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
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent's licenses as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Department of Insurance was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance professionals and the regulation of the insurance industry in this state. Respondent, Harold R. Leiffer, was licensed by the state as a life and health (debit) agent, a life agent, a life and health agent, a general lines agent, and a public adjuster (for fire and allied lines, including marine casualty and motor vehicle damage and mechanical breakdown insurance), and was engaged in the practice of the insurance profession under those licenses in Florida. In January, 1991, Donna L. Devor, at the time, the owner of Cobra Construction Co., a corporation, was contacted by the Respondent after she received a bid for the construction of a fire station in Florida. Ms. Devor had previously known the Respondent as an insurance agent through a company she was associated with to which he had provided construction bonds in the past. On this occasion, in January, 1991, according to Ms. Devor, Respondent called to say he was with a new company and could get her the bond she needed to support the bid she had been awarded. Ms. Devor invited him over to talk about it and they discussed it. Again, he indicated he would be able to get her the bond she needed. The next day, when he came back with the preliminary paperwork, he asked for a check in the amount of $850.00. According to Ms. Devor, he indicated that of that sum, $500.00 was to cover setup fees and other fees by the bonding company and $300.00 was to go to DSI, his agency. In response, Ms. Devor gave him a check for $850.00 made payable, at his request, to ICI, Respondent's other company, after which he left with the forms she had signed, some in blank. When he left, he promised to process the paperwork immediately in response to her stressing the urgency of the need for the bond. After several days passed with no response, Ms. Devor attempted to contact Respondent by phone but was unable to reach him. When she finally was able to speak with him, he asked her to come to his office to discuss the bonding company's requirement that she place her house as collateral for the bond. Ms. Devor immediately declined to do this but nonetheless went to his office at DSI to talk with him. When she arrived, he immediately called the bonding company which again requested she place her house as security, and she again refused. When this happened, Respondent asked her to come back the next day as he would try another source for the bond. When she contacted him the following day, he indicated he could get the bond from an Atlanta firm but she would have to go there to pick it up. She agreed to do this and Respondent, in addition, asked for a financial statement which she arranged to have provided. Ms. Devor flew to Atlanta and was met there by Respondent who drove her to the bonding company's office. When she met with company officials, she was told they imposed a coinsurance requirement of $100,000.00 in the company's name be put up by her and she did not have this cash available. Respondent, she claims, knew this. Nonetheless, she was furnished an office and a telephone to try to get the money but was unable to do so and as a result, the bonding company declined to issue the bond. After that failure, she returned to Orlando and, realizing that Respondent was apparently unable to help her, started to look for another bonding company. She called Respondent's secretary several times attempting to reach him to get her money back but, when she was unable to do so, finally sent him a letter requesting the return of her $850.00 payment. Respondent failed to respond to that letter and she continued to try to reach him, unsuccessfully, by phone. Finally, she was able to contact DSI's owner who indicated she had never heard of Ms. Devor and asked she be shown proof that the bond premium was paid. When Ms. Devor sent a copy of the check she had given to Respondent, the owner evidenced some dissatisfaction with Respondent but failed to refund the money. Ms. Devor continued to try to reach Respondent by phone without success. When she found where he lived, she wrote him another letter asking not only for the return of the amount she had paid him but also for reimbursement of expenses she had incurred in flying to Atlanta. She received neither. However, about a week or so later, she received a call from Respondent on her answering machine which left no return number. She was thereafter unable to again contact Respondent nor did she ever receive reimbursement of her payment to him. The $850.00 check was endorsed by Respondent with his own name and deposited to his personal account, Number 1307004115, at the Orange Bank in Winter Park, Florida. According to Mr. Leach, Vice-President of security operations for Pinnacle Insurance in Carrolton, Georgia, the company to which Ms. Devor flew at Respondent's request, the company file for Cobra Corporation shows no bond was ever issued to that company. Florida does not allow a charge for setup fees in any case, and he would not have received one in connection with this application even if the bond had been issued. It is company policy not to charge a fee of any kind if a bond is not issued. Only if the application is approved and the applicant then withdraws is a fee charged. In any case, the premium on a $100,000.00 bond such as that sought here would be $2,500.00. Respondent at one point owned Statewide Insurance and sold it to DSI, the company with whom he was associated at the time he took the bond application from Ms. Devor. His story of the transaction differs somewhat from that of Ms. Devor, however, in that he denies calling her to solicit her business. Instead, he claims, she called him and begged that he get her the bond she needed for this contract. In fact, he claims, she said she'd do anything she had to do, or pay any fee necessary, to get the bond. When he explained what the fees would be, she agreed to them. Respondent contends he got the bond through United American Security in Boston, which charges a setup fee of $500.00. When Ms. Devor, however, could not live with the company's conditions, indicating she could not get the required additional credit from her bank, she rejected that condition and Respondent agreed to try with Pinnacle. It is, he claims, Ms. Devor, who suggested they go to Atlanta where Mr. Mathieson, the representative of the insurance company at the time, imposed the requirement for collateral. He also contends she agreed to this. Afterwards, he asserts, Ms. Devor claimed to have gotten a bond without collateral from a company in Ft. Lauderdale which she presented to the contracting party. From the check for $850.00 which Respondent received from Ms. Devor, he paid $500.00 to United American as its setup fee, and $250.00 to Pinnacle for its fees. Respondent did not provide a cancelled check as evidence of either payment, however. He cannot account for the additional $100.00. In any case, he contends, after Ms. Devor requested a refund, he contacted both United American and Pinnacle to request reimbursement, but both refused because, they claimed, they had accepted her and had done credit checks on her. Respondent claims that Ms. Devor was offered two bonds, both of which she rejected because she did not want to put up the collateral or security requested by the bonding companies. He went to the companies under those conditions because, he contends, she had previously stated she would accept conditions, implying she would do anything necessary to get the bonds. In support of Mr. Leiffer's assertions, he introduced an enrollment form with United American Contractor's Association signed by Ms. Devor which indicates Cobra Construction Corp. applied for enrollment in the association and submitted a check for $500.00 as an enrollment fee. He also introduced a contractor's questionnaire reflecting the payment of a $250.00 application setup fee with Pinnacle to cover underwriting reviews and efforts in establishing a bond account. Ms. Devor, however, while admitting her signature appears thereon, does not recall having signed either document, contending that they may have been among those documents Respondent asked her to sign at the beginning of their relationship regarding this bond, some of which she signed in blank. Respondent, who had previously been with DSI and had just recently gone with ICI, nonetheless could give no reasonable justification for placing the $850.00 fee paid to him by Ms. Devor in his personal bank account and not in the account of one of the two companies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint in this case, alleging misconduct by Respondent, Harold Rush Leiffer, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a FOF. Second sentence accepted but evidence was presented by Respondent to show that Respondent signed an application for membership in UACA ($500.00) and with some other unspecified concern for 1 $250.00 setup fee. Balance of paragraph accepted. Rejected as unproven by clear and convincing evidence. