compensation insurance to the FWCJUA and that the authority would expire at the end of July 2004. Ms. Sykes cannot recall hearing anything further about Form Construction's July 2004 application for workers' compensation insurance. She was going through a particularly difficult divorce proceeding and was not working full-time at the agency. In addition, Ms. Buell was working from her home so she could care for her infant and young daughter, and Ms. Sykes and Ms. Buell were not in regular communication. Without confirming that the FWCJUA had issued workers' compensation insurance to Form Construction, Ms. Sykes signed a Certificate of Liability Insurance for Form Construction and sent it to that company. The certificate, dated October 12, 2004, reflected that, in addition to general liability and automobile insurance, Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance through the FWCJUA that was effective from October 16, 2004, to October 16, 2005. The certificate holder was identified on the certificate as Gold Construction. Ms. Sykes was aware of the purpose of a Certificate of Liability Insurance since she routinely prepared and signed them for insurance companies whose products were marketed by the Heiny Agency. A Certificate of Liability Insurance is used to establish that a person or company has liability, automobile, and/or workers' compensation insurance. Although some insurance companies allow insurance agents to issue certificates of liability insurance, only the FWCJUA issues certificates of liability insurance for the workers' compensation insurance coverage it provides. The only exception to this policy is when an agent requests authority to issue a certificate of liability insurance for a specific insured for a specific purpose. The agent must request this authority in writing and specify the purpose of the certificate; the FWCJUA must give approval in writing to the agent before the agent can issue the certificate. The agent must then send a copy of the certificate to the FWCJUA for its records. In the construction industry, a certificate of liability insurance is presented to a contractor to establish that a company working on a project as a subcontractor has workers' compensation insurance. If a general contractor hires a subcontractor that does not have workers' compensation insurance, the general contractor is responsible for providing workers' compensation insurance for the employees of the uninsured subcontractor who worked on the contractor's job. See § 440.10(a), (b), and (c), Florida Statutes. Form Construction presented the Certificate of Liability Insurance signed by Ms. Sykes to Gold Construction, which was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, a qualified contractor business. Gold Construction hired general contractors, which, in turn, hired subcontractors to work on its projects. The subcontractors were paid by Gold Construction, and it required all subcontractors to present a certificate of liability insurance showing that they had general liability and workers' compensation insurance at the time the subcontractors were hired. Sometimes, the subcontractor would provide the certificate directly to Gold Construction, and sometimes Gold Construction would call the subcontractor's insurance agency and request that the certificate be sent to it, directly. The Certificate of Liability Insurance signed by Ms. Sykes was presented to Gold Construction as evidence that Form Construction had liability and workers' compensation insurance, and, in November 2004, Gold Construction hired Form Construction to do truss work on two construction projects. Gold Construction was subsequently audited by its workers' compensation insurance carrier, and the auditor determined that that Form Construction did not, in fact, have workers' compensation insurance and that the Certificate of Liability Insurance was bogus. Gold Construction was, therefore, assessed an additional $12,000.00 in workers' compensation insurance premium to add coverage for Form Construction's employees. The only records the FWCJUA has relating to Form Construction is an application for workers' compensation insurance for Fortino and Mayola Campos, d/b/a Form Construction, which was signed by Mr. Heiny and dated August 27, 2003; a date stamp on the application shows that it was received by the FWCJUA on September 17, 2003. In a letter dated October 16, 2003, the FWCJUA notified Mr. Heiny that the application for Form Construction was being returned with no coverage having been bound, and there is nothing in the records of the FWCJUA showing that it received another application for workers' compensation insurance for Form Construction or that it provided compensation insurance for Form Construction. Automobile insurance endorsement The Heiny Agency wrote commercial automobile insurance through Allstate. Ms. Sykes joined the agency in 1995, after having worked for another agency that marketed Allstate insurance products. Ms. Sykes was recommended by one of Allstate's district managers, and her familiarity with the Allstate computer system and her fluency in Spanish were considered by Mr. Heiny to be very important contributions to his agency. Form Construction had commercial automobile insurance coverage with Allstate, which was written through the Heiny Agency. Ms. Sykes was the only agent at the Heiny Agency that worked with Mrs. Campos on insurance matters. Mrs. Campos visited the Heiny Agency's office frequently to pay premiums and to discuss the various insurance policies issued to Form Construction. Mrs. Campos always spoke with Ms. Sykes when she came into the office because none of the other agents or employees of the agency spoke Spanish. Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy came up for renewal in April 2005. When Mrs. Campos came in to pay the renewal premium, she and Ms. Sykes discussed raising the policy's bodily injury liability limits from $25,000.00 per person and $50,000 per occurrence. Mrs. Campos told Ms. Sykes that she needed to speak to her husband before she could raise the liability limits. Ms. Sykes did not hear anything from Mrs. Campos until June 2005, when Mrs. Campos came into the office and requested that Ms. Sykes add another vehicle to Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy. Ms. Sykes again advised Mrs. Campos that she should consider raising the policy's bodily injury liability coverage limits to at least $250,000. Mrs. Campos asked Ms. Sykes how much such an increase in coverage would cost, and Ms. Sykes went into the Allstate computer system and partially prepared an endorsement to the automobile insurance policy showing the increased limits so she could get a quote for Mrs. Campos on the price. Ms. Sykes did not submit the endorsement at that time, and it remained pending in the Allstate computer system. On or about July 12, 2005, Mrs. Campos visited the Heiny Agency's office and reported to Ms. Sykes that Mr. Campos had been involved in an automobile accident while driving a vehicle owned by Form Construction and that he had hit a person on a bicycle. Ms. Sykes advised her that her commercial automobile bodily injury liability coverage limits were $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence. Ms. Sykes also reminded Mrs. Campos that she had advised her several times to raise the Form Construction's bodily injury liability limits. Ms. Sykes immediately submitted the claim to the Allstate claims Department, where it was assigned to Thomas Burger. On July 15, 2005, Mrs. Campos contacted Ms. Sykes and told her to raise the bodily injury liability limits in Form Construction's automobile insurance policy to $500,000.00 per person and $500,000.00 per occurrence. Ms. Sykes went into the Allstate computer system and prepared and submitted the endorsement to Allstate. The endorsement submitted by Ms. Sykes on July 15, 2005, carried an effective date of July 10, 2005, two days prior to the date on which Mrs. Campos reported the claim relating to Mr. Campos's automobile accident. A copy of the endorsement was sent to Mrs. Campos on July 16, 2005, and Mrs. Campos visited the Heiny Agency's office several days later with a check for the additional premium attributable to the increase in bodily injury liability limits. The Allstate claims department was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, separate from the department handling commercial automobile insurance policies. The information available to Mr. Burger at the time the Form Construction claim was submitted showed bodily injury liability limits of $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence on the Form Construction policy. On July 29, 2005, Allstate tendered a check to the person injured by Mr. Campos for the policy limit of $25,000.00. This check was not cashed. Mr. Burger did not learn until October 2005 that a policy endorsement raising the bodily injury liability limits had been submitted July 15, 2005, with an effective date of July 10, 2005. According to Ms. Sykes, someone from Allstate contacted her in August 2005 to question her about the endorsement, and she explained that the retroactive increase in bodily injury liability limits was a mistake and that the policy limits were $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence at the time of the accident on July 12, 2005. Mr. Burger interviewed Ms. Sykes and Mr. Heiny on January 13, 2006, regarding the endorsement, and Ms. Sykes told Mr. Burger that she could not recall why she would have back-dated the endorsement. Ms. Sykes told Mr. Burger of the problems she had experienced with endorsements to automobile insurance policies being lost in the Allstate computer system. On January 26, 2006, the attorney representing the person injured by Mr. Campos wrote Allstate demanding disclosure of the policy limits of Form Construction's automobile insurance policy. In a letter dated February 3, 2006, Allstate notified Mr. Heiny and Ms. Sykes that it might seek indemnification from the Heiny Agency because it attributed the back-dated increase in bodily injury liability limits to agent error. