Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed with the Collier County Health Department, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, on March 9, 1973. Petitioner's date of birth is November 26, 1916. On October 1, 1980, Petitioner's medical insurance coverage was entered into the payroll system under the Spouse Program, State of Florida plan. The proper amount of premiums under the Spouse Program were paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield from October 1, 1980, up to and including June, 1983. On November 26, 1981, Petitioner reached the age of 65. Under the State plan, coverage at age 65 is automatically reduced and changed to Medicare Supplement Coverage. In order to have remained fully covered, Petitioner would have had to apply for the Medicare insurance prior to reaching age 65, which he did not do. Due to both spouses being covered, there was no change in policy premium deductions even after Petitioner reached age 65 and his State coverage was reduced. The Blue Cross Blue Shield (State program) paid several claims of Petitioner subsequent to his 65th birthday and through December, 1982. On March 8, 1983, Petitioner was admitted to the hospital and on March 11, 1983, heart bypass surgery was performed. Respondent normally notifies the employee and employing agency of the coverage change prior to the employee's 65th birthday, as required by Rule 22K- 1.16, F.A.C. In this case, Respondent did not do so due to a failure in its computer program. Petitioner could have determined that he was required to apply for Medicare coverage had he read in detail a copy of the plan's benefit booklet furnished to all State employees in 1978.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent direct its insurer to pay Petitioner's claims arising from his March, 1983, hospitalization. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John H. Adams 2596 Linwood Avenue Naples, Florida 33962 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent has been licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance as an ordinary life, including disability, agent and a general lines agent. During the years 1977 and 1978, the Respondent operated an insurance agency known as Florida Commercial Underwriters. During May, 1977, the Respondent was a general lines agent providing insurance coverages for The Fronton, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida. During June, 1977, The Fronton, Inc., delivered a check to the Respondent in the amount of $41,229.00 as a premium payment for various insurance coverages to be provided by the Respondent. Approximately $23,795.00 of that amount represented the premium payment for Policy No. 7485844, issued by the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania issued the policy to The Fronton, Inc., for the policy period from May 1, 1977, through May 1, 1978. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania had a firm policy during this period that premiums would be due within forty-five days from inception of the policy, or within fifteen days from the date of billing, whichever was later. Due to errors on its part, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania did not submit its bill to the Respondent until November 30, 1977. The notice on the face of the bill itself indicated that the premium was due within fifteen days of the date of the bill. The Respondent did not pay the premium in accordance with the bill. By notice dated January 31, 1978, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania advised The Fronton, Inc., that its policy would be cancelled effective February 17, 1978, because the premium had not been paid. Donald Roberts, the Assistant General Manager of The Fronton, Inc., immediately contacted the Respondent. The Respondent advised Roberts that the problem was apparently of a bookkeeping sort, and that the premium had been paid. Within four or five days of the time that he received the Notice of Cancellation, Roberts again contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent produce the cancelled check verifying that the premium had been paid. Roberts followed that telephone contact with a visit to the Respondent's office approximately forty-five minutes later. The Respondent searched for a cancelled check, but told Roberts that he would need to get it from the bank. Roberts told him to produce the cancelled check later that day. When the Respondent failed to do that, Roberts took the matter to the office of the State Attorney. Despite the fact that he told Roberts that the policy had been paid, the Respondent had not paid the premium. In fact, he did not pay the premium until May 8, 1978, after he had raised some money from another source. He paid the premium by delivering the check personally to the insurance company's office in Atlanta. Apparently mindful of the fact that the Respondent was acting as its agent, and that the Respondent's receipt of the premium was thus binding upon it, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania reinstated the policy, and has acknowledged that despite its Notice of Cancellation, the policy was in full force and effect during its entire term. The Respondent had suffered financial reverses during this period of time. He had apparently forgotten that the premium had not been paid between the time that he received the check from The Fronton, Inc., and the bill from the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. When he received the bill, he did not have sufficient funds available to pay it. He had in effect used the money paid by The Fronton, Inc., to cover other debts that he had. Since May, 1978, the Respondent has been working as an employee with another insurance agency. His employer assisted him in paying off the obligations that the Respondent incurred in connection with his former business. It does not appear that the Respondent has had problems of this sort in his new position, and he currently teaches an insurance agent's course at a local school.
The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specifically at issue in this proceeding are the proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009 which restrict, under certain circumstances, compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and which require premium refunds to some purchasers of credit insurance.
Findings Of Fact Credit insurance is a form of group insurance marketed and sold to consumers by creditors or, in the case of motor vehicle financing, by vehicle dealers. The insurance can be purchased by a debtor at the time the debtor enters into a loan agreement. Credit insurance is purchased by debtors as protection against risk of loss caused by unexpected events occurring during the term of the insurance contract. Credit insurance provides for the payment of the balance of the debt upon the death or disability of the insured debtor. Otherwise stated, the benefit of such insurance to the debtor is the assurance that, if the debtor becomes unable, due to death or disability, to make the required periodic payments, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. Sellers of credit insurance products are compensated in the form of commissions paid to sellers by insurers. Additional compensation is periodically paid by some insurers to sellers based upon the profitability of each seller's line of business. Beginning in late 1990, the Department of Insurance ("Department") proposed amendments to administrative rules relating to credit life and credit health and accident insurance products. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of the proposed rule restricting the level of compensation paid to the sellers of credit insurance products and requiring insurers to make "experience refunds". As set forth in the Department's Notice of Change, published in the November 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 17, No. 48), the proposed rule amendment provides in relevant part as follows: 4-7.009 Determination of Reasonableness of Benefits in Relation to Premium Charge General Standard. Under the Credit Insurance Law, benefits provided by credit insurance policies must be reasonable in relation to the premium charged. In determining whether benefits are reasonable in relation to premium, the Department shall consider loss experience, allocation of expenses, risk and contingency margins, and policy acquisition costs. This requirement is satisfied if the premium rate charged develops or may be reasonably expected to develop a loss ratio of not less than 1. (a) 55% for credit life insurance and 2. (b) 50% for credit accident and health insurance, and either the insurer does not pay compensation in excess of 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011, or the insurer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that payment of compensation in excess of said 30% is actuarially sound. "Compensation" means money or anything else of value paid by the insurer and/or by any reinsurer to any agent, producer, creditor, or affiliated body. On the basis of relevant experience, uUse of rates not greater than those contained in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 ("prima facie rates") shall be deemed currently reasonable premium rates reasonably expected to develope the required loss ratio, subject to a later determination of experience refunds, if any, as described herein. An insurer may only file and use rates with such forms which are greater than the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 upon a satisfactory showing to the Department Commissioner that the use of such rates will not result on a statewide basis for that insurer of a ratio of claims incurred to premiums earned of less than the required loss ratio. Furthermore, the extent to which an actual rate is greater than that set forth may not exceed the difference between (a) claims which may be reasonably expected and (b) the product of the required loss ratio and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 for the coverage being provided. (2) The Department Commissioner shall, on a triennial basis, review the loss ratio standards set forth in subsection (1), above, and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 and determine therefrom the rate of expected claims on a statewide basis, compare such rate of expected claims with the rate of claims for the preceding triennium, determined from the incurred claims and earned premiums at prima facie rates reported in the annual statement supplement, and adopt the adjusted actual new statewide prima facie rates for Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 to be used