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No Proposed Findings of Fact submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Harold R. Leiffer 2026 St. George Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Department as a life and health, and a general lines insurance agent (a 220 license). Respondent was an officer and director of A Aardwolf Discount Corporation, a Florida corporation, and A Aachen of Miami, Inc., a Florida corporation. A Aardwolf was conducting business out of offices on Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida. 1/ A Aachen of Miami, Inc. was operating on office on Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida. While the evidence is not entirely clear, it appears that both corporations were doing business as Salem Discount Insurance Agency and/or Discount Insurance Agency. Appco Premium Finance Company is licensed in the state of Florida to provide premium financing for insurance policies. Generally, premium finance companies work through an insurance agent. The agent collects a down payment from a customer who is unable or unwilling to pay in advance the full amount due on an insurance policy. A premium finance company such as Appco then finances the unpaid balance of the premium. In a typical premium financing arrangement the down payment is 30 percent of the total premium amount and the agent's commission is 15 percent. The insurance agent collects the down payment, retains his 15 percent commission and forwards the remainder to the premium finance company along with an executed premium finance agreement. The agent contemporaneously forwards the insured's application for insurance to the insurance company along with a draft issued by him on behalf of the premium finance company for the total amount of the premium less his commission. From approximately 1990 through late 1992, Respondent and his agencies utilized Appco to finance insurance premiums for many of their insureds. In August of 1992, Respondent's agencies transmitted a number of premium finance contracts to Appco. There were at least three separate transmittals, each of which was accompanied by a check which represented the remainder of the down payments received from the customers after Respondent retained his commission. The evidence also established that Appco received a fourth check from Respondent's companies during the month of August. The evidence was insufficient to establish whether this fourth check was related to transmittals of premium finance contracts or some other business dealings. In any event, the four checks totaled $4,926.65. Appco attempted to deposit and negotiate the checks, however, all four checks were returned by the bank for insufficient funds. Respondent was an authorized signatory on the Eagle Bank account on which the checks were drawn. At no time during 1992 were there sufficient funds in this account to pay the checks. Appco honored the drafts issued by Respondent in connection with the premium finance contracts covered by the transmittals and none of the policies were cancelled after the checks from Respondent's agencies bounced. Appco has sued Respondent and his business[es] seeking to recover the money which Appco contends is owed to it as a result of the transactions described above. Respondent has contested that law suit and denied that he or his companies owe any money to Appco. As of the date of the hearing in this matter, that civil litigation had not been resolved. As is common in the industry, Appco had a policy of charging back unearned commissions to insurance agents when an insured defaulted on a premium finance contract. In other words, after a policy was cancelled because the insured failed to make the payments due under the premium finance contract, Appco would prorate the commission which had been retained by the agent to reflect the period during which the policy was in effect and charge-back to the agent the amount of the unearned commission. Respondent contends that in August of 1992, he was involved in an ongoing dispute with Appco regarding Appco's charge-back of unearned commissions for insurance contracts that were purportedly cancelled before completion of the financing arrangement. Respondent says that he withheld payments to Appco pending resolution of his dispute as to the amount of the charge-backs. Respondent claims that an executive from Appco agreed that if checks were sent in with the transmittals for new contracts, they would be held without cashing until the dispute regarding the charge-back of unearned commissions was resolved. There is no written evidence that Appco agreed that Respondent could withhold payment of the money due on new premium finance contracts until Respondent was satisfied with a resolution of the unearned commission charge- backs. In fact, there is no written evidence that Respondent was even asserting such a claim until it was raised as an affirmative defense in the lawsuit brought by Appco against Respondent and his agencies. Respondent's assertion that he had a verbal agreement with Appco that is would not cash the checks is rejected as not credible. In any event, Respondent's dispute as to the amounts that Appco had charged back for cancelled policies did not relieve Respondent of his obligations to new customers. After deducting his commission, the down payments received by Respondent from his new customers were received by Respondent in trust to be used for the issuance of premium finance contracts for those customers. Respondent had no right to withhold sums collected on the new contracts in an attempt to resolve his dispute arising from old contracts. His actions unjustifiably placed his new customers at risk that their policies would be cancelled or never issued. Respondent has refused the repeated demands made by Appco to make the checks good. Respondent has never provided an accounting for the funds he collected from the new customers. United States Underwriters, Inc. of Miami ("United States Underwriters") is under contract with Security Insurance Company of Hartford ("Security") to manage and administer Security's automobile insurance policy program in Florida. United States Underwriters receives and processes applications from agents, appoints agents, underwrites and issues policies and performs all other administrative work concerning the policies. In May of 1991, Respondent was appointed as an agent for United States Underwriters. That appointment was approved in the name of Salem Discount Insurance at 7943 Biscayne Boulevard. On April 23, 1992, Respondent obtained an appointment on behalf of Discount Insurance operating at 501 Alton Road in Miami Beach. On or about June 23, 1992, United States Underwriters, as the administrator for Security, terminated Respondent's authority as an insurance agent to solicit and bind insurance coverages on behalf of Security. The termination letter provided that Respondent's authority to bind coverage for Security terminated effective as of June 24, 1992 and provided that "any and all applications bound prior to this termination date are to be submitted with the required payment of net premiums due to be received in our office by Thursday, July 2, 1992....United States Underwriters, Inc. will continue to service existing policies until their expiration upon receipt of endorsement or cancellation request from your office." In response to the demand that he submit all coverages bound through his termination date, Respondent submitted approximately 73 applications (the "Applications") for automobile insurance to United States Underwriters on or about July 2, 1992. The Applications reflected that they had been received by Respondent through his offices at various times between March and June of 1992. The Applications were accompanied by two post-dated checks drawn on Respondent's Republic Bank business bank account in the amounts of $5,961 and $9,202.05. These checks represented the premium payments for the Applications. United States Underwriters' agents are supposed to submit all applications for insurance together with the premium payment to the company within 7 days after receipt. Respondent has provided no explanation as to why these procedures were not followed in connection with the Applications referred to in paragraph 18 above. United States Underwriters, as administrator for Security, issued the policies with Security as the insurer for all of the Applications. The binding dates on the Applications were honored even for those applications taken in March but not submitted until July, 1992. When the policies were issued, United States Underwriters remitted $15,163.11 to Security in payment of the policy premiums. This remittance was made before the checks from Respondent cleared. The checks submitted by Respondent's agencies as payment for the premiums on the Applications were returned by the bank for insufficient