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Heiny asked if Allstate could change the limits back to the original $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence as of the date of the accident, but Allstate had already determined that the increased limits were effective July 10, 2005, because of the effective date on the endorsement and because of Mrs. Campos's payment of the premium for the additional coverage. In a letter dated February 17, 2006, Mr. Burger advised the attorney representing the injured person of the increase in the bodily injury liability limits, and, on March 2, 2006, Allstate tendered a check to the injured person's attorney in the amount of $500,000.00. Ms. Sykes attributed the back-dating of the endorsement to a glitch in the Allstate computer system by which the endorsement she submitted July 15, 2005, was automatically back-dated to July 10, 2005. Ms. Sykes had complained to Mr. Heiny on numerous occasions about problems with endorsements disappearing from the system, which required her to resubmit the endorsements. Ms. Sykes was not, however, aware of any endorsements being automatically back-dated by the system except for the July 2005 endorsement to Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy. Under the Allstate computer system, there are only two ways in which an endorsement's effective date can be established. The usual procedure requires the agent to complete the endorsement and submit it into the system; the system then automatically records on the endorsement the date it was submitted and the effective date of the endorsement. The other alternative is for an authorized agent to manually back-date the effective date of an endorsement and then submit it into the system. Mr. Heiny tested the Allstate computer system repeatedly, trying to determine whether the system would automatically back-date an endorsement. None of the test endorsements prepared by Mr. Heiny was automatically back-dated, and Mr. Heiny is aware of no instance in which an endorsement was automatically back-dated except for the Form Construction endorsement at issue herein. Findings of ultimate fact Certificate of Liability Insurance The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, when she signed the Certificate of Liability Insurance on October 12, 2004, showing that Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance issued by the FWCJUA with effective dates of October 16, 2004, through October 15, 2005, Ms. Sykes knew that Form Construction did not have workers' compensation insurance placed by the Heiny Agency through the FWCJUA and knew that Gold Construction would rely on the Certificate of Liability Insurance as evidence that Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance. Ms. Sykes' action demonstrates her lack of fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, and Ms. Sykes caused injury to Gold Construction because, as a result of its reliance on the Certificate of Liability Insurance, it was required to pay additional premium to its workers' compensation insurance carrier. Ms. Sykes's testimony regarding the circumstances in which she signed the Certificate of Liability Insurance was replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities and was wholly insufficient to support her contention that, when she signed the Certificate of Liability Insurance, she had a good faith belief that Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance issued by the FWCJUA. Mr. Heiny told Ms. Sykes that he did not intend to renew his authorization to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA after it expired in July 2004, and, because she was the only agent at the Heiny Agency that dealt with Mrs. Campos, Ms. Sykes would necessarily have known if Form Construction had been issued a workers' compensation insurance policy by the FWCJUA. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that Ms. Sykes was aware on October 12, 2004, that Form Construction was not, and had never been, covered by workers' compensation insurance issued by the FWCJUA as a result of an application submitted by Mr. Heiny. Finally, Ms. Sykes' testimony that, before signing the Certificate of Liability Insurance, she reviewed the Form Construction file and saw a check and a Federal Express receipt showing that "it all went out to the FWCJUA"2 directly conflicts with her testimony that Form Construction's records were destroyed when the Heiny Agency's office flooded in September 2004.3 Although the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Ms. Sykes demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about workers' compensation insurance, she was not authorized to submit applications to the FWCJUA and did not engage in any transactions involving workers' compensation insurance except for signing the Certificate of Liability Insurance for Form Construction. This act is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Sykes engaged in transactions involving workers' compensation insurance. Automobile insurance endorsement The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Sykes' deliberately back-dated an endorsement to Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy increasing the bodily injury liability policy limits so that the increased limits were effective two days before Mr. Campos was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by Form Construction. Ms. Sykes' action constitutes willful misrepresentation of the coverage limits actually in effect on the date of the accident, and it demonstrates Ms. Sykes' unfitness and untrustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Ms. Sykes' explanation that the endorsement was automatically back-dated by the Allstate computer system is rejected as not credible. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Sykes lacked in any respect adequate knowledge of or technical competence in commercial automobile insurance. Finally, the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish by the requisite degree of certainty that, because Ms. Sykes committed misconduct relating to the signing of the Certificate of Liability Insurance, she engaged in dishonest practices while engaging in the business of insurance when she back-dated the endorsement to the Form Construction commercial automobile insurance policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order Finding Madeline Hernandez Sykes guilty of one count of having violated Sections 626.611(7) and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes; Finding Ms. Sykes guilty of one count of having violated Section 626.611(5), (7), and (9), Florida Statutes; and Suspending Ms. Sykes' license to engage in business as a general lines insurance agent for a period of 15 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 30th day of April, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Licensure Respondent has held a Florida 2-20 general lines (property and casualty) insurance agent license since July 24, 1998, and a Florida 2-15 life (including variable annuity and health) insurance agent license since August 17, 2005. Facts Common to Counts I through V and VIII At all times material to Counts I through V and VIII of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by O. J. Insurance (O. J.), a Miami insurance agency she had previously owned for approximately 15 years before having sold it in January 2003. Respondent went to work for O. J.'s new owners in or around June 2003. She remained an employee of the agency for approximately two years. During this two-year period, Respondent was the only licensed insurance agent at the agency. The agency's two other employees (one of whom was Respondent's sister, Sonia Pupo) held Florida 4-40 customer representative licenses. Respondent and the agency's two customer representatives were all salaried employees. None of them received a commission. The agency itself, however, received commissions from the insurance companies whose policies it sold. Respondent's performance as an employee of the agency was evaluated on an annual