by insurers during the next triennium. The new rates will be set at levels that would have produced the loss ratios set forth in subsection (1), above. To make this comparison and redetermination, insurers shall report in the annual statement supplement format, each year, claims and earned premiums, separately, for business written with premiums based on Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. * * * Insurers will calculate a dollar amount of loading each year based upon the insurer's earned credit life and credit accident and health premium in this state for the same year. Loading will be calculated as 45% of earned premium for life insurance and 50% of earned premium for credit accident and health insurance. For this calculation, earned premium shall be based on the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. Insurers shall calculate an Experience Refund Amount each year for credit life and credit accident and health insurance written in this state after the effective date of this rule. Experience Refunds can be positive or negative. Positive Experience Refunds are to be refunded in the following manner: Experience refunds are to be allocated to accounts which have positive Experience Refund Amounts in proportion to the ratio of each account's refund amount to the total of all positive refund amounts. For the purpose of this allocation, all individual policies are to be treated as one account. The Experience Refund Amount allocated to a particular account is to be refunded to all certificate holders or individual policyholders of such account in proportion to the premiums earned for each certificate holder or individual policyholder to the total of all premiums earned for such account. Earned premiums for Experience Refund purposes are to be equal to paid premiums for the calendar year less unearned premium reserves at the end of the calendar year plus unearned premiums at the beginning of the calendar year. Unearned premium reserves are to be calculated pro rata. Credit policies issued on a non-contributory basis are excluded. Non-contributory means that individual insureds pay no part of the insurance premium. Premiums are paid by the policyholder out of policyholder funds. Individual credit policies issued on a participating basis are to be excluded. All new loans insured after the effective date of this rule are subject to the Experience Refund calculation and distribution, if any. Individual refunds of less than $10 do not have to be made. Experience Refunds are to be determined for each calendar year as follows: Earned Premium, less Loading as determined above, less Incurred claims, less The sum of any carry forwards for the three previous years. An insurer that uses rates which are 10% or more below the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 shall not be required to calculate or make an Experience Refund. The Florida Bankers Association ("FBA") is the trade association of the Florida banking industry, many of whom sell credit insurance to their customers. The Florida Automobile Dealers Association ("FADA") is a trade association of franchised new car and truck dealers, approximately 65% of whom sell credit insurance. The Florida Recreational Vehicle Dealers Trade Association ("FRVDTA") is a trade association of recreational vehicle dealers, approximately 35% of whom sell credit insurance. The FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment at issue in this case. Specifically the FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed regulation of compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and by the proposed requirement that, under some circumstances, refunds be made to credit insurance purchasers. The Consumer Credit Insurance Association ("CCIA") is a trade association of credit insurance companies, at least 50 of whom sell credit insurance in Florida. The CCIA is substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment provision related to premium refunds to some insureds. Credit insurance is priced and sold without regard to sex or age of the debtor. There is little underwriting of credit insurance risks. Due primarily to the age of the population and the effect of mandated coverages, Florida's credit insurance claims are higher than in other states. There are currently in excess of eighty million credit insurance policies in force in the United States. Credit insurance is sold under master policies issued by insurers to producers, such as banks and vehicle dealers. Producers sell the insurance product and maintain records of the credit insurance purchasers, who hold certificates issued under each master policy. Credit insurance premiums are based upon the amount financed by the debtor and are calculated according to rates established on a statewide basis by the Department. Credit insurers may not charge more than the prima facie rates for credit insurance, therefore, there is no benefit to consumers to "shop around" for credit insurance. Although credit insurers are not prohibited from charging less than the prima facie rates, there is no evidence that any insurer charges less than the Department's adopted rates. Since 1982, the Department-approved prima facie credit life premium rate was $.60 for every $100 financed. The rate was based on the Department's determination that a $.60 prima facie rate would result in insurers paying out approximately 60% of premium dollars in claims paid to insureds, and that a 60% "loss ratio" was reasonable. The "loss ratio" is the fraction of premium dollars paid out in claims. The $.60 prima facie rate did not yield a 60% loss ratio. The loss ratios for some insurers was substantially less that 60%. On September 1, 1991, the Department reduced the prima facie credit life and credit health and accident rates. In establishing new prima facie rates, the Department established a 55% loss ratio for credit life insurance and a 50% loss ratio for credit disability. The revised prima facie rates are based upon data from calendar years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Such data includes information related to paid claims, earned premium, and insurer administrative overhead expenses. The setting of such rates is an actuarial exercise intended to provide a reasonable projection of premium rates and loss ratios. There is no evidence that the revised prima facie rates result in premiums which are excessive in relationship to the amount of the loans insured. The revised prima facie rates are reasonably expected to yield the revised loss ratios. The rule provides a triennial review mechanism to ascertain whether the expected loss ratios are being met and to adjust prima facie rates if such is indicated. The review is a reasonable method of assuring that such loss ratios are met. Currently, commissions are paid by insurers to producers (i.e. banks and dealers) as compensation for selling the product. The amount of commission is determined by agreement between the insurer and producer. Commissions for the sale of credit insurance vary widely and, in some cases (generally involving the sale of credit insurance related to automobile purchases) may be as high as 60% of the premium paid by the consumer. In addition to payment of commissions, some insurers retrospectively compensate producers by periodically paying an amount based upon the profitability of each producer's business. Compensation levels largely determine which credit insurer's product a producer chooses to sell. The proposed rule limits total compensation levels, absent specific authorization by the Department, to 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates. Compensation levels have no impact on the premiums charged to consumers purchasing credit insurance. Premiums charged are based on the Department's prima facie rates. The proposed rule permits a credit insurance company to exceed the 30% compensation restriction where the insurer can establish that the payment of compensation in excess of the 30% is "actuarially sound". The determination of whether payment of commission in excess of 30% is "actuarially sound" is left to the discretion of the Department. There is no statutory, rule, or commonly accepted definition of the term, although the Department's actuary stated that a product determined to be "actuarially sound" would be a "self-supporting" product, either profitable or "breaking even". He further opined that he would consider investment income in a determination of actuarial soundness, although the proposed rule does not require such consideration. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed compensation restriction was to protect insurers from insolvency and financial instability. The commission restriction was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The commission restriction was not intended to, and will not, ensure that the loss ratios deemed reasonable by the Department will be met. In adopting a 30% compensation restriction, the Department calculated that, assuming the 55% loss ratio was met, $.55 of each premium dollar would be paid in claims. The Department assumed that $.15 of each premium dollar would cover overhead expenses and profit. According to the Department, the remaining $.30 is the most an insurer could pay as compensation to the producers without affecting the solvency of the insurer. In calculating the commission restriction, the Department did not consider the effect of an insurer's investment income on the ability to pay commission. There is no evidence that payment of commissions in excess of 30% of net direct written premiums has adversely affected the solvency of any credit insurer doing business in Florida. There is, in fact, no history of credit insurer insolvency in Florida. Nationwide, there has been little problem of insolvency in the credit insurer business, with no more than four insurers having become insolvent. In each of those cases, the insolvency resulted from poor management of assets, and was not related to payment of excess commissions to producers. The Department asserts that, absent such restrictions, insurers will pay excessive compensation in order to compete for producers, and that such excess compensation, coupled with administrative expenses and a 55% loss ratio, will threaten the solvency of the companies. The assertion is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. The proposed rule also requires insurers, under some circumstances, to make experience-based refunds to credit insurance purchasers. In determining whether a refund is required, an insurer first calculates whether the insurer has met or exceeded the 55% loss ratio for the prior year. If the loss ratio is met or exceeded, no refunds are required. If an insurer determines that the 55% loss ratio was not met, the insurer calculates the difference between targeted 55% loss ratio and the actual percentage of premium dollars paid out in claims. The insurer then identifies each producer account which had a loss ratio of less than 55%, determines the identity and location of each certificate holder (insured) in each producer's account, and makes a refund to each identified certificate holder. Individual refunds of less than $10 to an individual consumer are not required. The proposed rule permits insurers to carry excess losses forward for a period of three year, to offset years when the targeted loss ratio is not met. However, such excess losses may not be carried forward beyond the three year period. Whether a consumer receives a refund is unrelated to the premium paid by the consumer. An individual consumer ("A") purchasing a car and credit insurance at Dealer "A" may receive a refund, while a Consumer "B" purchasing the same car and credit insurance from Dealer "B" may not receive a refund, if Dealer A's line of business with the insurer meets the target loss ratio and Dealer B's line of business with the same insurer fails to meet the loss ratio. The benefit of the credit insurance is the assurance that, under certain conditions, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. If Consumer A receives a refund and Consumer B does not, Consumer A pays more than Consumer B for the same insurance protection. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed experience refund was to ensure that the 55% loss ratio would be met. However, the experience refund provision, combined with the three year limit for charging off excess losses, will eventually result in loss ratios which will exceed the 55% ratio which the Department has determined to be reasonable. There is no need for experience refunds when the prima facie rates established by the Department are appropriately set. Such rates are designed to produce an acceptable loss ratio. It is reasonable to believe that the Department's revised prima facie rates will result in acceptable loss ratios. The refund proposal was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The proposed rule provides that an insurer charging a premium based on rates at least 10% below the prima facie rates are not required to calculate the experience refund. There is no credible rationale supporting the use of 10% as the threshold under which an insurer escapes the refund calculation, although the resulting loss ratio likely approaches the 60% loss ratio suggested by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Of the actuaries testifying at hearing, one opined that a rate 10% less than the prima facie rate was viable, the other opined that it was not. Because the Department's revised prima facie rates are reasonably calculated to result in a 55% loss ratio, an insurer charging less than the prima facie rate will likely exceed the 55% loss ratio. In connection with the final version of the proposed rule, the Department did not prepare an economic impact statement. The Department did not estimate the costs of insurer compliance with the refund provisions. The expense required of insurers in order to establish experience refund payment systems is significant. Information management systems will require extensive modification to permit such data to be maintained. Substantial amounts of data, which is not currently provided to insurers, must be collected and accurately maintained to permit refunds to be made. Such costs were not included in administrative expenses considered by the Department when the revised prima facie rates were established. Presently, credit insurers maintain limited data related to insureds purchasing credit insurance in connection with installment loans. Although such data may be initially collected by producers, insurers are typically provided only with the name of the debtor and loan number. Data is transmitted to insurers either electronically or through paper files. In either case, data must be converted to usable form by insurers. In approximately seventy percent of credit insurance business, addresses of insureds are not transmitted to insurers. There is no credible evidence that current addresses of insureds are continuously maintained by either insurer or producer in installment debt insurance, since there is little need to question original data as long as periodic payments are being timely made. In a form of credit insurance known as "monthly outstanding balance" insurance, bulk accounts are received by insurers, who generally does not receive either names or addresses of insureds. Consumers whose monthly outstanding balance indebtedness is insured are more likely to provide producer/creditors with current addresses, but such data is not provided to insurers. As to credit insurers, although most insurers currently process refund checks, the additional expense of establishing or modifying systems capable of compliance with the proposed refund requirement could amount to as much as five percent of each premium dollar. One bank official estimated that, as to his bank, the expense of complying with the refund provisions would include an initial cost of $1.1 million and an annual cost of $350,000 to $500,000. A credit insurance information systems and processing executive estimated that the 31 producers writing business for his company would incur costs of $1,860,000 to comply with the rule, and that his own company's costs would be in the range of $4-5 million. The Department suggested that, rather than modify existing mainframe computer systems, such data could be maintained by insurers on personal computers and microcomputer networks. The Department asserted that such systems would be less expensive and require less modification than the process outlined by industry representatives. However, there is credible testimony establishing that significant resources would be involved in determining whether such conversion to microcomputers would be feasible or warranted. In any event, there is no evidence that such conversion could be accomplished in a timely manner permitting the insurers to comply with the proposed rule requirements. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the expenses estimated by the industry representatives are reasonable based upon the existing management information systems maintained by the industry.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Teresa Jean Watson, at all times material to this proceeding was licensed as an ordinary life agent, a disability insurance agent and a general lines insurance agent. She was the only general lines agent licensed to sell insurance at the T. J. Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. and all insurance sold by that firm at times pertinent hereto was sold and issued under authority of her license. During times material to this proceeding, Teresa Jean Watson sold insurance coverage under authority of her general lines license either as direct agent for various insurance companies for whom she was general agent or, on behalf of MacNeill and Son, Inc. (MacNeill), her managing agency, which represented various insurance companies for whom the Respondent wrote coverage. Between February 1st and February 15, 1982, a homeowner's insurance policy was sold to Tony and Martha Williams by the Respondent's agency under the authority of the Respondent's general lines insurance agent's license. That homeowner's policy required a premium of $211.00. The policyholder, Tony Williams, wrote two checks to the T. J. Watson Agency dated January 22, 1982 and February 12, 1982. Those two checks totalled $174.00. The checks were cashed by the Respondent's agency on January 26, 1982 and on February 6, 1982. The Independent Fire Insurance Company issued the policy to Tony and Martha Williams and on August 4, 1982 a representative of the Independent Fire Insurance Company wrote the Respondent to advise her that she owed that company a balance of $179.35, as of May 1982. Petitioner asserts that the $179.35 represents the amount of Tony Williams' premium owed to the insurer, less the Respondent's commission, which if added together would equal the $211.00 premium on the Williams' policy. Although it was established that $179.35 was owed by the Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company, and never paid, it was not established that it represented the premium due specifically for the Williams' policy as was charged in count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. For instance, the checks paid by the Williamses to the Watson Agency total $174.00 and therefore there is a discrepancy between the total of those checks and the $179.35 amount Independent Fire Insurance company was owed by the Respondent. This fact coupled with the fact that the dates on the checks from the Williamses (January and February) substantially predate the May 1982 billing date to Respondent from Independent Fire, renders it unproven that the checks written to the Watson Agency which Respondent negotiated and retained the benefit of, related to the amount of unremitted premium owed by Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company. In short, it was established that $174.00 was paid the Respondent and her agency by the Williamses. But, it was not established that the premium paid by the Williamses became misappropriated fiduciary funds converted by the Respondent to her own use and benefit. It was merely established that as of May 1982 the Respondent owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company $179.35 as a past-due account It was not established that the Williamses ever suffered a lapse of insurance coverage or were otherwise harmed by the Respondent's failure to pay Independent Fire the $179.35. Indeed, the $179.35 figure was not proven to be more than a mere debt owed by Respondent to Independent Fire Insurance Company. The figure was not shown to have been related to any particular policy. The Respondent and her insurance agency in the regular course of business wrote insurance coverage for companies represented by MacNeill and Son, Inc., the Respondent's managing agency. The regular business practice between the Respondent and MacNeill was for the Respondent to write coverage on behalf of insurers represented by MacNeill and to remit on a regular open account" basis insurance premiums due MacNeill on behalf of its insurance company principals on a monthly basis. The Respondent became delinquent in submitting premiums to MacNeill and Son in November 