funds. Respondent was an authorized signatory on the Republic Bank account on which the checks were drawn. At no time during June, July or August, 1992 were there sufficient funds in the account to pay the two checks. Respondent has refused the demands of United States Underwriters to replace the checks and/or to submit the premium payments for the policies. After the checks from Respondent's agencies were returned and Respondent failed to respond to numerous demands for payment, United States Underwriters cancelled the insurance coverages for nonpayment of premiums on July 24, 1992 with a policy cancellation date effective as of August 3, 1992. At the time the policies were cancelled, United States Underwriters was given a credit by the insurance company for the unearned portion of the premiums. The premiums earned on the policies while they were in effect was approximately $5,123.21. In his post-hearing submittal, Respondent admitted an obligation to repay this sum. However, as of the date of the hearing in this matter, this earned portion of the policy premiums which United States Underwriters was required to pay to the insurance company had not been paid by Respondent. Respondent has provided a confusing and unpersuasive justification for his involvement in the transmittal of the bad checks to United States Underwriters. Respondent contends that his business relationship with United States Underwriters had soured and he desired to transfer all of the business to a new insurance company. This desire on his part does not justify the issuance of bad checks. The money Respondent received from his customers was to be held in trust for the issuance of their policies. Respondent has not provided an accounting of what happened to this money. Respondent also claims that some of the policies originated from offices in which he no longer had an ownership interest. Respondent contends that he was not the agent of record at the Alton Road office in Miami Beach, and, therefore, he has suggested that he can not be held accountable for the policies that were issued out of that office. The evidence established that Respondent was the only principal listed on the questionnaire submitted to United States Underwriters when the appointment for the Alton Road office was approved. Respondent has not provided any compelling evidence that his involvement with this office was terminated. In fact, the evidence established that the checks were sent to United States Underwriters at Respondent's direction and under his name. Furthermore, Respondent signed both of the checks that were returned for insufficient funds and his name appears as the brokering agent on many of the insurance applications. After United States Underwriters cancelled the policies, Respondent obtained new policies for a number of the insureds through Fortune Insurance Company. Some of the customers also obtained refunds. No specific evidence was presented to establish the losses, if any, suffered by the customers. It does appear that some customers were without insurance for at least a few days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent, Edwin Morales, guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint. As a penalty for the violations, Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure should be suspended for eighteen (18) months. As a condition to reinstatement of his insurance licenses, Respondent should be required to make satisfactory restitution to Appco Premium Finance Company and United States Underwriters pursuant to Section 626.641, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 20th day of October, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in this state by the Petitioner as an insurance agent. Respondent was licensed, pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code (Chapter 626, Florida Statutes) as a general lines agent, a health insurance agent, and a residential property and casualty joint underwriting association representative. In February 1990, Maria del Carmen Comas, who was subsequently known as Maria del Carmen Diaz (hereinafter referred to as Maria Diaz), was licensed by Petitioner as an insurance agent. By Final Order entered September 20, 1994, the licensure of Ms. Diaz was revoked by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent and Ms. Diaz maintained a close personal and professional relationship. On October 12, 1990, an entity known as The First Assurance, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as FIRST) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of FIRST, which is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. FIRST operated out of offices located at 10680 Coral Way, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Coral Way location) until June 1994, when Respondent moved the office of FIRST to 8780 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida. On September 21, 1993, an entity known as The First Assurance of Miami, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as FIRST OF MIAMI) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida by Respondent and Maria Diaz. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of FIRST OF MIAMI, a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency doing business at 8780 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Sunset Drive location). Respondent and Ms. Diaz were equal owners of FIRST OF MIAMI until that corporation ceased its operation in February 1995. On August 26, 1994, an entity known as Marlin Insurance Agency, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as MARLIN) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent was the sole incorporator of MARLIN. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of MARLIN, a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency doing business at the Sunset Drive location where Respondent operated FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI. MARLIN was originally incorporated for the purpose of purchasing the business of Rodal Insurance Agency in Hialeah, Florida. After the purchase of Rodal was rescinded by court order, MARLIN remained dormant until February 1995, when MARLIN began operating as a general lines insurance agency at the Sunset Drive location. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the supervising agent of MARLIN. As long as FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI maintained separate offices, Respondent managed the day to day affairs of FIRST and Ms. Diaz managed the day to day affairs of FIRST OF MIAMI. After FIRST moved its offices into those of FIRST OF MIAMI, the separation of management became less distinct. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Carlos Gonzalez was an employee of FIRST or of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Gonzalez was hired and trained by Respondent and worked under his direct supervision. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Mr. Gonzalez hold any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Alvaro Alcivar was an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI or of MARLIN. Mr. Alcivar acted under the supervision of either Maria Diaz or of Respondent. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Mr. Alcivar hold any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had sole signatory authority of the FIRST's account number Number33080870-10 (the FIRST expense account) and of FIRST's account Number0303043975-10, both maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had joint signatory authority with Maria Diaz of the FIRST's account number Number33095150-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had joint signatory authority with Maria Diaz of the FIRST OF MIAMI's account number Number33095630-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had sole signatory authority of the FIRST OF MIAMI's account number Number0303116492-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. All premiums, return premiums and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under his license were and remain trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. Respondent obtained a power of attorney from his customers as a routine business practice. Respondent has repeatedly issued checks in payment of fiduciary funds that have subsequently been dishonored by the bank because the account on which the checks were drawn had insufficient funds. ARCAMONTE TRANSACTION (COUNT ONE) On or about July 14, 1993, Susan Arcamonte of Miami, Florida, purchased a new car. Susan Arcamonte needed insurance for this automobile and discussed that need with Carlos Gonzalez, who was employed by FIRST. As a result of her discussions with Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Arcamonte agreed to purchase a policy of insurance that would be issued by Eagle Insurance Company. The annual premium quoted by Mr. Gonzalez for this policy totaled $1,618.00. Mr. Gonzalez advised her that there would be additional charges if the premium was paid by a premium finance company. Because she did not have