basis. Among the factors considered in the evaluation process was Respondent's productivity (that is, the number of insurance policies she sold). After her first year as an employee of the agency, Respondent received a salary increase based upon the annual evaluation she had received. Facts Relating to Count I On or about December 30, 2003, Blanca Duron went to O. J., where she purchased automobile insurance from United Automobile Insurance Company (United) through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Ms. Duron. On the application, Respondent put down that Ms. Duron's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Ms. Duron's correct address. Ms. Duron actually resided on Southwest 7th Street in Miami. At no time did she ever tell Respondent that she lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Ms. Duron actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Ms. Duron's address on the application was to enable Ms. Duron to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had her correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count II On or about December 6, 2004, Brisaida Castillo went to O. J., where she purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Ms. Castillo. Respondent put down on the application that Ms. Castillo's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Ms. Castillo's correct address. Ms. Castillo actually resided on Northwest 22nd Court in Miami. At no time did she ever tell Respondent that she lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Ms. Castillo actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Ms. Castillo's address on the application was to enable Ms. Castillo to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had her correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count III On or about December 10, 2004, Ricardo Fernandez went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Fernandez. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Fernandez's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Mr. Fernandez's correct address. Mr. Fernandez actually resided on Essex Avenue in Hialeah, Florida. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Mr. Fernandez actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Mr. Fernandez's address on the application was to enable Mr. Fernandez to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had his correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count IV On or about February 1, 2005, Pedro Cruz, Sr., went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United. It is unclear from the record whether it was Respondent or her sister, Ms. Pupo, who filled out Mr. Cruz, Sr.'s insurance application.4 The application indicated that Mr. Cruz, Sr.'s address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. This was not his correct address. He actually resided on Northwest 18th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Mr. Cruz, Sr., actually lived. Consequently, Mr. Cruz, Sr., paid a lower premium than United would have charged had his correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count V On or about December 6, 2004, Pedro Cruz, Jr., went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Cruz, Jr. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Cruz, Jr.'s address was 5521 Southwest 163rd Court, Miami, Florida.5 Mr. Cruz, Jr., actually resided on Northwest 18th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5521 Southwest 163rd Court, Miami, Florida.6 Facts Relating to Count VIII On or about February 3, 2005, Eulogio Martinez went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Martinez. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Martinez's address was 5205 Southwest 142nd Place, Miami, Florida. Mr. Martinez actually resided on Northwest 5th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 142nd Place, Miami, Florida.7 Facts Relating to Count XI Since September 2005, O.D.C. Insurance Services, Inc. (O.D.C.) has operated an insurance agency (selling Allstate insurance products) at 13860 Southwest 56th Street in Miami, Florida, for which it has not obtained a license. During this period of time, Respondent has been owner, sole officer (president), and registered agent of O.D.C. and responsible for the day-to-day operations of O.D.C.'s Allstate insurance agency. At all times material to Count XI of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was unaware of the requirement that insurance agencies, such as O.D.C.'s, be licensed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint, revoking her licenses for having committed these violations, and dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Statement of Facts Admitted3: Respondent works as the manager of a Cash Register Insurance ("Cash Register") office in New Port Richey. Cash Register is owned by Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc. ("Direct General"). Respondent sells automobile insurance to individual customers. During the relevant period, Respondent also sold four ancillary products: a vehicle protection plan, an accident medical protection plan, a travel protection plan, and a term life insurance policy.4 Respondent is paid a salary, and receives no commission on the sale of automobile insurance. Respondent does receive a ten percent commission on the sale of ancillary products. Respondent received 34 percent of her overall income from the sale of ancillary products during the relevant time period. Respondent deals with at least 50 customers per day, six days per week. She sells between seven and ten automobile insurance policies per day, on average. Given her customer volume, Respondent cannot remember each customer to whom she has sold insurance. Respondent frankly testified that she had no specific recollection of selling the policies to the individuals named in the Statement of Facts Admitted. However, Respondent also testified that she sells insurance according to a script, and that in light of this unvarying practice she could state with confidence whether she had or had not engaged in the specific sales techniques alleged by the Department and its witnesses. Respondent testified at length as to her sales routine. When talking to potential customers on the telephone, Respondent must follow the script provided by Direct General. Respondent testified that agents are not required to follow the script when customers come in to the office, but that she generally adheres to the format provided by her employer. All of the sales at issue in this proceeding were generated via in-person sales at Respondent's Cash Register office. Respondent first obtains basic information from the customer: name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, whether there are persons over age 14 in the household and whether those persons will drive the insured vehicle. She then asks the type of vehicle and the type of coverage the customer wants to purchase. Respondent enters the information into her computer, which generates a price quote. If the customer wants only basic personal injury protection ("PIP") and property damage coverage, Respondent informs the customer that the quoted price includes PIP with an optional deductible of $1,000, a coverage limit of $10,000, and property damage coverage of $10,000. The price quote includes a down payment and monthly payments. The quoted amounts vary depending on whether the customer chooses to make 10 or 12 payments. During her presentation, Respondent mentions that the price quoted for the monthly payments includes the ancillary products. Once the customer has agreed to the price quote, Respondent makes a computer inquiry to obtain the customer's driving record. While waiting on these records, Respondent goes over a "pen sale" document with the customer. The pen sale document is a handwritten sheet that Respondent draws up in the presence of the customer to explain the policies. Respondent's pen sale sheets for Mr. Gatlin, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Dossantos (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Complaining Customers") were admitted into evidence. At the top of the page, under the heading "Mandatory," Respondent outlined the PIP and property damage coverages, with the customer's options regarding deductibles. Lower on the page, under the heading "Optional," Respondent outlined the details of the ancillary coverages included in the price quote. Respondent testified that she sits with the customer and uses the pen sale sheet to explain the mandatory coverages in detail. She explains that Florida law requires that she offer bodily injury liability coverage, but that the customer has the option to reject it, and she indicates the customer's decision on the pen sale sheet. She explains the ancillary policies, and indicates on the pen sale sheet which of these policies the customer accepts and which ones the customer rejects. The customer is asked to sign the bottom of the sale sheet. When shown the pen sale sheet for each Complaining Customer, Respondent was able to state with confidence which ancillary policies