1981. After unsuccessful efforts to collect the delinquent premium funds from the Respondent, MacNeill and Son, Inc. suspended T. J. Watson Insurance Agency and the Respondent from writing further coverage for companies they represented in January 1982. The Respondent purportedly sold her agency to one Thomas Zinnbauer in December 1981, but had already fallen into a pattern of failing to remit insurance premiums over to MacNeill before that time. In any event, the purported sale to Thomas Zinnbauer was a subterfuge to avoid collection of delinquent premiums inasmuch as the Respondent held herself out, in correspondence with MacNeill, (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) to be the president of the agency at least as late as April 1982 and, at that time and thereafter, the agency continued to sell insurance under the aegis of the Respondent's license. After the Respondent made up the delinquency in premium remissions to the MacNeill Agency that agency restored her underwriting authority in January 1982. Shortly thereafter however, the Respondent and the T. J. Watson Agency again became delinquent in remitting insurance premiums to the MacNeill Agency and followed a quite consistent pattern of failing to forward these fiduciary funds to MacNeill for some months. Ultimately the Respondent and her agency failed to forward more than $6500.00 in premium payment funds to MacNeill and Son, Inc. as was required in the regular course of business. MacNeill and Son, Inc. made repeated futile attempts to secure the misappropriated premium payments from the Respondent and her agency. MacNeill made several accountings of the amount of the acknowledged debt to the Respondent. The Respondent communicated with MacNeill concerning the delinquent premium payments and acknowledged the fact of the debt, but sought to reach an amicable arrangement for a repayment schedule. Re- payment was never made, however, and ultimately the Petitioner agency was informed of the deficiencies and prosecution resulted. The Respondent knew that the premiums had been collected by herself and her agency and had not been forwarded to those entitled to them. She knew of and actively participated in the improper withholding of the premium payments. This withholding and diversion of premium payments from the agency and companies entitled to them was a continuing pattern of conduct and Respondent failed to take action to halt the misappropriation of the premium payments. Further, it is established by the testimony of Matthew Brewer, who investigated the delinquent premium accounts for MacNeill, that Ms. Watson failed to advise MacNeill of the purported sale of her agency until November of 1982, almost a year after it is supposed to have occurred and then only in response to Brewer's investigation. When confronted by Mr. Brewer concerning the ownership of her agency Ms. Watson refused to tell him to whom she had sold the agency. When Mr. Brewer learned that Thomas Zinnbauer had apparently bought the agency from the Respondent Mr. Brewer conferred with him and he refused to release the agency records unless Ms. Watson gave her permission. This fact, together with the fact that Ms. Watson held herself out as president of the agency some four months after she had purportedly sold the agency to Zinnbauer, establishes that Respondent, by representing to Brewer and other personnel of MacNeill and Sons, Inc. that she had sold her agency, was attempting to evade liability for failure to forward the fiduciary premium funds obtained under the authority of her agent's license. As a result of the failure to forward the above- mentioned premium payments some of the insureds who had paid those premiums suffered lapses in coverage and cancellations of policies because MacNeill and Company and the insurers they represented believed that no premiums had ever been paid. Ultimately, MacNeill and Company learned that the premiums had been paid by the policyholders, but not remitted by the Respondent and her agency and undertook steps to reinstate coverage, but those policyholders in some instances had substantial periods of time when their coverage was lapsed due to the Respondent's failure to remit the premium funds to the managing agency and the insurance companies involved. MacNeill and Company ultimately reimbursed the appropriate insurers and insureds at its own expense, incurring substantial financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's failure to have premium payments obtained under her licensed authority properly forwarded. Had the insureds who had their policies cancelled suffered losses for which claims could have been filed during the period of the lapses of coverage, they could have encountered substantial financial difficulty.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the General Lines Insurance Agent's license of Respondent Teresa Jean Watson be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX RULING OF PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted, although the amount represented by the two subject checks totalled $174.00 instead of $175.00. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible evidence adduced. Rejected inasmuch as it was not established that the amount of $179.35 owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company represented the premium on the Williamses' insurance policy. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, although the last sentence in that Proposed Finding constitutes, in reality, mere argument of counsel. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence actually before the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Respondent submitted a post-hearing document entitled "Proposed Findings of Fact." There are few actual Proposed Facts in that one-and-a-half page pleading which is interlaced throughout with argument of counsel. However, to the extent the six paragraphs of that document contain Proposed Findings of Fact they are ruled on as follows: This Proposed Finding is rejected, but for reasons delineated in the above Conclusions of Law, Count 1 has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. This Finding is accepted but is immaterial and irrelevant to, and not necessary to, the Findings of Fact reached herein and the Conclusions of Law based thereon. Paragraph Number 3 does not really constitute a Proposed Finding of Fact or even multiple Proposed Findings of Fact in the same paragraph. In reality, it constitutes argument of Respondent's counsel concerning admissibility of certain documents into evidence which have already been ruled to be admissible by the Hearing Officer during the course of the hearing. To the extent that the last two sentences in the third paragraph of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are proposed findings of fact, they are accepted, but are immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary to the findings of fact made herein and the conclusions predicated thereon and recommendation made herein. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as constituting mere argument of counsel and not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence adduced. Rejected as not in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented as to Count 2. In reality, counsel obviously intended to refer to the two checks referenced in Count 1 of the complaint which has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Steinberg, Esquire Post Office Box 2366 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Judy Louise Robinson is currently licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance as a general lines agent, a health agent, and a dental health agent and has been so licensed since November 21, 1984. At all times material, Respondent engaged in the business of insurance as Fleming Island Insurer. At all times material, Respondent maintained two business bank accounts in the name of Fleming Island Insurer: Account No. 1740043215 at Barnett Bank in Orange Park and Account No. 11630004614 at First Union Bank, Park Avenue Office. First Union Bank is currently First Performance Bank. All funds received by Respondent from or on behalf of consumers, representing premiums for insurance policies, were trust funds received in a fiduciary capacity and were to be accounted for and paid over to an insurer, insured, or other persons entitled thereto in the applicable regular course of business. Respondent solicited and procured an application for a workers' compensation insurance policy from Linda Smith on September 13, 1989, to be issued by CIGNA. Respondent quoted Ms. Smith an annual workers' compensation premium of two thousand six hundred four dollars and forty cents ($2,604.40). Linda Smith issued her check payable to Fleming Island Insurer in the amount quoted by Respondent on September 13, 1989, as premium payment for the CIGNA workers' compensation insurance coverage. On September 14, 1989, Respondent endorsed and deposited Linda Smith's $2,604.40 check into Fleming Island Insurer's business bank account No. 1740043215 at Barnett Bank, Orange Park, Florida. On September 17, 1989, Respondent forwarded her check in the amount of two thousand six hundred eighty nine dollars and forty cents ($2,689.40) to NCCI ATLANTIC for issuance of a workers' compensation policy with CIGNA for Linda Smith, Inc. The difference between the amount paid to Respondent by Linda Smith ($2,604.40) and the amount paid by Respondent to CIGNA via NCCI ATLANTIC ($2,689.40) amounts to $85.00 advanced by Respondent because she misquoted the premium amount to Linda Smith. On September 17, 1989, Respondent notified Linda Smith that another $85.00 was due. Linda Smith never paid this amount to Respondent. On September 19, 1989, CIGNA issued a workers' compensation policy for Linda Smith, Inc. Respondent's check was thereafter returned to CIGNA due to insufficient funds. On or about October 20, 1989, CIGNA notified Respondent that her agency check had been returned as unpayable and requested substitute payment within ten days to avoid interruption in Linda Smith, Inc.'s workers' compensation insurance coverage. Respondent asserted that she was injured in an automobile accident on October 1, 1989 and could not work through July of 1990 due to chronic dislocation of her right arm, but she also asserted that she never closed her insurance business and operated it out of her home. Respondent's home is the address at which CIGNA notified her on October 20, 1989 concerning Ms. Smith's policy. Respondent failed to timely submit substitute payment to CIGNA, and as a result, Linda Smith, Inc.'s policy was cancelled January 1, 1990. On