the funds to pay the lump sum annual premium and did not want to finance the premium, she had her parents, Edmond and Nancy Arcamonte, pay the annual premium. As instructed by Carlos Gonzalez, this check was in the amount of $1,618.00 and was made payable to "The First Assurance, Inc." This check was in full payment of the annual premium for the automobile insurance policy that was to be issued by Eagle Insurance Company. After receiving the check from Mr. and Mrs. Arcamonte, Mr. Gonzalez issued to Susan Arcamonte an insurance card containing the name "The First Assurance, Inc." and binder numbers 12873 and 931374 written across the top. Mr. Gonzalez represented to Ms. Arcamonte that this was a binder of the coverage they had discussed. Mr. Gonzalez thereafter delivered the check and the completed application for insurance to FIRST. Respondent reviewed the application for insurance and signed the application. The Arcamontes' check was thereafter deposited by Respondent into the FIRST expense account at Ready State Bank, Hialeah, Florida. In July 1993, Respondent or some person in his employ at FIRST and acting with his knowledge under his direct supervision and control, affixed the signature of Susan Arcamonte to a Century Premium Insurance Finance Co., Inc. (Century PFC) premium finance agreement and, in the space provided for her address, filled in the office address of FIRST. Ms. Arcamonte's signature was affixed to this agreement without her knowledge or consent. Respondent personally signed the premium fiance agreement that was sent to Century PFC. Because the address of FIRST was inserted on the premium finance agreement, Ms. Arcamonte did not receive payment coupons, cancellation notices, and other correspondence from Century PFC. Consequently, the existence of the premium finance agreement was concealed from Ms. Arcamonte. The original application for insurance signed by Susan Arcamonte contained a power of attorney purporting to grant Respondent the authority to sign Ms. Arcamonte's name to "applications or similar papers including premium finance contracts". There was no disclosure that the signature on the premium finance agreement was not that of Ms. Arcamonte or that FIRST was executing her signature pursuant to a power of attorney. Respondent contends that the premium finance agreement was executed pursuant to the power of attorney because the check from Mr. and Mrs. Arcamonte was inadvertently separated from her application for payment and erroneously deposited into the FIRST expense account. This contention lacks credibility and is rejected. The fact that Respondent deposited the check in his expense account, that the paperwork for the premium finance agreement contained the FIRST address, that Respondent took no action to rectify this alleged error even after receiving correspondence from the finance company, and that Ms. Arcamonte's signature was forged on the application belie Respondent's contention that this was an innocent mistake. On or about September 20, 1993, the Eagle Insurance policy that Ms. Arcamonte purchased was cancelled for nonpayment of premiums because Respondent, or persons acting under his direct supervision and control, failed to make a regular installment payment on the premium finance agreement. Ms. Arcamonte never received the 10 Day Notice of Cancellation Notices that Century PFC mailed to FIRST's address. It was not until October 1993 when she received a Notice of Cancellation from Eagle mailed September 27, 1993, that she learned that her policy had been cancelled effective September 20, 1993. As a result of Respondent's actions and those of Carlos Gonzalez, Susan Arcamonte failed to timely receive automobile insurance, suffered a finance charge for automobile insurance without her knowledge or consent, had her automobile insurance cancelled, and incurred higher premium charges for subsequent coverage because of a gap in her coverage. Following a criminal complaint filed against him by Ms. Arcamonte, Respondent was arrested and placed in a pretrial intervention program. It was only after this action was taken that Respondent made restitution to the Arcamontes for the $1,618.00 premium they paid. At no time during the transaction, did the Arcamontes deal with anyone from the FIRST other than Carlos Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent during this transaction. Specifically, Carlos Gonzalez did the following: Was introduced to the Arcamontes as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Interviewed Susan Arcamonte to gather the information necessary to determine level of coverage and to quote a premium for that coverage. Discussed coverage options and requirements including whether Ms. Arcamonte needed personal injury protection. Discussed deductible options and answered general questions about insurance. Selected an insurer for Ms. Arcamonte, quoted a premium for that coverage, and made representations as to the quality of the insurer. Offered to bind insurance coverage for the automobile Ms. Arcamonte was in the process of purchasing and sent a binder to her at the automobile dealership via fax. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including binder numbers, as proof of insurance, and presented the identification card to Ms. Arcamonte. Presented Ms. Arcamonte with a business card that identified himself as a representative of FIRST. Respondent knew or should have known of the acts of Carlos Gonzalez. Respondent received from Mr. Gonzalez the application for insurance he had completed for Ms. Arcamonte so that all Respondent had to do was sign it. JOHNSON - MOREL TRANSACTION (COUNT TWO) On May 31, 1993, Linda E. Johnson and her husband, Miguel Morel, visited the residence of Wilfreido Cordeiro, an employee of FIRST who was acting on behalf of FIRST. As a result of their conversation with Mr. Cordeiro about their insurance needs, Mr. Morel and Ms. Johnson completed an application for automobile insurance from Armor Insurance Company (Armor) to be issued through FIRST. Mr. Cordeiro, who was not licensed by Petitioner for any purpose, held himself out to be an agent. He represented to these consumers that coverage with Armor was bound and gave them an identification card with the FIRST name on it that purported to be a binder of coverage. The FIRST insurance identification card was issued without authorization from Armor and in violation of the established policies and practices of Armor. Because Mr. Cordeiro was unlicensed, Respondent acted as the agent of record for this transaction. On or about May 31, 1993, Mrs. Linda E. Johnson tendered to Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to FIRST as a premium down payment for the automobile insurance from Armor. On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, deposited Mrs. Johnson's check in the FIRST expense account at the Ready State Bank. On or about June 29, 1993, Mrs. Johnson was contacted by her bank and informed that she had no automobile insurance. She immediately contacted Respondent who provided the bank with a certificate of insurance indicating coverage was placed with American Skyhawk Insurance (American Skyhawk) effective June 1, 1993. No authority to bind coverage had been extended by American Skyhawk prior to the submission of the application two and one-half months after the coverage effective date indicated on the certificate of insurance. On or about August 18, 1993, Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, completed a Century PFC and affixed thereto the signature of Mr. Morel without his knowledge or consent. This agreement reflected that Mr. Morel had paid the sum of $400.00 as a downpayment, despite the fact that Mrs. Johnson's check, in the amount of $500.00, had been received and deposited in the Respondent expense account. As a result of Respondent's action, Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Morel failed to timely receive automobile coverage; suffered a finance charge for automobile insurance without their knowledge or consent; and suffered the loss in at least the amount of $100.00. At no time during the transaction with FIRST did Mr. Morel or Mrs. Johnson knowingly execute a power of attorney. HWANG TRANSACTION (COUNT THREE) On August 29, 1992, Mr. Show Ming Hwang of Miami, Florida, purchased via telephone a policy of insurance for a car he was purchasing. Mr. Hwang called from a car dealership and spoke to an employee of FIRST who was acting under Respondent's direct supervision. Mr. Hwang tendered to FIRST a check in the amount of $869.00 as the full premium for this insurance, which was to be issued by an insurer named Security National. Respondent was the agen t of record for this transaction. Security National issued policy NumberSN00127048 providing insurance coverage for Mr. Hwang effective August 29, 1992. On December 22, 1992, Mr. Hwang asked FIRST to cancel his policy with Security National because he had moved and had secured other coverage. On January 15, 1993, Security National cancelled insurance policy NumberSN00127048 