each of them has accepted or rejected. None of the Complaining Customers denied having been shown the pen sale sheet, though none of them appeared to grasp its significance. Each of the Complaining Customers conceded that the signature at the bottom of his or her respective pen sale sheet was genuine. After Respondent obtains the customer's signature on the pen sale sheet, and has received the customer's driving records, she prints out the policy paperwork and goes over it with the customers. The earliest of the Complaining Customers was James Gatlin (Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint), who purchased insurance from Respondent on October 7, 2005.5 Mr. Gatlin's signed pen sale sheet indicated that he accepted the accident medical protection plan, the travel protection plan, and the term life policy. It also indicated that he rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, and comprehensive and collision policies offered by Respondent. Mr. Gatlin's policy paperwork was admitted into evidence. After explaining the automobile policy, Respondent explained the ancillary products that Mr. Gatlin had initially accepted on the pen sale sheet.6 Respondent first showed Mr. Gatlin a spreadsheet titled, "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)." Under the subheading "Auto Policy Coverages," the spreadsheet set forth the amount and type of coverage for each of the two cars for which Mr. Gatlin was buying insurance, as well as a premium estimate for each vehicle. Under the subheading "Optional Policies," the spreadsheet set forth the following: "American Bankers Travel Protection Plan," "Lloyds Accident Medical Protection Plan," and "Life Insurance." A monthly premium amount was set forth next to each of the three optional coverages. The subheading "Optional Policies," the list of the optional policies, the premium amounts for each optional policy, and the total estimated cost of all products are separately circled by hand on the spreadsheet. Respondent testified that it is her practice to circle these items as she explains them to the customer. Mr. Gatlin's initials appear above the list of optional policies. Below the grids of the spreadsheet is the following text (emphasis added): I, the undersigned, acknowledge that: The above premiums are estimates and that the actual premium charged to me will be determined by the Insurance Company issuing the policy. Further, I am responsible for the amount of the premium charged at the time the policy is issued. I agree that if my down payment or full payment check is returned by the bank for any reason, coverage will be null and void from the date of inception. I acknowledge that I have been advised of and understand the above coverage(s), and cost breakdowns, including non-insurance products, if any, and further [sic] that I have received a complete copy of this product. This document is only an explanation of insurance coverage and other products, if applicable—it is not a contract. The policy, if issued, will contain the terms and conditions of coverage. The level of coverage illustrated above is based on preliminary information which I have supplied. My eligibility for coverage is subject to the acceptance of my application in accordance with the Insurance Company's underwriting requirements. Customer Signature Date The signature line was signed by "James D. Gatlin" and dated October 7, 2005. At the hearing, Mr. Gatlin conceded the authenticity of his initials and signature on the spreadsheet. Respondent next explained the details of the accident medical protection plan to Mr. Gatlin. She explained the coverage options (individual, husband and wife, or family), and the annual premium for each. On the application, Respondent circled the "Individual Coverage Only" option. Mr. Gatlin placed his initials in the space provided to indicate his choice of coverage, and signed the application on the line provided. A second page, titled "Accident Medical Protection Plan," detailed the coverage provided and the method of filing a claim under the policy. The following text is provided at the bottom of the page (emphasis added): THE ACCIDENT MEDICAL PLAN IS A LIMITED POLICY. READ IT CAREFULLY. I, the undersigned, understand and acknowledge that: The Accident Medical Plan does not provide Liability Coverage insurance for bodily injury or property damage, nor does it meet any financial responsibility law. I am electing to purchase an optional coverage that is not required by the State of Florida. My agent has provided me with an outline of coverage and a copy of this acknowledgement. If I decide to select another option, or cancel this policy, I must notify the company or my agent in writing. I agree that if my down payment or full payment check is returned by the bank for any reason, coverage will be null and void from the date of inception. Insured's Signature Date I hereby REJECT this valuable coverage: Insured's Signature Date Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the form on the first line provided, indicating his acceptance of the accident medical protection plan. Respondent next explained the travel protection plan. The two forms associated with this plan set forth the coverages provided, the limits of those coverages, and the premium associated with the plan. The first form was titled, "American Bankers Insurance Company Optional Travel Protection Plan." After listing the coverages and their limits, the form read as follows: Purchasing the Optional Travel Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing your automobile liability policy. I hereby acknowledge I am purchasing an Optional Travel Protection Plan, and that I have received a copy of this acknowledgement. Insured Signature Date I HEREBY REJECT THIS VALUABLE COVERAGE: Insured Signature Date Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the first line of the form, indicating his acceptance of the policy. The second form, titled "Travel Protection Plan—Florida Declarations," listed the effective dates of the policy, the premium, the automobile covered, repeated the coverages and their limitations, and gave notice to the insured of his 30-day right to examine the policy and return it for a full refund provided no loss has occurred. Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the "Applicant's Signature" line. Respondent next went over the documents relating to the term life policy that Mr. Gatlin accepted on the pen sale sheet. The policy named Carol Burinskas, with whom Mr. Gatlin lived, as the beneficiary on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $276.00. Mr. Gatlin initialed his "no" answers to six standard insurability questions dealing with recent medical history and exposure to HIV. Mr. Gatlin signed and dated his acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. After completing her explanation of the various policies and obtaining Mr. Gatlin's acceptance, Respondent next explained the premium finance agreement. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the four policies accepted by Mr. Gatlin, totaling $1,363.00, plus $4.55 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $151.00, for a total amount financed of $1,216.55. The page disclosed the finance charge ($139.99) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (24.37%). Mr. Gatlin opted to make 10 monthly payments of $135.65, and initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate his acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Mr. Gatlin a document titled "Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form," which redundantly set forth in a simplified form exactly what Mr. Gatlin was purchasing and a breakdown of what each element of his purchase contributed to the total cost of the loan. The itemization read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $578 Property Damage Liability (PD) $314 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)7 $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $0 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $0 Collision $0 Accidental Death $0 Towing $0 Travel Protection Plan $60 Rental $0 Hospital Indemnity $110 Life Insurance $266 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $1,363 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $4.55 Less Down Payment applied $151.