January 4, 1990, Linda Smith forwarded her own check in the full amount of $2,689.40 directly to CIGNA and her policy was reinstated. Respondent did not begin to repay Linda Smith the $2,604.40 proceeds of Linda Smith's prior check paid to Respondent until May 1991. At formal hearing, Respondent maintained that she was never notified that Linda Smith paid for the policy a second time. Even if such a protestation were to be believed, it does not excuse Respondent's failure to account to either Linda Smith or CIGNA for the $2,604.40, which Respondent retained. Respondent also testified that Barnett Bank's failure to immediately make available to Respondent the funds from Linda Smith's check, which cleared, resulted in Barnett Bank reporting to CIGNA that there were insufficient funds to cover Respondent's check to CIGNA. From this testimony, it may be inferred that Respondent knew or should have known that she owed someone this money well before May 1991. On November 11, 1989, Lewis T. Morrison paid the Traveler's Insurance Company six thousand forty-three dollars ($6,043.00) as a renewal payment on a workers' compensation policy for Morrison's Concrete Finishers for the policy period December 30, 1988 through December 30, 1989. At the conclusion of the 1988-1989 policy period, Traveler's Insurance Company conducted an audit of Morrison's Concrete Finishers' account. This is a standard auditing and premium adjustment procedure for workers' compensation insurance policies. It is based on the insured's payroll and is common practice in the industry. This audit revealed that Morrison's Concrete Finishers was due a return premium of two thousand one hundred fifty-three dollars and eighty- seven cents ($2,153.87) from the insurer. On March 30, 1990, Traveler's Insurance Company issued its check for $2,153.87 payable to Fleming Island Insurer. This check represented the return premium due Morrison's Concrete Finishers from Traveler's Insurance Company. On April 6, 1990, Respondent endorsed and deposited Traveler's Insurance Company's return premium check into the Fleming Island Insurer's business bank account No. 11630004614 at First Union Bank. The standard industry procedure thereafter would have been for Respondent to pay two thousand two hundred forty-eight dollars ($2,248.00) via a Fleming Island Insurer check to Morrison's Concrete Finishers as a total returned premium payment comprised of $2,153.87 return gross premium from Traveler's Insurance Company and $94.13 representing her own unearned agent's commission. When Respondent did not issue him a check, Lewis T. Morrison sought out Respondent at her home where he requested payment of his full refund. In response, Respondent stated that she would attempt to pay him as soon as she could, that she was having medical and financial problems, and that the delay was a normal business practice. Respondent testified that on or about April 19, 1990, in an attempt to induce Mr. Morrison to renew Morrison's Concrete Finishers' workers' compensation policy through Fleming Island Insurer, she offered him a "credit" of the full $2,248.00 owed him. Pursuant to this offer of credit, Respondent intended to pay Traveler's Insurance Company or another insurance company for Morrison's Concrete Finisher's next year's premium in installments from Fleming Island Insurer's account. This "credit" represented the return premium Respondent had already received from Traveler's Insurance Company on behalf of Morrison's Concrete Finishers for 1988-1989 which she had already deposited into Fleming Island Insurer's business account. Whether or not Mr. Morrison formally declined Respondent's credit proposal is not clear, but it is clear that he did not affirmatively accept the credit proposal and that he declined to re-insure for 1989-1990 through Respondent agent or Traveler's Insurance Company. Respondent still failed to pay the return premium and commission which she legitimately owed to Morrison's Concrete Finishers. On June 28, 1990, the Traveler's Insurance Company issued a check directly to Mr. Morrison for the full amount of $2,248.00. Respondent did not begin repaying Traveler's Insurance Company concerning Mr. Morrison's premium until after intervention by the Petitioner agency. At formal hearing, Respondent offered several reasons for her failure to refund the money legitimately due Mr. Morrison. Her first reason was that the district insurance commissioner's office told her to try to "work it out" using the credit method outlined above and by the time she realized this method was unacceptable to Mr. Morrison, he had already been paid by Traveler's Insurance Company. However, Respondent presented no evidence to substantiate the bold, self-serving assertion that agency personnel encouraged her to proceed as she did. Respondent also testified that she did not know immediately that Traveler's Insurance Company had reimbursed Mr. Morrison directly. However, it is clear she knew of this payment well before she began to pay back Traveler's, and since Mr. Morrison did not reinsure through her or Traveler's she should have immediately known the "credit" arrangement was unacceptable to him. Respondent further testified that she did not want to repay Mr. Morrison until a claim on his policy was resolved. However, there is competent credible record evidence that the Traveler's Insurance Company 1988-1989 workers' compensation policy premium refund was governed solely by an audit based on payroll. Mr. Morrison's policy premium or refund consequently was not governed by "loss experience rating", and the refund of premium would not be affected by a claim, open or closed. Thus, the foregoing reasons given by Respondent for not refunding Mr. Morrison's money are contradictory or not credible on their face. They also are not credible because Respondent admitted to Mr. Morrison in the conversation at her home (see Finding of Fact 24) that she was having trouble paying him because of medical and financial difficulties. Further, they are not credible because Respondent testified credibly at formal hearing that she would have paid Mr. Morrison but for her bank account being wiped out by a fraudulent check given her by an unnamed third party. On August 10, 1992, Respondent was charged by Information with two counts of grand theft. See, Section 812.014(2)(c) F.S. The allegations in the Information charged Respondent with theft of insurance premiums from Linda Smith and Lewis T. Morrison, and arose out of the same facts as found herein. On December 17, 1992, Respondent entered a nolo contendere plea to only the first count of grand theft as to matters involving Linda Smith and the other count was "null prossed." Respondent secured a negotiated sentence on the first count. "Grand theft" is a felony punishable by imprisonment by one year or more. Adjudication was withheld pending satisfactory completion of probation, including community service and payment of restitution and court costs. Respondent has been complying with her probation, including restitution payments.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), (9), (10), and (13); 626.621(2) and (6) F.S. under Count I, violations of Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), (9), (10), and (13), and 626.621(2) and (6) under Count II, and violations of Sections 626.611(14) and 626.621(8) F.S. under Count III, finding Respondent not guilty of all other charges under each count, and revoking Respondent's several insurance licenses. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-2060 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: As modified to more correctly reflect the whole of the record evidence and avoid unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material, all of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted. Respondent's PFOF: Sentence 1 is accepted as a paraphrased allegation of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. Sentence 2 is covered in Findings of Fact 4-18. Sentence 3 is accepted but subordinate and to dispositive. Sentence 4 is apparently Respondent's admission that she owed $2,604.40 to Linda Smith and paid her $500.00 of it. Accepted to that extent but not dispositive in that full payment was not made timely. Sentence 1 is accepted as a paraphrased allegation of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint but not dispositive. Sentence 2 is accepted but immaterial. Sentence 3 is rejected as argument and not dispositive. As stated, the proposal also is not supported by the record. Sentence 4 It is accepted that Mr. Morrison admitted he had a claim. However, the record does not support a finding that he requested Respondent to contact Traveler's Ins. Co. about it. Even if he had, that is subordinate and not dispositive of the ultimate material issues. Sentence 5 is rejected as not supported by the credible record evidence. Covered in Findings of Fact 23-28. Sentence 6 is rejected as not supported by the record and as argument. Sentence 7 Accepted. Sentence 8 Accepted. The "Descriptive Narrative" is accepted through page 4, but not dispositive. Beginning with the words "In summary" on page 5, the remainder of the proposal is not supported by the record in this cause which closed April 16. 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Judy Louise Robinson 4336 Shadowood Lane Orange Park, FL 32073-7726 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, was a licensed ordinary life insurance salesman in the State of Florida. He first became licensed in 1977, and went to work initially for Occidental Life Insurance Company in Orlando, Florida. After approximately three to four weeks with Occidental Life, he went to work for Lincoln National Life and was transferred to St. Petersburg, where he worked for about three or four months selling health insurance and some life insurance as a rider to the health insurance policies. After leaving Lincoln National Life, he left the insurance business and went to work for a sign company. He worked for no further insurance companies before he joined Coordinated Planning Associates (hereinafter referred to as COPA). He went to work for COPA in April of 1979. In July, 1980, Mr. Wheeler was terminated by COPA and he then became employed by United Companies Life, his present employer. In June or July of 1979, Mr. Wheeler contacted James and Ruby Clinton about purchasing insurance from him. He met with them in their home to discuss his product. At that time, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton had four policies in effect. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11.) One policy covered Mr. Clinton and had a rider for his wife, and the other three policies were on each of their three children. When there was an initial contact made by Mr. Wheeler with the Clintons, Mr. Clinton informed Mr. Wheeler that they had more insurance than they could afford. Prior to purchasing insurance from Mr. Wheeler, the Clintons showed Mr. Wheeler their policies, and he went through the policies and explained to the Clintons that he could obtain the same or better coverage from his company for less premium. He also informed them that they could obtain coverage for the children by paying a set premium per year per child per thousand dollars of coverage. After the Clintons purchased their policy from Mr. Wheeler, Mrs. Clinton actually requested insurance on the children, and Mr. Wheeler came by their home once again to pick up the $4.00 payment or deposit for the additional coverage for the children. At the time that Mr. Wheeler sold the new insurance policy to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, no replacement form was prepared or shown to the Clintons. The Clintons were not knowledgeable in insurance matters and relied upon Mr. Wheeler's representations as to the comparative coverages of his company's policy and their existing policies. The coverage under the policy sold by Mr. Wheeler to the Clintons was not the same or better coverage than those which existed under the policies which were replaced. The policies replaced were whole life policies and covered the entire family. The program being sold by Mr. Wheeler was a retirement savings plan with a term insurance rider and was intended to only supplement and not replace existing coverage. Mr. Wheeler was aware that the Clintons intended to cancel their existing policies and replace them with the policy which he was selling. Mr. Wheeler testified regarding the Clintons on direct examination as follows: Q. Did they mention anything about re- placing their insurance? A. No. They insinuated that yes, they were going to drop it because they needed the money. The original reason we were there was because they needed money, and that's why we were there. And if they could get a good deal on their insurance, or if they could buy a good program and they could turn the other in and get money for it, that's what they were interested in. In fact, Mr. Wheeler's wife actually picked up the existing policies and took care of mailing them to the company after their cancellation. In October of 1979, Mr. Wheeler met with Gary and Darlene Davis of Orlando, Florida, for the purpose of attempting to sell life insurance to them. At the time that they were approached by Mr. Wheeler, Mr. and Mrs. Davis had three life insurance policies issued by Prudential Life Insurance Company in effect. Mr. Wheeler was made aware of these three policies. During the course of the sales presentation, the Respondent went through the existing policies and compared some of the benefits with those of the ITT policy he was attempting to sell. He represented to the Davises that the ITT policy would provide them with better coverage for the entire family for less premium than they were paying for the existing policies. Mr. Wheeler was informed by the Davises that they intended to cancel their existing policies when they purchased the ITT coverage. When Mr. Wheeler met with Mrs. Davis, she showed him the insurance policies on her and her husband. The policy on Mr. Davis had a rider for the children and Mrs. Davis's policy contained an IRA. Mr. Wheeler represented to Mrs. Davis that the COPA program would give her family these same benefits plus a cancer policy for less money. He explained to Mrs. Davis that he could charge a lower premium because he was not an insurance man per se and that because of this his company did not have to pay high commissions like Prudential. He also explained that he worked more with helping people with their finances than with selling insurance and was salaried. In fact, Mr. Wheeler was an insurance salesman working on commissions. The COPA program did not contain an IRA and the cheaper insurance was a term rider not whole life. The basic COPA program which Mr. Wheeler sold to the Davises also did not contain coverage for the Davis children. The true reason the premium was lower was because of the different coverage and different type of insurance. The ITT policy sold to the Davises in fact did not provide the same coverage as that of the policies which were cancelled by the Davises at the time of purchasing the ITT policy. The ITT policy specifically did not provide coverage for the Davis' children, and as a result of this lack of coverage, Mr. and Mrs. Davis were unable to recover any insurance proceeds after their daughter's death during the coverage period of the ITT policy. The ITT policy was a retirement plan designed to supplement existing life insurance and was not intended as a complete life insurance program for a family. Mrs. Davis understood the ITS policy to contain an IRA as part of the policy. The evidence was unclear as to whether Mr. Wheeler actually represented that it contained an IRA or whether he represented that there was a tax benefit within the retirement savings program which the Davises interpreted to mean an IRA. It was clear, however, that Mr. and Mrs. Davis were not knowledgeable in matters of insurance and relied upon the expertise and representations of Mr. Wheeler in cancelling their existing policies and replacing them with the ITT policy. No replacement form comparing the coverage of the existing policies and the ITT policy was prepared or presented to the Davises at the time that they purchased the ITT policy. Mr. Wheeler admitted that he filled out the applications on behalf of the Davises and the Clintons. Question No. Nine on the application forms for ITT of both the Clintons and the Davises asked whether the proposed policies were being issued in a replacement situation. This question on both applications was answered "No" by Mr. Wheeler. Question No. One of the agent's report reads: "Will insurance on any proposed insured now applied for replace or change any life insurance or annuity?" This question was answered "No" on the agent's report for both the Davises and the Clintons. The signature block of the agent's report reflected that they were prepared by Mr. Richard Wheeler. The Respondent admitted that he customarily intentionally avoided information from prospects which might reveal to him the fact that insurance was being replaced and did so in this instance. When Mr. Wheeler began with COPA, he received two weeks' training. The training was designed to teach the "canned" presentation which COPA salesmen were required to use. This presentation was prepared by the more experienced and more knowledgeable officers and managers of COPA. This same presentation was utilized by Mr. Wheeler in the sales presentation to the Clintons and Davises. There was no training regarding replacement of other insurance. Sometime in 1980, after the sales to the Clintons and Davises, Mr. Wheeler was informed by another COPA employee, Greg Gustin, as to particular representations within the canned presentation Mr. Gustin considered to be false. Sometime after this, Mr. Wheeler discussed this with Mr. Larry Taylor of COPA and an official of ITT Life Insurance Company. When Mr. Wheeler tried to change the presentation to eliminate the misrepresentations, he was fired. This occurred July 17, 1980. Mr. Wheeler claimed ignorance of the misleading nature of the canned presentation prior to his discussions with Mr. Gustin. However, Mr. Wheeler admitted that he had intentionally avoided getting information from customers which indicated they were going to cancel their existing policies. The sales presentation also stated "Let me assure you I am not here to sell you anything. Mr. Wheeler's only purpose for visiting these people was to sell them insurance. Mr. Wheeler sold approximately 250 policies while with COPA and has continued to sell life insurance since leaving COPA in July, 1980. The two complaints which are the subject of this administrative proceeding were the only two complaints made against Mr. Wheeler. Since going to work for United Companies Life, Mr. Wheeler has been trained in using replacement forms and now uses those forms whenever his policy replaces existing insurance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Department of Insurance enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for a period of 30 days. This case is more appropriately a case for a civil fine or probation. However, a violation of Florida Statute Section 626.611 involves a mandatory suspension. There are strong mitigating factors which justify that the mandatory suspension be of short duration. At the tinge the sales were made to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. and Mrs. Davis, the Respondent was relatively new in the insurance business. Upon being employed by COPA, he was given a prepared sales presentation to memorize and use in each sales contact. This presentation was prepared by the officers and managers of COPA who were more experienced and more knowledgeable than Mr. Wheeler about insurance matters. Mr. Wheeler later tried to change the presentation and was fired as a result. These incidents occurred in 1979 and since that time Mr. Wheeler has continued to work as a licensed insurance salesman with no complaints or evidence of violations of the Florida Statutes or Rules of the Department of Insurance. The circumstances giving rise to the violations and the fact that the Respondent was advised by more experienced and knowledgeable individuals clearly bear upon the appropriateness of the particular penalty assigned. See, Drew v. Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer, 330 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). RECOMMENDED this 11 day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Yon, Esquire Legal Division Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul H. Bowen, Esquire Swann & Haddock, P.A. Post Office Box 7838 Orlando, Florida 32854 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Barrett Chambers Miller, was licensed as an agent with Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company in the State of Florida. On March 11, 1981, Respondent signed a Combination Agent's Contract Form 1-7759 with the Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company. Part I, Article 2, of the contract requires the agent to "pay over all monies collected to the manager of the district" or to his representative and forbids the agent to retain any monies collected for any purpose. Part I, Article 1, of the contract requires the agent to "keep true records of the business on the books [and] to forward to the company on company forms a true account each week of his business. Among the "company forms" routinely used by agents in the conduct of their business are: (1) the Premium Receipt Book, (2) the Collection Book, (3) the Ordinary Remittance Report, (4) the Field Accounting Route List, and (5) the Balance Due Account Deficiency Sheet. The Premium Receipt Book is used to record the premium paid by the policyholder; is annotated whenever a premium is paid; and bears the premium paid, the date paid, and the signature or initials of the agent receiving the payment. The Collection Book page bears the name and address of the premium payer, the policy number(s), the type of plan, some statistics as to the insured, the death benefit, and the date on which the premium is paid each month. The Ordinary Remittance Report carries, as to each policy on the agent's debit (list of policyholders to be serviced), an account of the periodic premium collections recorded during the week covered by the report. The Field Accounting Route List is used by the agent to indicate weekly collections on weekly premium payments, and the Balance Due Account Deficiency Sheet is used to charge back deficiencies to the agent's account that are found in his collections turned in weekly. Count I: On May 26, 1981, Annie McKibben, owner of Policies A 39189 on the life of Carol L. Cox, A 39190 on the life of Ronny Cox, Jr., and A 39191 on the life of Stacey Cox, paid to the Respondent by check payable to Independent Life the amount of $13.96, total premium for the three policies listed. The premium card for that policy reflects an altered payment of $13.98 with the signature "B. C. Miller" for the May 1981 payment on the 26th of that month. The Collection Book page reflects collection on May 26, 1981. The Ordinary Remittance Report for the week of May 25, 1981, shows collection of $13.96. There is no Field Accounting Route List in evidence for this account, but the Balance Due Account Deficiency Sheet for the week of August 17, 1981, reflects deficiencies for money not turned in for all three policies for the collections made thereon on May 26, 1981. The check with which Mrs. McKibben paid the premiums in question was subsequently deposited to the account of Independent Life at the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville. Respondent denies any wrongful withholding on this account. Count II: On some date in June, 1981, Wilma L. Robinson, owner of Policies B 03628 and A 67660, both in her name, wrote Check No. 348 on the Flagship Bank of Jacksonville in the amount of $48.68, payable to Independent Life Insurance and reflecting the notation "Ins. June." Someone, she is not sure who, gave that check to a representative of the company. Her payment book reflects a payment of $23.03 received by B. C. Miller on June 16, 1981. The Collection Book reflects collection on June 16, 1981. The Remittance Report reflects collection on June 16, 1981. The Deficiency Account Sheet, however, reflects a deficiency for money not turned in in the total amount of $23.03. Mrs. Robinson is not sure to whom her check was given. She was sick during that period, and it may be that her husband actually delivered the check; and in early 1981, she began mailing her payment checks in. However, to the best of her knowledge, she had never seen Respondent until he came to her home on January 4, 1983. Count III: In June, 1981, Mrs. Evelyn Reynolds had four policies with Independent Life: 017872 on Debbie Spivey, A0037496 on Angela Reynolds, A0010351 on Sherry D. Reynolds, and A14776 on Robert Reynolds. Though she cannot identify to whom she made her payment that month, her routine practice was to make the payment monthly, sometimes by check and sometimes by cash. On some occasions, Respondent and a Mr. McGroarty from the company both came to get her payment. On some occasions, she left the payment with her mother and does not know to whom it was made. Mrs. Reynolds' payment book shows a payment of $24.02 made on June 9, 1981, with the initials "BCM" reflected in the block for the signature of the agent. The Collection Book page shows collection on June 9, 1981; and the Remittance Report does as well, but the Deficiency Sheet shows a deficiency of $24.02 for monies not turned in but collected that date. Mr. Miller unequivocally denies the initials in the payment book were put there by him, nor was any entry on the Collection Book page relating to this account put there by him. Count IV: Mrs. Evie Bennett does not recognize the Respondent. She has only seen him once before in her life, on New Year's Day, 1983, when he came to her house. She did not meet with him on August 4, 1981, and did not make any payments to him. Her payment book for Policy No. B0000499 in her name reflects a premium payment in the amount of $9.51 made on August 4, 1981; and the entry in the block for the signature of the agent reads "Receipt Miller." The Collection Book page for this account reflects a collection on August 4, 1981, of $9.51. Other pertinent documents reflect a deficiency by reason of monies not turned in of $9.51 for this collection. Mr. Miller denies the entries in both the Payment Receipt Book and the Field Report were made by him. Mr. Edward Cooper owned Policies 05 18285A on Edward Thomas; and 0536115A and 0536115B, both on Mary Cooper. He normally paid his premiums by check once a month to whatever agent came to collect. He does not know to whom he made the payment on July 7, 1981, nor does he know whether he paid on that day by check or cash, notwithstanding his written statement on November 24, 1981, witnessed by Mr. Pat McGroarty, indicates he paid the payments on his Premium Receipt Book to the Respondent. The payment card for these policies reflects that on July 7, 1981, an individual who used the signature "B. C. Miller" received payment of $20.80, representing premiums of $4.16 for each of five weeks including June 29, 1981; July 6, 1981; July 13, 1981; July 20, 1981; and July 27, 1981. The Field Accounting Route List for this Respondent in the period in question reflects a remittance of $16.64 with a shortage of $4.61, which shortage is also reflected on the deficiency page. Mr. Miller admits the signature on the payment card is his, but contends the card was altered. Mr. Kerry Fossett is a field auditor for Independent Life Insurance Company and in November, 1981, was requested to conduct an audit of Respondent's agency. As a part of the audit, he checked policyholders' receipt books and compared them to the agent's account. His audit showed discrepancies on 19 premium receipt cards for a total shortage of $141.75, of which amount the sum of $100.98 occurred when Respondent had the agency. The remainder of the shortage occurred either before or after Mr. Miller was in the job. During the course of the audit, Mr. Fossett found at least one instance where Mr. McGroarty made a collection on Mr. Miller's account and failed to turn it in. In the opinion of the auditor, the shortages in the account of $30 before Mr. Miller took over, when it was handled by Mr. McGroarty, were theft. Mr. McGroarty was discharged from employment with Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company approximately one week after the audit was completed. Mr. Baucom, assistant vice president of the company and custodian of the personnel records, indicated the audit done on Respondent's records revealed a shortage of $361.50. This was subsequently adjusted to $126.18 as a result of the company withholding commissions due Respondent. On February 4, 1983, Mr. Baucom wrote to the Department of Insurance, State of Florida, requesting to withdraw a charge of deficiency against Respondent previously submitted on December 7, 1981, on the basis that the company was not satisfied with the documentation of the alleged deficiency. Thereafter, on April 5, 1982, he again wrote the Department of Insurance reinstating the charge based upon subsequent receipt of "satisfactory documentation" and Mr. Miller's "attitude." Gracie Williams, a policyholder with Independent Life, experienced somewhat of a problem with the company when she and her husband tore down a house on which they had been paying premiums. When the house was removed, they mentioned the fact to Mr. McGroarty, but he did nothing about it. As a result, they paid several months' premiums on property that did not exist. In fact, when Respondent complained about this to Mr. McGroarty, he was told to collect the money or McGroarty would take it from another policy. Jennie L. Wilder also had difficulties on her policy with Independent Life's agent named "Alligood" (sic). She had paid her premiums for six months in advance, but because the agent delayed remitting the premium, she got credit for only three months. On the other hand, Catherine C. DiPerna and her husband have been insured with Independent Life for quite a while. Part of that time, the Respondent was her agent/collector. On June 16, 1981, just about the time of the other alleged shortages in Respondent's remittances, she paid her premium payment to Mr. Miller by check. The check was cashed, she did not receive a notice of lapsed policy, nor did she have any problem with her policy, even though on the Ordinary Remittance Report for the same period used by the Petitioner in the allegations relating to Mrs. Robinson shows no money received from the DiPernas. On March 11, 1981, upon the recommendation of Mr. R. Brenner, an investigator with the Department of Insurance, Respondent went to work for Independent Life as a debit agent in Jacksonville, Florida, under the supervision of Mr. Pat McGroarty, who, also, had had the debit (account) before. After the basic company indoctrination course, Respondent underwent on-the-job training under McGroarty. He never, during the entire time he worked for the company, accepted total responsibility for the account because, in his opinion, there were large discrepancies between the premium receipt cards and the company records when he was assigned the account. Respondent discussed these difficulties with McGroarty and other officials of the company, such as Mr. Ivanoski, Mr. Tharpe, and Mr. Baucom. In April, 1981, Miller saw that his signature as agent was forged on a policy owned by the Petitioner's witness Cooper on the life of Cooper's nephew, Edward Thomas, who, at all times pertinent, was an inmate in the state penitentiary. When Respondent mentioned this to McGroarty, McGroarty told him that Cooper had forged the names and Respondent was with McGroarty when he delivered the policy