in response to Mr. Hwang's request. On January 26, 1993, Security National sent to Respondent its check Number216878 in the sum of $366.35 payable to Mr. Hwang. This check was a refund of the unearned premium for the cancelled policy. In addition to the unearned premium, Mr. Hwang was also entitled to a refund of the unearned commission from FIRST. The amount of the unearned commission was $64.55 and should have been paid by FIRST directly to Mr. Hwang. On February 8, 1993, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST acting under his direct supervision, endorsed the check from Security National in the name of Mr. Hwang and deposited that check in the FIRST expense account at Ready State Bank. Mr. Hwang was unaware that his name had been endorsed on the check and had not authorized such endorsement. This endorsement was not pursuant to a validly executed power of attorney. Mr. Hwang made repeated attempts to obtain the refunds to which he was entitled. Finally, he secured the intervention of the Petitioner. After that intervention, Respondent issued a FIRST check on December 17, 1993, payable to Mr. Hwang in the amount of $431.00 as payment of the refunds. Less than a month later, this check was dishonored because there were insufficient funds in the account on which it was drawn. After further intervention by the Petitioner, Respondent issued a cashier's check in the amount of $431.00 payable to Mr. Hwang. This check, dated March 22, 1994, was thereafter received and deposited by Mr. Hwang. Respondent failed to return the refunds to Mr. Hwang in the applicable regular course of business and converted the refund from Security National to his own use until the intervention of the Petitioner. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mr. Hwang failed to timely receive these refunds. MARIA DIAZ (COUNT FOUR) On September 20, 1994, the Petitioner entered a Final Order that revoked all licenses that it had previously issued to Maria Diaz (who was at that time known as Maria del Carmen Comas). In September 1994, Ms. Diaz, accompanied by Respondent, visited the Petitioner's office in Miami where she was told that the revocation of her license was forthcoming. After that information was given to them, Respondent and Ms. Diaz knew or should have known that the revocation of her licensure was imminent. There was insufficient evidence to establish when Ms. Diaz received a written copy of the order revoking her licensure. Ms. Diaz and Respondent assert that they did not know about the revocation until the end of January, 1995. The order entered in September 1994 prohibited Ms. Diaz from engaging in or attempting to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or appointment is required under the Insurance Code or directly owning, controlling, or being employed in any manner by any insurance agent or agency. After Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told that the revocation of her licensure was imminent, Ms. Diaz engaged in transactions requiring licensure and acting in violation of the order revoking her licensure. This activity included applying to Seminole Insurance Company (Seminole) in December 1994 seeking appointment as a general lines insurance agent by Seminole, the submission of a large number of applications to Seminole, and the mishandling of an insurance transaction with Johannah Rexach in July and August 1995. Ms. Diaz began a business as a travel agent at the MARLIN office and continued to be present in the MARLIN office long after she had received written notice of the revocation of her licensure by Petitioner. At least on one occasion in May 1995, Ms. Diaz answered the MARLIN telephone by saying "insurance". Ms. Diaz continued to greet her former insurance customers and mailed out renewal notices after both she and Respondent had actual knowledge of the revocation of her licensure. Respondent knew or should have known of Ms. Diaz's activities. While there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Diaz was formally on MARLIN's payroll, the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent permitted Ms. Diaz to share office space while she attempted to develop her travel agency and that, in return, Ms. Diaz helped out at the MARLIN office. Respondent employed the services of Ms. Diaz and he placed her in a position to engage in transactions that required licensure after he knew or should have known that her licensure had been revoked. MARTINEZ TRANSACTION (COUNT FIVE) On April 23, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Santiago Martinez of Miami, Florida, completed applications for automobile insurance from Fortune Insurance Company (Fortune) and Aries Insurance Company (Aries). The record is unclear as to whether the insurance was to be issued through FIRST or FIRST OF MIAMI. The individual with whom Mr. and Mrs. Martinez dealt was Alvaro Alcivar. This was during the time that FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI maintained separate offices and it was before Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told that her licensure was about to be revoked. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Alcivar was, at that time, an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI and that he was working under the supervision of Maria Diaz. Succinctly stated, premiums paid by Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were deposited into a FIRST OF MIAMI bank account that showed First Assurance of Miami, Inc., d/b/a Complete Insurance as the owner of the account. The premium payment was not forwarded to the insurer. Because of this failure, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez did not receive insurance coverage for which they had paid. While Petitioner established that Mr. Alcivar and whoever was his supervising agent mishandled this transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was aware of this transaction until Mr. and Mrs. Martinez demanded a refund of the premium they had paid. At that juncture, he attempted to resolve the problem. Consequently, it is found that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent was responsible for these violations of the Florida Insurance Code. ZAFRANI TRANSACTION (COUNT SIX) In July 1992, Mr. Issac Zafrani and his son, Ramon, of Miami, Florida, purchased automobile insurance with Oak Casualty Insurance Company (Oak) after dealing with Carlos Gonzalez. The various documents associated with this transaction refer to the agency issuing this policy as FIRST, FIRST OF MIAMI, or Rodal Insurance Agency. Mr. Gonzalez was an employee of FIRST and operated under the direct supervision of Respondent. The entire transaction was completed by Mr. Gonzalez at the automobile dealership where Mr. Zafrani was purchasing an automobile. All subsequent dealings by Mr. Zafrani was through Mr. Gonzalez by telephone or at locations other than the offices of FIRST. Mr. Gonzalez held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent during this transaction. Specifically, Carlos Gonzalez did the following: Was introduced to the Zafranis as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options. Selected an insurer for the Zafranis, deter- mined the premium for the coverage, and accepted the payment for the premium. Personally completed an insurance identifi- cation card, including what purported to be proof of insurance, and presented the identification card to the Zafranis. Presented the Zafranis with a business card that identified himself as a representative of FIRST. The Zafranis paid for the renewal of their policy through FIRST each year on an annual basis. On September 1, 1994, the Zafranis tendered to Mr. Gonzalez their check in the amount of $1,748.00 as payment in full of the annual premium for the policy year 1994-95. This check was made payable to FIRST OF MIAMI and was deposited in the FIRST Expense Account at Ready State Bank ( Number0303080870- 10). Respondent was the only person with authority to sign on this account. On September 30, 1994, an employee of FIRST completed a premium finance agreement that purported to finance the Zafranis' premium for the Oak Casualty insurance and forged Issac Zafrani's signature to that agreement. This false document reflected that the total premium was $1,748.00 and that the Zafranis had made a downpayment of $524.00 and had an unpaid balance of $1,224.00. This action was taken without Issac Zafrani's knowledge or consent. Mr. Zafrani had not executed a power of attorney to authorize these acts. Respondent knew or should have known of this act. On September 30, 1994, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST working under his direct supervision, issued a premium finance draft from Artic to Oak in the amount of $1,485.80 based upon this false application. A few weeks after they paid the renewal premium, the Zafranis complained to Mr. Gonzalez that they had not received their renewal policy from Oak. Mr. Gonzalez advised them that the company had cancelled their policy in error. He promised that he would