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $1,216.55 I, James Gatlin, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. _ Signature of Named Insured Date Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. As noted above, Carol Burinskas lives with Mr. Gatlin and was named as the beneficiary in the term life policy the Respondent sold to Mr. Gatlin. Ms. Burinskas testified that she went into Respondent's Cash Register office on Mr. Gatlin's behalf a day or two before he completed the transaction. Ms. Burinskas had obtained quotes from several agencies in the course of doing the legwork for Mr. Gatlin's insurance purchase. Ms. Burinskas testified that she told Respondent that she was shopping for Mr. Gatlin, and was seeking quotes on the bare minimum insurance, "just what we needed to get a tag for the car." Based on information provided by Ms. Burinskas, Respondent provided a price quote, which Ms. Bruinskas showed to Mr. Gatlin at home that evening. Mr. Gatlin looked over the quote and pronounced it acceptable. He told Ms. Burinskas that he would stop in at the Cash Register office the next day and complete the paperwork for the policy. Mr. Gatlin testified that he believed the Cash Register quote offered the most reasonable price he had seen, but he was unaware that Respondent's quote included the ancillary policies discussed above. When he went into Respondent's office, he reiterated to her that he wanted only "the bare minimum insurance." Mr. Gatlin owned his vehicles outright and saw no need to carry extra coverage on them. Mr. Gatlin testified that Respondent asked him if he wanted life insurance, and he declined. Mr. Gatlin already had a $250,000 life insurance policy through his employer, Pasco County, for which Mr. Gatlin's sister is the beneficiary. He testified that if he had known he was purchasing a life insurance policy from Respondent, he would have made his sister the beneficiary. As noted above, Ms. Burinskas is the stated beneficiary of the term life policy Respondent sold to Mr. Gatlin. Mr. Gatlin testified that Respondent "was speaking very quickly and putting the papers in front of me just as fast as she was talking, so I was busy signing and dating." By the end of the process, "there was a stack of papers, rather thick" in front of Mr. Gatlin. Mr. Gatlin never heard Respondent say that some of the items he was purchasing were optional. In fact, he could not remember much at all about the content of Respondent's presentation. He remembered that Respondent talked while he initialed and signed in the places where she pointed. On cross-examination, Mr. Gatlin conceded that Respondent may have explained the ancillary policies, but so fast that he could not understand. He even conceded that he had allowed Respondent to talk him into buying the policies, though he later amended his answer to assert that he had been "bamboozled." Mr. Gatlin made no effort to slow down Respondent's presentation, and he had no questions about anything Respondent was saying. Mr. Gatlin stated that his only concern was how much he was paying, and that he was satisfied with the price quoted by Respondent at the time he bought the policies. Mr. Gatlin stated that it should have been obvious to Respondent that he was not reading the documents he was signing. He trusted Respondent to treat him the right way, and not sell him products without his knowledge. Respondent denied that she ever rushes anyone through the sales process, or has ever sold a customer a policy the customer did not agree to purchase. Ms. Burinskas discovered the ancillary policies only after reading a newspaper article about Direct General and the practice of sliding. She asked Mr. Gatlin if he had purchased any policies mentioned in the article, and he said that he had not, "as far as he knew." Ms. Burinskas pulled out the insurance paperwork, and in short order was able to ascertain that Mr. Gatlin had purchased the ancillary products described above. The next Complaining Customer was Gabriella Jungling, now known by her married name of Johnson (Counts IV and V). On August 17, 2006, Ms. Jungling and her future husband, Jeremy Johnson, were at a Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DHSMV") office. Mr. Johnson was attempting to have his suspended license reinstated, but was informed that he must obtain the SR-22 form before his license could be issued. A DHSMV employee gave Ms. Jungling the names of several insurance companies that could immediately write a policy. Ms. Jungling noted that Respondent's Cash Register office was near the DHSMV office. Ms. Jungling and Mr. Johnson drove to Respondent's office. Ms. Jungling testified that she handled all the transactions that occurred at Respondent's office. She and Mr. Johnson intended to obtain "full coverage," whatever they needed to fulfill the SR-22 requirement and satisfy the bank that financed Mr. Johnson's truck, which was the only vehicle on the resulting policy. Ms. Jungling told Respondent that she wanted full coverage for a financed truck. Respondent made her standard sales presentation to Ms. Jungling. She gathered the basic information described in Finding of Fact 7 above, then gave Ms. Jungling a price quote that included the amount of the down payment and monthly payment amounts. Included in the price quote were the optional vehicle protection plan and a term life insurance policy. Respondent explained to Ms. Jungling that the optional vehicle protection plan included $125 per day for hospitalization resulting from an accident and $25 per day for a rental car if the insured car is in an accident or is stolen. Ms. Jungling agreed to the price quote. Respondent next went over a pen sale sheet with Ms. Jungling. As noted in the general pen sale findings above, Ms. Jungling did not deny having seen the pen sale sheet and admitted that she signed it. The pen sale document was different from that shown to Mr. Gatlin because Direct General had ceased offering the travel protection plan and instead offered the vehicle protection plan. See footnote 4, supra. The signed pen sale sheet indicated that Ms. Jungling accepted the vehicle protection plan and the term life insurance policy. It also indicated that she rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, comprehensive and collision policies. Respondent next printed the policy paperwork and reviewed it with Ms. Jungling. Ms. Jungling signed the vehicle protection plan application on the signature line, directly beneath the following language: "The purchase of this plan is optional and is not required with your auto insurance policy. I hereby request that the above coverages be placed in effect on the date and for the term indicated." The application indicated that Ms. Jungling was opting for a "family plan"8 with a term of one year. Ms. Jungling also signed a separate page titled, "Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement." This form listed the coverages and limitations provided under the vehicle protection plan. Below this listing, in bold type, was the statement, "Please Read Your Policy Carefully For A Full Explanation of Benefits." Beneath the bold type was the following language: Purchasing the Vehicle Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing your automobile policy. I hereby acknowledge that my agent has fully explained to me and I understand: the coverage provided under the Vehicle Protection Plan; that the Vehicle Protection Plan is an optional insurance product that is separate from my automobile insurance policy; that purchasing this optional Vehicle Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing my automobile insurance policy; I have made an informed decision to purchase the Vehicle Protection Plan, and I have received a copy of my signed acknowledgement. Insured Signature Date I HEREBY REJECT THIS VALUABLE COVERAGE: Insured Signature Date Ms. Jungling signed the first signature line, indicating her acceptance of the policy. Respondent went over the documents relating to the term life policy that Ms. Jungling accepted on the pen sale sheet. The policy named Mr. Johnson as the beneficiary on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $108.00. Ms. Jungling initialed her "no" answers to the standard insurability questions, and signed and dated her acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. Respondent showed Ms. Jungling an "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)" spreadsheet identical in form to that shown Mr. Gatlin. The "Optional Policies" subheading listed the optional policies, their premium amounts, and the total estimated cost of all products. These optional items were individually circled by Respondent and initialed by Ms. Jungling. The spreadsheet contained language identical to that set forth in Finding of Fact 18 above. Ms. Jungling signed and dated the sheet in the spaces provided. Respondent presented the premium finance agreement to Ms. Jungling in the same fashion described in Finding of Fact 26 above. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the three policies (auto, life, and vehicle protection) accepted by Ms. Jungling, totaling $3,052.00, plus $9.80 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $295.00, for a total amount financed of $2,766.80. The page disclosed the finance charge ($308.35) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (23.51%). Ms. Jungling opted to make 12 monthly payments of $256.26, and initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate her acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Ms. Jungling the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form. The itemization for Ms. Jungling's policies read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $491 Property Damage Liability (PD) $405 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)[9] $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $782 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $131 Collision $830 Accidental Death $20 Towing $0 Rental $0 Life Insurance $98 Accident Medical Plan $0 Vehicle Protection Insurance $260 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $3,052 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $9.80 Less Down Payment applied $295.