to Cooper. This is one of the policies which form the allegation in Count V of the Complaint and about which there is an obvious alteration on the Premium Receipt Book showing an increase in the weekly premium of one cent because of a change from a health policy to a life policy. Other difficulties with this particular account were brought by Miller to the attention of the district manager who forced McGroarty to make up the shortage from his own pocket. During a part of the time Respondent worked with the company, he also handled fire policies on a temporary license. He found so many irregularities and such out-and-out corruption, he states, that he intentionally failed the state examination for an industrial fire license. Even after instructions came from the home office terminating Respondent's work in fire insurance, the district manager instructed him to continue to collect fire premiums and turn them over to McGroarty. As a result of all of this, deficiencies show up on his fire accounts for periods after the time he ceased fire business. In fact, documents show collections by Miller on his accounts, even after he left the employ of the company. Respondent unequivocally denies any wrongdoing with regard to his accounts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent dated August 27, 1982, and amended on September 24 and December 28, 1982, be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Rhoda Smith Kibler, Esquire David Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S. Perry Penland, Esquire Penland, McCranie & Shad, P.A. Suite 1103, Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 The Honorable Bill Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), General Lines, Property and Casualty Insurance (2-20), Health (2-40) and Legal Expense (2-56) agent pursuant to provisions within Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Recommendation Based on the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts I through V pertaining to his obligations as a fiduciary set forth in Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, his violation of Section 626.611(7), (9) and (10), Florida Statutes, and his violation of Section 626.621(4), Florida Statutes, in effect when the violations transpired and that the various licenses held by Respondent be suspended for six months as suggested by counsel for Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William Franklin Outland, III 10840 Northwest 100th Street Reddick, Florida 32686 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Lower Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's licenses as a life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Respondent in accordance with Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2005), currently holds licenses as a life agent (2- 16), life and health agent (2-18), and a health agent (2-40). On June 24, 2003, in an Administrative Complaint brought by Petitioner against Respondent, also under Case No. 64776-03-AG, accusations were made concerning violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2003). On October 4, 2004, the parties resolved the earlier case through a settlement stipulation for Consent Order. On October 20, 2004, the Consent Order was entered. In pertinent part the Consent Order stated: The Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order dated October 11, 2004, is hereby approved and fully incorporated herein by reference; * * * (c) Respondent agrees that he has a continuing obligation for claims, which may not have arisen or otherwise be known to the parties at the time of the execution of the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and this Consent Order Respondent shall be responsible for satisfying claims that were covered under the Plans sold by Respondent, up to the amount covered by such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co-payments. Respondent may attempt to negotiate with the providers for compromised amounts, but any such compromise must result in the release of the consumer from any responsibility for the amounts that would have been covered under the terms of such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co-payments; * * * (f) Within ninety (90) days following the issuance of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall complete the Section 626.2815(3)(a), Florida Statutes, continuing education requirement relative to unauthorized entities; * * * Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Consent Order, Respondent agrees to pay to the Department, a fine, in the amount of ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($1,000.00) DOLLARS. Within ninety (90) days following the issuance of this Consent Order, Respondent shall satisfy any unpaid claims for persons insured under the Local 16 Plans he sold, including claims which may not have arisen or otherwise be known to the parties at the time of the execution of the Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order and this Consent Order. Respondent shall only be responsible, however, for satisfying claims that were covered under the Plans sold by Respondent, up to the amount covered by such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co- payments. Respondent may attempt to negotiate with the providers for compromised amounts, but any such compromise must result in the release of the consumer from any responsibility for the amounts that would have been covered under the terms of such Plan, less any applicable deductibles or co- payments; Within one hundred (100) days following issuance of this Consent Order, the Respondent shall provide proof to the Department that the full amount of claims or losses under all contracts or health plans solicited or sold by Respondent on behalf of Local 16 have been paid or satisfied. Failure of the Respondent to comply with this paragraph shall constitute a material breach of this Consent Order, unless otherwise advised in writing by the Department; Respondent in the future shall comply with all the terms and conditions of this Consent Order; and, shall strictly adhere to all provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, Rules of the Department, and all other laws of the State of Florida. The Respondent shall give the Department full and immediate access to all books and records relating to the Respondent's insurance business, upon request; If, in the future, the Department has good cause to believe that the Respondent has violated any of the terms and conditions of this Consent Order, the Department may initiate an action to suspend or revoke the Respondent's license(s) or appointments, or it may seek to enforce the Consent Order in Circuit Court, or take any other action permitted by law; Respondent paid the $1,000.00 administrative fine required by the Consent Order, but the payment was 20 days late. Respondent completed the continuing education on unauthorized entities. He completed the course on June 3, 2005, beyond the deadline called for in the Consent Order by a number of months. Respondent took the course at Florida Community College in Jacksonville, Florida, an institution that he was familiar with. He took the course to be completed on June 3, 2005, because it was the earliest course available at that school. Respondent was unfamiliar with other schools who may have offered the course at a time that would meet the due date set forth in the Consent Order. Consistent with the expectations in the Consent Order, Petitioner's employees have reviewed their files to determine whether Respondent has satisfied unpaid insurance claims in relation to the insurance plan for Local 16. Those employees involved in that review are Kerry Edgill, a legal assistant in the Legal Division in charge of complaint settlements and Pamela White who works with the Division of Consumer Services as a senior management analyst. Neither employee found any evidence that Respondent had satisfied the unpaid insurance claims as called for in the Consent Order. In correspondence from Respondent to Petitioner's counsel in this case, dated December 6, 2004, there is no indication that the unpaid insurance claims have been satisfied. Respondent in his testimony explained the extent to which he had attempted to determine who had outstanding unpaid insurance claims. Respondent went to the location where Local 16 union members were employed. His contact with union members had to be outside the building proper. He spoke to several members at that time. This contact took place on June 1, 2005. Respondent identified the persons contacted as James, Luther, Gregory, and Michael. Michael's last name may have been Williams, as Respondent recalls. Of the persons Respondent spoke with on June 1, 2005, none of them had an unpaid insurance claim which needed to be satisfied. Respondent provided correspondence to a person or persons whose name(s) was or were not disclosed in the testimony. The June 6, 2005, correspondence was addressed to the Amalgamated Transit Union, in reference to insurance claims for Local 16. Respondent's Exhibit Numbered 17 is a copy of that correspondence. In the body of the correspondence it stated: June 6, 2005 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1197 P.O. Box 43285 Jacksonville, FL 32203 Re: Claims for Local 16 To union members and trustees, This letter is to follow up me meeting members at the station on June 1, 2005 to discuss any issues or concerns that you may be or have had relating to the unpaid claims with Local 16 National Health Fund. Although, I feel I am not responsible for the issue I would gladly help assist with resolving any problems or concerns that you may have. Should any members have any correspondents that need immediate attention please forward them to me at: David Bright, P.O. Box 441963, Jacksonville, FL 32222. Should you need to speak to me I can be reached at 904-207-0141. Thanks for your cooperation in this long due matter! In relation to what Respondent refers to as accounts for Local 16 which he was servicing, that refers to insurance coverage, it involved a couple of hundred insureds. Respondent in his testimony acknowledged that union members had insurance claims that were unpaid.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 626.611(7) and (13), and 626.621(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (2004), finding no violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes (2004), or 626.9521, Florida Statutes (2004), and suspending Respondent's respective licenses as a life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), for a period of six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2005.