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $2,766.80 I, Gabriella N. Jungling, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. Signature of Named Insured Date Ms. Jungling signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. Ms. Jungling testified that she already has a life insurance policy through her employer, Wells Fargo, and that she told Respondent that she was not interested in buying more. She admitted that the initials and signatures on the life insurance policy were hers, but had no recollection of Respondent's explanation of the policy. Ms. Jungling believed that she would have recalled an explanation had one been given by Respondent, and stated that she would have rejected the policy had Respondent told her it would cost $108.00 over and above the amount she was paying for auto insurance. However, Ms. Jungling conceded that Respondent did not rush her through the signing process. Ms. Jungling was in a hurry to purchase insurance and get back to her job. She admitted that Respondent presented the paperwork page by page, and that nothing prevented her from reading the paperwork. Ms. Jungling had no problem with the price quoted by Respondent. The life insurance paperwork plainly states, in bold lettering above Ms. Jungling's signature, that the annual premium for the policy is $108.00. The price of the policy is also stated on the Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown page and on the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form, both of which were signed by Ms. Jungling. Ms. Jungling also did not recall the explanation given to her by Respondent of the vehicle protection plan paperwork. She testified that she would have rejected the policy if Respondent had told her that it was separate and apart from the automobile insurance required by law. However, as noted above, the Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement page clearly stated that the vehicle protection plan was not a condition of purchasing an automobile policy and was an optional product separate from the automobile insurance policy. Ms. Jungling acknowledged that she signed this page. Ms. Jungling testified that she did not really read her insurance paperwork until she received a call from a Department investigator, who asked if she had knowingly purchased life insurance and the vehicle protection plan. Ms. Jungling gave a statement to a Department investigator in February 2007. On March 16, 2007, she went to Respondent's office and signed the paperwork to cancel the term life and vehicle protection policies, for which she received a pro-rated refund. The next Complaining Customer was Bruce Hansen (Counts VI and VII). On August 19, 2006, Mr. Hansen entered Respondent's Cash Register office to purchase insurance. Mr. Hansen testified that he has done business with Cash Register for years, but this was the first time he had done business with Respondent's office. Mr. Hansen stated that he had never bought anything other than basic auto coverage from Cash Register, and had no intention of buying anything else when he walked into Respondent's office. Mr. Hansen was purchasing new insurance, not renewing an existing policy. In fact, his driver's license had been suspended for lack of insurance coverage. Mr. Hansen testified that he told Respondent he wanted the most basic insurance that would get his license reinstated. He owned his car outright, and therefore was unconcerned about satisfying a financing entity. Respondent made her standard presentation to Mr. Hansen. She gathered the basic information described in Finding of Fact 7 above, then gave Mr. Hansen a price quote that included the amount of the down payment and monthly payment amounts. Included in the price quote were the optional vehicle protection plan and a term life insurance policy. Mr. Hansen agreed to the price quote. Respondent next went over a pen sale sheet with Mr. Hansen. As noted in the general pen sale findings above, Mr. Hansen did not deny having seen the pen sale sheet and admitted that he signed it. The pen sale document was identical to that shown to Ms. Jungling. Respondent used the pen sale sheet to explain to Mr. Hansen that the optional vehicle protection plan included a $1,000 medical expense that could be used toward his PIP deductible, hospital coverage of $125 per day, and rental car reimbursement of $25 per day if the insured car is in an accident or is stolen. Respondent also used the pen sale sheet to explain the term life insurance offered in the price quote. The signed pen sale sheet indicated that Mr. Hansen accepted the vehicle protection plan and the term life insurance policy. It also indicated that he rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, comprehensive and collision policies. Respondent next printed the policy paperwork and reviewed it with Mr. Hansen. The paperwork for the vehicle protection plan application was identical to that described in Findings of Fact 45 and 46 relating to Ms. Jungling. Mr. Hansen opted for the "individual plan" with a term of one year. He signed on the signature line of the application page, and signed the "Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement" page indicating his acceptance of this optional policy. Respondent went over the documents relating to the term life policy. The policy named Mr. Hansen's mother, who lived with Mr. Hansen, as the beneficiary on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $108.00. Mr. Hansen initialed "no" answers to the standard insurability questions, and signed and dated his acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. Respondent showed Mr. Hansen an "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)" spreadsheet identical in form to that shown Mr. Gatlin and Ms. Jungling. The "Optional Policies" subheading listed the optional policies, their premium amounts, and the total estimated cost of all products. These optional items were individually circled by Respondent and initialed by Mr. Hansen. The spreadsheet contained language identical to that set forth in Finding of Fact 18 above. Mr. Hansen signed and dated the sheet in the spaces provided. Respondent presented the premium finance agreement to Mr. Hansen in the same fashion described in Finding of Fact 26 above. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the three policies (auto, life, and vehicle protection) accepted by Mr. Hansen, totaling $833.00, plus $2.80 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $92.00, for a total amount financed of $743.80. The page disclosed the finance charge ($93.36) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (26.56%). Mr. Hansen opted to make 10 monthly payments of $83.72, initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate his acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Mr. Hansen the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form. The itemization for Mr. Hansen's policies read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $311 Property Damage Liability (PD) $219 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)[10] $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $0 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $0 Collision $0 Accidental Death $0 Towing $0 Rental $0 Life Insurance $98 Accident Medical Plan $0 Vehicle Protection Insurance $170 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $833 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $2.80 Less Down Payment applied $92.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $743.80 I, Bruce K. Hansen, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. Signature of Named Insured Date Mr. Hansen signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. Mr. Hansen testified that he left Respondent's office believing he had bought only basic automobile insurance. He did not recall Respondent's explanations of the optional policies, and conceded that he was in a hurry to complete the transaction and spent a total of a half-hour in Respondent's office that day. Mr. Hansen testified that "I was flipping page after page, just signing my name to get out of there . . . I was trusting the person I was working with." Mr. Hansen testified that he did not recall Respondent explaining that the vehicle protection plan was a separate optional policy that would cost him an extra $170. He did recall Respondent asking the insurability questions related to the life insurance policy, but he thought they were just "procedure." Mr. Hansen conceded that Respondent might have explained every page of the paperwork to him, but that he was not paying attention. Mr. Hansen left Respondent's office with a copy of all the paperwork on his policies. He never looked at the paperwork until he was contacted by a Department investigator in February 2007. Mr. Hansen gave a statement to the Department investigator and agreed to testify in order to "stop stuff like this from happening," as well as try to obtain a full refund for the vehicle protection and term life policies. On March 3, 2007, he went to Respondent's office and signed the paperwork to cancel the term life and vehicle protection policies, for which he received a pro-rated refund. The final Complaining Customer was Sidney Dossantos (Counts VIII and IX). On July 20, 2006, Mr. Dossantos entered Respondent's Cash Register office to purchase insurance. Mr. Dossantos was renewing his policy with Direct General, though this was the first time he had done business with Respondent's office. In August 2005, Mr. Dossantos had purchased auto insurance plus an optional accident medical protection plan, a travel protection plan, and a term life insurance policy. Mr. Dossantos testified that he told Petitioner that he wished to purchase only basic automobile insurance, and that he rejected the optional term life and vehicle protection policies when Petitioner offered them. Respondent testified that her initial procedure is different with a renewing customer. She looks up the customer on her computer to verify the existing policies and determine if any money is owed. She verifies the customer's name, address and phone number. Respondent testified that the address is important because the customer's zip code is partially determinative of the rates offered on auto insurance. Respondent stated that the computer also lists the optional policies that are also due for renewal, and that it is her practice to go over these and inquire whether the customer wants to renew them. Mr. Dossantos' case was complicated by the fact that Direct General no longer offered the travel protection plan as a separate product. In these cases, Respondent would explain the vehicle protection plan, which was the current equivalent of the accident medical protection and travel protection plans that Mr. Dossantos purchased in 2005. See footnote 4, supra. Respondent testified that, after the customer verifies the information on file and states which policies he wishes to renew, she goes over a pen sale sheet with the customer. As noted in the general pen sale findings above, Mr. Dossantos did not deny having seen the pen sale sheet and admitted that he signed it. The pen sale document was identical to those shown to Ms. Jungling and Mr. Hansen. The signed pen sale sheet indicated that Mr. Dossantos accepted the vehicle protection plan and the term life insurance policy. It also indicated that he rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, comprehensive and collision policies. Respondent next printed the policy paperwork and reviewed it with Mr. Dossantos. The paperwork for the vehicle protection plan application was identical to that described in Findings of Fact 45 and 46 relating to Ms. Jungling. Mr. Dossantos opted for the "individual plan" with a term of one year. He signed on the signature line of the application page, and signed the "Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement" page indicating his acceptance of this optional policy. Respondent went over the documents relating to the term life policy. The policy named Mr. Dossantos' parents as the beneficiaries on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $108.00. Mr. Dossantos was not asked the standard insurability questions, because this was a renewal of an existing policy. Mr. Dossantos signed and dated his acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. Respondent showed Mr. Dossantos an "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)" spreadsheet identical in form to that shown to Mr. Gatlin, Ms. Jungling, and Mr. Hansen. The "Optional Policies" subheading listed the optional policies, their premium amounts, and the total estimated cost of all products. These optional items were individually circled by Respondent and initialed by Mr. Dossantos. The spreadsheet contained language identical to that set forth in Finding of Fact 18 above. Mr. Dossantos signed and dated the sheet in the spaces provided. Respondent presented the premium finance agreement to Mr. Dossantos in the same fashion described in Finding of Fact 26 above. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the three policies (auto, life, and vehicle protection) accepted by Mr. Dossantos, totaling $913.00, plus $3.15 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $80.00, for a total amount financed of $836.15. The page disclosed the finance charge ($102.47) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (25.93%). Mr. Dossantos opted to make 10 monthly payments of $93.86, initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate his acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Mr. Dossantos the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form. The itemization for Mr. Dossantos' policies read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $368 Property Damage Liability (PD) $242 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)[11] $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $0 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $0 Collision $0 Accidental Death $0 Towing $0 Rental $0 Life Insurance $98 Accident Medical Plan $0 Vehicle Protection Insurance $170 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $913 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $3.15 Less Down Payment applied $80.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $836.15 I, Sidney Dossantos, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. Signature of Named Insured Date Mr. Dossantos signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. As noted above, Mr. Dossantos testified that he told Respondent he only wanted basic automobile insurance. Mr. Dossantos, a 25-year-old college student at the time he purchased insurance from Respondent, acknowledged having purchased the optional policies the previous year, when he was still living with his parents. However, in July 2006 he was living in an apartment with his girlfriend and money was tighter. He received life insurance through his employer, Publix Supermarkets, and did not want more. Mr. Dossantos conceded that his policy paperwork clearly stated that the vehicle protection plan was optional, but that he did not read it during the sale. Mr. Dossantos simply signed whatever papers Respondent placed in front of him. Mr. Dossantos testified that when he walked out of Respondent's office on July 20, 2006, he believed that he had bought basic auto insurance and nothing else. Like Ms. Jungling and Mr. Hansen, he learned otherwise only after being contacted by the Department's investigator in February 2007. Unlike Ms. Jungling and Mr. Hansen, Mr. Dossantos did not later cancel the optional policies. All four of the Complaining Customers credibly testified that the Department made no promises that they would obtain full refunds of the premiums paid on the optional policies in exchange for their written statements or their testimony in this proceeding. On or about August 9, 2006, Respondent changed her principal business street address from 6318 U.S. Highway 19 North, New Port Richey, Florida, to 5116 U.S. Highway 19 North, New Port Richey, Florida, but did not notify the Department of this change in principal business street address until on or about March 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the violation alleged in Count X of the Administrative Complaint, fining her $250.00 for such violation, and dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a property and casualty insurance license, life and health insurance license, and life insurance license for the State of Florida. She has held her property and casualty license for about 20 years. In 1976, she was employed as an agent for the Orlando office of Commonwealth insurance agency, which she purchased in 1977 or 1978. She continues to own the Commonwealth agency, which is the agency involved in this case. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. In 1979 or 1980, Respondent was appointed to the board of directors of the Local Independent Agents Association, Central Florida chapter. She has continuously served on the board of directors of the organization ever since. She served as president of the association until September, 1991, when her term expired. During her tenure as president, the local association won the Walter H. Bennett award as the best local association in the country. Since May, 1986, Commonwealth had carried the insurance for the owner of the subject premises, which is a 12,000 square foot commercial block building located at 923 West Church Street in Orlando. In July, 1987, the insurer refused to renew the policy on the grounds of the age of the building. Ruth Blint of Commonwealth assured the owner that she would place the insurance with another insurer. Mrs. Blint is a longtime employee of the agency and is in charge of commercial accounts of this type. Mrs. Blint was a dependable, competent employee on whom Respondent reasonably relied. Mrs. Blint contacted Dana Roehrig and Associates Inc. (Dana Roehrig), which is an insurance wholesaler. Commonwealth had done considerable business with Dana Roehrig in the past. Dealing with a number of property and casualty agents, Dana Roehrig secures insurers for the business solicited by the agents. Dana Roehrig itself is not an insurance agent. In this case, Dana Roehrig served as the issuing agent and agreed to issue the policy on behalf of American Empire Surplus Lines. The annual premium would be $5027, excluding taxes and fees. This premium was for the above- described premises, as well as another building located next door. The policy was issued effective July 21, 1987. It shows that the producing agency is Commonwealth and the producer is Dana Roehrig. The policy was countersigned on August 12, 1987, by a representative of the insurer. On July 21, 1987, the insured gave Mrs. Blint a check in the amount of $1000 payable to Commonwealth. This represented a downpayment on the premium for the American Empire policy. The check was deposited in Commonwealth's checking account and evidently forwarded to Dana Roehrig. On July 31, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued its monthly statement to Commonwealth. The statement, which involves only the subject policy, reflects a balance due of $3700.86. The gross premium is $5027. The commission amount of $502.70 is shown beside the gross commission. Below the gross premium is a $25 policy fee, $151.56 in state tax, and a deduction entered July 31, 1987, for $1000, which represents the premium downpayment. When the commission is deducted from the other entries, the balance is, as indicated, $3700.86. The bottom of the statement reads: "Payment is due in our office by August 14, 1987." No further payments were made by the insured or Commonwealth in August. The August 31, 1987, statement is identical to the July statement except that the bottom reads: "Payment is due in our office by September 14, 1987." On September 2, 1987, the insured gave Commonwealth a check for $2885.16. This payment appears to have been in connection with the insured's decision to delete the coverage on the adjoining building, which is not otherwise related to this case. An endorsement to the policy reflects that, in consideration of a returned premium of $1126 and sales tax of $33.78, all coverages are deleted for the adjoining building. The September 30 statement shows the $3700.86 balance brought forward from the preceding statement and deductions for the returned premium and sales tax totalling $1159.78. After reducing the credit to adjust for the unearned commission of $112.60 (which was part of the original commission of $502.70 for which Commonwealth had already received credit), the net deduction arising from the deleted coverage was $1047.18. Thus, the remaining balance for the subject property was $2653.68. In addition to showing the net sum due of $944.59 on an unrelated policy, the September 30 statement contained the usual notation that payment was due by the 12th of the following month. However, the statement contained a new line showing the aging of the receivable and showing, incorrectly, that $3700.86 was due for more than 90 days. As noted above, the remaining balance was $2653.68, which was first invoiced 90 days previously. Because it has not been paid the remaining balance on the subject policy, Dana Roehrig issued a notice of cancellation sometime during the period of October 16-19, 1987. The notice, which was sent to the insured and Commonwealth, advised that the policy "is hereby cancelled" effective 12:01 a.m. October 29, 1987. It was the policy of Dana Roehrig to send such notices about ten days in advance with two or three days added for mailing. One purpose of the notice is to allow the insured and agency to make the payment before the deadline and avoid cancellation of the policy. However, the policy of Dana Roehrig is not to reinstate policies if payments are received after the effective date of cancellation. Upon receiving the notice of cancellation, the insured immediately contacted Mrs. Blint. She assured him not to be concerned and that all would be taken care of. She told him that the property was still insured. The insured reasonably relied upon this information. The next time that the insured became involved was when the building's ceiling collapsed in June, 1988. He called Mrs. Blint to report the loss. After an adjuster investigated the claim, the insured heard nothing for months. He tried to reach Respondent, but she did not return his calls. Only after hiring an attorney did the insured learn that the cancellation in October, 1987, had taken effect and the property was uninsured. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the policy, the October 31 statement was identical to the September 30 statement except that payment was due by November 12, rather than October 12, and the aging information had been deleted. By check dated November 12, 1987, Commonwealth remitted to Dana Roehrig $3598.27, which was the total amount due on the October 30 statement. Dana Roehrig deposited the check and it cleared. The November 30 statement reflected zero balances due on the subject policy, as well as on the unrelated policy. However, the last entry shows the name of the subject insured and a credit to Commonwealth of $2717 plus sales tax of $81.51 minus a commission readjustment of $271.70 for a net credit of $2526.81. The record does not explain why the net credit does not equal $2653.68, which was the net amount due. It would appear that Dana Roehrig retained the difference of $125.87 plus the downpayment of $1000 for a total of $1125.87. It is possible that this amount is intended to represent the earned premium. Endorsement #1 on the policy states that the minimum earned premium, in the event of cancellation, was $1257. By check dated December 23, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued Commonwealth a check in the amount of $2526.81. The December 31 statement reflected the payment and showed a zero balance due. The record is otherwise silent as to what transpired following the issuance of the notice of cancellation. Neither Mrs. Blint nor Dana Roehrig representatives from Orlando testified. The only direct evidence pertaining to the period between December 31, 1987, and the claim the following summer is a memorandum from a Dana Roehrig representative to Mrs. Blint dated March 24, 1988. The memorandum references the insured and states in its entirety: Per our conversation of today, attached please find the copy of the cancellation notice & also a copy of the cancellation endorsement on the above captioned, which was cancelled effective 10/29/87. If you should have any questions, please call. Regardless of the ambiguity created by the monthly statements, which were not well coordinated with the cancellation procedure, Mrs. Blint was aware in late March, 1988, that there was a problem with the policy. She should have advised the insured, who presumably could have procured other insurance. Regardless whether the June, 1988, claim would have been covered, the ensuing litigation would not have involved coverage questions arising out of the cancellation of the policy if Mrs. Blint had communicated the problem to the insured when she received the March memorandum. Following the discovery that the policy had in fact been cancelled, the insured demanded that Respondent return the previously paid premiums. Based on advice of counsel, Respondent refused to do so until a representative of Petitioner demanded that she return the premiums. At that time, she obtained a cashiers check payable to the insured, dated June 1, 1990, and in the amount of $2526.81. Although this equals the check that Dana Roehrig returned to Commonwealth in December, 1987, the insured actually paid Commonwealth $1000 down and $2885.16 for a total of $3885.16. This discrepancy appears not to have been noticed as neither Petitioner nor the insured has evidently made further demands upon Respondent for return of premiums paid. The insured ultimately commenced a legal action against Commonwealth, Dana Roehrig, and American Empire. At the time of the hearing, the litigation remains pending.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.561(1) and, thus, 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and, pursuant to Sections 626.681(1) and 626.691, Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $1002.70, and placing her insurance licenses on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order. If Respondent fails to pay the entire fine within 30 days of the date of the final order, the final order should provide, pursuant to Section 626.681(3), Florida Statutes, that the probation is automatically replaced by a one-year suspension. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart Division of Legal Affairs Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods Gatlin, Woods, et al. 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