investigate the matter and take corrective action. On December 23, 1994, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST acting under his direct supervision, submitted an automobile insurance application to Seminole Insurance Company indicating that coverage had been bound for Issac Zafrani. On December 23, 1994, Respondent issued FIRST check Number1196 payable to Seminole in the amount of $1,681.65 in payment of the policy he was attempting to secure on behalf of the Zafranis. On or about December 27 1994, Mr. Gonzalez issued to the Zafranis a FIRST card with what purported to be a binder number from Seminole Insurance Company. No authorization to bind that coverage had been issued by Seminole. On January 3, 1995, Artic issued a cancellation notice on the Oak Casualty policy because of missed payments on the premium finance agreement. The Zafranis did not know about this premium finance agreement and Respondent failed to make the payments. In January 1995, FIRST check Number1196 that had been tendered to Seminole was dishonored by Respondent's bank because the account on which the check was drawn had insufficient funds to pay the check. As a result of these actions, the Zafranis failed to timely receive automobile insurance for which they had fully paid and suffered the loss of the sum of $1,748.00. Respondent knew or should have known of these actions. DEBT TO WORLD PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY (COUNT SEVEN) On August 29, 1995, a final judgment was entered in a Dade County Court action brought by World Premium Finance Co., Inc. (World PFC) against FIRST OF MIAMI and the Respondent, individually, as defendants. This final judgment awarded damages against FIRST OF MIAMI in the sum of $7,203.03 and awarded damages against both defendants in the sum of $15,000 plus attorney's fees of $1,000. The World PFC complaint was based on worthless checks FIRST OF MIAMI and Respondent had issued in connection with premium finance contracts and included debts for unpaid downpayments and unearned commissions on premium finance contracts that had been cancelled. Respondent's assertion that these debts were the responsibility of Maria Diaz is rejected. While Ms. Diaz initially made the arrangements for FIRST OF MIAMI to finance through World PFC and was the agent responsible for some of these transactions, it is clear that Respondent was the agent for many of these underlying transactions. Further, some, if not all, of these worthless checks were drawn on accounts for which Respondent was the only person with signatory authority. The downpayments and unearned commissions constitute fiduciary funds for which Respondent is responsible. Respondent has failed to pay these fiduciary funds to World PFC after repeated demands for payments. GUTIERREZ TRANSACTION (COUNT EIGHT) On October 11, 1993, Ms. Madalina N. Gutierrez of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance. Aries Insurance Company was the insurer for this policy and FIRST was the insurance agency. The premium for this policy was to have been $574.00. The person with whom Ms. Gutierrez dealt with was Carmen "Mela" Babacarris, an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI. Ms. Babacarris has never held any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. Ms. Gutierrez paid to FIRST the sum of $287.00 on October 11, 1993, when she applied for this insurance. On that date, Ms. Babacarris gave to Ms. Gutierrez an insurance card that purported to bind coverage with Aries. She returned on November 1, 1993, and paid to FIRST the balance owed of $287.00. Both of these payments were tendered to and received by Ms. Babacarris on behalf of FIRST. The sums paid by Ms. Gutierrez for this insurance coverage were not remitted by the FIRST to Aries or to any other insurer. As a consequence, Ms. Gutierrez did not receive the insurance coverage for which she had paid. Ms. Gutierrez was unable to obtain a refund of the sums that she had paid to FIRST. Respondent knew or should have known of the acts pertaining to this transaction by Ms. Babacarris since the transaction was processed through the FIRST, the agency for which Respondent was the sole supervising agent. RICO TRANSACTION (COUNT NINE) On June 27, 1994, Mr. Rafael Rico of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance from Aries Insurance. It is unclear from the documents whether this insurance was to be issued through FIRST or through FIRST OF MIAMI. This confusion in the record is attributable to the fact that the persons involved in this transaction and associated with these two agencies made little distinction between the two agencies. This application was completed at the automobile dealership from which Mr. Rico was purchasing the vehicle to be insured. The individual with whom Mr. Rico dealt was Alvaro Alcivar. At all times during the transaction with Mr. Rico, Mr. Alcivar held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent. Specifically, Mr. Alcivar did the following: Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options and answered Mr. Rico's general insurance questions. Selected the insurer for Mr. Rico's coverage. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including a policy number, as proof of insurance and provided it to Mr. Rico. Indicated that coverage was bound immediately and gave to him a card that purported to be a Florida Automobile Insurance Identification Card indicating that Mr. Rico had insurance coverage through Aries. Developed the premium and downpayment. Accepted payment from Mr. Rico. Presented Mr. Rico with a business card identifying himself as a representative of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Alcivar was the only representative of the FIRST or of the FIRST OF MIAMI with whom Mr. Rico dealt. On June 27, 1994, Mr. Rico tendered to Mr. Alcivar the sum of $947.00 as payment for this insurance with the sum of $500.00 being paid in cash and the balance being charged to Mr. Rico's Mastercard. This Mastercard entry was processed through the account of the FIRST, not that of the FIRST OF MIAMI. Despite the payments by Mr. Rico, the premium to which Aries was entitled for this coverage was not remitted by FIRST or by FIRST OF MIAMI. As a result of this failure, Aries cancelled the binder that had been issued to Mr. Rico. Mr. Rico was damaged as a result of this failure. He lost the premium he had paid and the lending institution that financed his vehicle placed insurance on the vehicle at a higher premium than that charged by Aries. Based on the relationship between FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI, the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Diaz, the repeated references to FIRST in the documentation of this transaction, and the deposit of at least $447.00 in the Mastercard account of FIRST, it is concluded that Respondent knew or should have known about this transaction. CHERI TRANSACTION (COUNT ELEVEN) On November 19, 1994, Mr. Dieuseul Cheri of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance that was to be issued by Seminole Insurance Company as the insurer. The application for insurance reflects that Maria Diaz was the agent for this transaction, but the name of the agency is FIRST, not FIRST OF MIAMI. Likewise, the premium finance agreement pertaining to this transaction reflects that FIRST is the producing agency. The entire transaction was handled by Alvaro Alcivar at an automobile dealership where Mr. Cheri was purchasing a vehicle and occurred after Ms. Diaz had been told in September that the revocation of her licensure was imminent. Mr. Cheri gave to Mr. Alcivar the sum of $205.00 in cash as the downpayment for the premium for this Seminole policy. At all times Mr. Alcivar held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent. Specifically, Mr. Alcivar: Was introduced to Mr. Cheri as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options and answered Mr. Cheri's general insurance questions. Selected the insurer for Mr. Cheri's coverage. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including a policy number, as proof of insurance and provided it to Mr. Cheri. Completed a named driver exclusion agreement for Mr. Cheri's policy, which had a significant effect on the coverage provided under the policy, and completed a vehicle inspection. Developed the premium and downpayment. Accepted payment from Mr. Cheri on behalf of FIRST OF MIAMI. Presented Mr. Cheri with a business card identifying himself as a representative of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Alcivar was the only representative of the FIRST or of the FIRST OF MIAMI with whom Mr. Cheri dealt. FIRST OF MIAMI failed to bind coverage with Seminole on Mr. Cheri's behalf until November 22, 1994. As a result, there was a lapse in Mr. Cheri's coverage from November 17 until November 22, 1994. On November 19, 1994, FIRST OF MIAMI submitted a premium finance agreement on Mr. Cheri's insurance policy to World Premium Finance Co., Inc. (World PFC). The World PFC contract as well as the application were signed by Maria Diaz. Ms. Diaz never met Mr. Cheri. The premium finance agreement submitted to World PFC by FIRST OF MIAMI indicated that he had made a premium downpayment of only $105.00 despite the fact that Mr. Cheri had made a downpayment of $205.00. The evidence is not clear that Respondent knew or should have known of this transaction because of the involvement of Ms. Diaz. Instead, this is an example of the Respondent permitting Ms. Diaz to continue to participate in insurance transactions that require licensure after Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told in September 1994 that revocation was imminent. ALVARO ALCIVAR (COUNT TWELVE) Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Alvaro Alcivar performed acts and made representations to consumers that require licensure pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code. Petitioner also established that Respondent knew or should have known of these acts and that he aided and abetted these violations by Mr. Alcivar. CARLOS GONZALEZ (COUNT THIRTEEN) Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Carlos Gonzalez performed acts and made representations to consumers that require licensure pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code. Petitioner also established that Respondent knew or should have known of these acts and that he aided and abetted these violations by Mr. Gonzalez.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner revoke all licensure and appointment held by Respondent pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code and that it impose against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 15th day of April 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0317 The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 139, 140, 141, and 142 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The testimony at the formal hearing that the office was moved in June 1994. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 17, and 81 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26, 32, 72, 74, 75, 76, 83, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137, 143, and 144 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 46, 61, 82, and 124 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 77, 78, 79, 80, 128, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 64, 72, and 73 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected in part since Respondent moved the offices of the FIRST from Coral Way to Sunset Drive at a time pertinent to this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 and 52 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 11, 21 and 27 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by credible evidence. The evidence that supports these proposed findings lacks credibility. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 31 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent the proposed findings mischaracterize the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the finding that they knew that the revocation of Ms. Diaz's licensure was imminent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 25, 28, 30, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 29 and 57 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 31 are rejected since they contain an inference that Respondent told Ms. Diaz to move as soon as he knew of her interaction with insurance customers. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 42 are rejected as being a mischaracterization of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 48, 63, 68, and 70 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Dunphy, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley and Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Maria Amelia Pou (Respondent) was licensed as a general lines insurance agent. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance (Petitioner) has jurisdiction over Respondent’s insurance license and appointments. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of General Insurance Group, Inc. (GIG), located in Hialeah, Florida. GIG is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of Victoria Insurance Agency, later changed to General Insurance Group II, both hereinafter referred to as GIG II, located at 4583 NW 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. GIG II is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for the wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she knew or should have known were committed by any person, over whom she had direct supervision and control, acting on behalf of GIG II. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she committed. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained an escrow account, with account no. 008-1027286, at Republic National Bank of Miami in Miami, Florida. Respondent had joint signatory authority over the escrow account. Premiums, returned premiums, and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under Respondent's license are trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. On November 22, 1994, Carlos Vidal and his wife, Teresa Vidal, purchased a new vehicle from Ocean Mazda, a Mazda dealership located on Lejeune Road, Miami, Florida. Before leaving the dealership with his new vehicle, Mr. Vidal attempted to obtain insurance coverage for the vehicle from his insurance company, State Farm. However, when he went to State Farm's office, no one was present and it appeared to be closed. Mr. Vidal returned to the dealership and informed the dealer's salesperson, Mr. Munoz, of his problem. The salesperson called several insurance companies without success before reaching GIG II. Mr. Munoz engaged in all communication over the telephone with GIG II. Neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal spoke with GIG II. Mr. Munoz obtained a quote of $997 from GIG II for the annual premium for the insurance coverage on the vehicle and informed Mr. Vidal of the cost. Mr. Vidal requested his wife to complete a check to GIG in the quoted amount. She complied. The check was given to and accepted by Mr. Munoz. GIG II faxed an insurance binder to Mr. Munoz. He gave the binder to Mr. Vidal. The binder indicated that the insurance was to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. Having obtained the insurance binder, Mr. and Mrs. Vidal left the dealership with their new vehicle. Although the premium was paid in full, GIG II completed an insurance premium finance contract (finance contract) to finance the premium with World Premium Finance Company (WPF), dated November 22, 1994, for Mr. Vidal. Ninety-five percent of Respondent's premiums are premium financed. The finance contract reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the finance contract. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed the names of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the finance contract. Respondent signed the finance contract as the broker or agent. Also, the finance contract reflects GIG II as the agent and the insured as both GIG II and Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, with only GIG II's address as the address for both GIG II and the Vidals. Further, the finance contract reflects a premium of $907, cash down payment of $273, and three monthly payments of $225.18. The monies totaled $948.54 for the finance contract price. The $997 check was deposited into GIG II's escrow account. At all times material hereto, the money remained in the escrow account. GIG II completed an application for the insurance coverage, dated November 22, 1994, with Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. The application reflected a total policy premium of $907. Respondent signed the application as brokering agent. Also, the application reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the application. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed Mr. and Mrs. Vidal's names to the application. Approximately, two to three days after November 22, 1994, Mr. Vidal brought the vehicle to GIG II for pictures to be taken of it for insurance purposes. A Florida Motor Vehicle Preinsurance Inspection Report, dated November 22, 1994, reflects the alleged signature of Mr. Vidal. To the contrary, Mr. Vidal did not sign the Report. Regarding the premium for the insurance, Respondent utilized computer software to compute the premium. The software requires a vehicle's VIN number. Respondent's software was not current due to her not having received, at the time of the transaction, the updated software which would reflect a recent rate increase. The total premium by the software was lower than the premium should have been. It is customary in the insurance industry to use the computer software used by Respondent for the insurance premiums. Also, it is not unusual for a delay to occur for the updated software to be received by an insurance company after a rate increase is approved and effective. In the insurance industry, it is not unusual for a miscalculation of a premium to occur. No gross miscalculation occurred in this instance which would cause the miscalculation to be unusual and suspect. Due to the miscalculation of the premium, by letter dated January 12, 1995, AIB notified Mr. Vidal that an additional $120 was due on the premium. Further, the letter provided that he had three options: (1) pay the $120 by February 10, 1995; or (2) cancel the insurance policy by February 26, 1995, and demand return of unearned premiums; or (3) take no action and the insurance policy would be cancelled by February 26, 1995. Mr. Vidal decided to cancel the insurance policy. On January 30, 1995, Mr. Vidal went to GIG II and executed a Cancellation Request Form cancelling his insurance. Respondent's signature appears on the Form as the agent. At some point in time, the cancellation form was forwarded by GIG II to AIB. By notice dated February 6, 1995, WPF notified Mr. Vidal, among other things, that he had ten days to pay his monthly installment ($225.18) due on February 1, 1995, 1 plus a late charge of $10, totaling $235.18 and that, if he failed to pay, his insurance would be cancelled. The address for Mr. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By notice dated February 16, 1995, WPF notified Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, among other things, that their insurance policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of the monthly installment. The address for Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By letter dated February 14, 1995, to AIB, Mr. Vidal notified AIB that he had chosen to cancel his insurance policy and had executed a cancellation form on January 27, 1995, 2 and demanded a refund of the unearned premiums. Further, Mr. Vidal indicated in the letter that he had neither heard from AIB or received a refund and that he was notifying it of his cancellation and demand for a refund. As a result of the cancellation by Mr. Vidal, AIB issued WPF a check dated February 22, 1995, in the amount of $549.67. Subsequently, on or about March 1, 1995, WPF issued GIG II a check in the amount of $79.31 Even after Mr. Vidal cancelled the insurance coverage and Respondent had received a refund from WPF, Respondent failed to adjust her conduct to conform with the Vidals' situation which was that the insureds, the Vidals, had paid the quoted premium in full. Not having received a refund, on April 17, 1995, approximately two and one-half months after signing the cancellation form, Mr. Vidal filed a request for assistance with Petitioner. By check dated July 10, 1995, more than five months after Mr. Vidal signed the cancellation form, Respondent issued Mr. Vidal a refund in the amount of $239.33 for insurance coverage that he had in effect for a little over two months. The refund check was issued from GIG II's escrow account. The refund monies included $49 which represented the difference between what the Vidals paid for the coverage ($997) and the finance contract price ($948.54). Consequently, Mr. Vidal was assessed the interest charged on a finance contract which never should have existed in his situation as the quoted premium was paid in full. In a premium finance situation in which a refund is due an insured, it is customary in the insurance industry for a three-step process to take place: (1) the insurance company issues a check to the premium finance company for the refund and forwards the check to the premium finance company which may take at least 30 days; (2) the premium finance company issues a check to the agent for the refund and forwards the check to the agent which may take at least another 30 days; and (3) the agent issues a check to the insured for the refund and sends the check to the insured. The same refund procedure was followed in this situation but with less time involved for steps (1) and (2). Moreover, in this instance, an important factor which makes this situation different is that Respondent had in her escrow account the full premium paid by the insureds, the Vidals. After receiving Mr. Vidal's request for assistance, Petitioner conducted an investigation. At first, Petitioner determined that no violation of the Insurance Code had occurred and Petitioner closed its file. However, subsequently, Petitioner re-opened its investigation which led to the filing of the administrative complaint against Respondent. After filing of the administrative complaint and more than one year after Respondent refunded the $239.33 to Mr. Vidal, Respondent acknowledged that more monies were due Mr. Vidal. Having reviewed the computations with Petitioner, Respondent refunded the additional monies to Mr. Vidal. An individual who is not licensed by Petitioner may qualify for a license by experience. Petitioner prescribes the activities in which an unlicensed person may engage. Over the years, Respondent has had unlicensed employees who were attempting to qualify for licensure by experience. Respondent identified two unlicensed employees, Maria Cancio and Maritza Inclant, who provided premium quotes to customers. Approximately ten percent of Ms. Cancio's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. However, more than ten percent of Ms. Martiza's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. Petitioner presented no evidence as to the time periods, i.e., six months or twelve months to which the percentages were applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order Finding in Count I that Maria Amelia Pou violated Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(4), (5), (7), (10) and (13), 626.621(2) and (12), and 626.9541(1)(k)1 and (o) 1 and 2; Dismissing Count II; and Suspending the license of Maria Amelia Pou for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April 1997.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of alleged violations set forth in a one-count Administrative Complaint. It is alleged that the Respondent has violated numerous specified provisions of Chapters 626 and 631, Florida Statutes, by failing to satisfy a judgment entered against him in favor of the Department in its capacity as receiver for an insurance company.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Peter Alicino, has been licensed to engage in the insurance business in the State of Florida. On or about December 21, 1993, a Consent Order was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, appointing the Florida Department of Insurance as Receiver for General Insurance Company. On or about August 12, 1996, a Final Judgment was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, in the amount of $2,377.40 in favor of the Department of Insurance as Receiver for General Insurance Company, and against Stephen Peter Alicino and Budget Insurance, jointly and severally. The judgment was for unearned insurance commissions retained by the Respondent and owed to General Insurance Company. On or about May 12, 1997, the Department of Insurance sent a certified letter to the Respondent demanding payment of the judgment described above. The Respondent received the letter on or about May 15, 1997. The judgment remains outstanding and unpaid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 22nd day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Stephen Peter Alicino 634 Castilla Lane Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The violations charged in the Administrative Complaint relate primarily to alleged mishandling of funds received on behalf of an insurer.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Louis Iannucci, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, and health insurance agent, and was so eligible and so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. At all times pertinent to these proceedings the Respondent was an officer and director of Certified Insurance Associates, Inc., an incorporated insurance agency doing business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, the Respondent was a duly appointed agent in this state under contract with United American Insurance Company. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was the sole authorized signatory on his business bank account with Capital City Bank, now known as Union Planters Bank. On or about February 12, 1997, Respondent received a check from Gretchen Smith of Titusville, Pennsylvania, in the amount of $1,833.00 and made payable to United American Insurance Company. This sum was intended as the renewal premium payment of Mrs. Smith's United American Medicare supplement insurance policy. Respondent endorsed this check and deposited it into his business bank account on February 18, 1997. Even though the premium was due on or before March 1, 1997, the Respondent waited until April 14, 1997, to remit only $486.00 of the money received from Gretchen Smith to United American Insurance Company in payment of a quarterly premium on her policy. Respondent retained the remainder of the funds for his own use and benefit. A short while later it was brought to the attention of United American Insurance Company that Gretchen Smith had paid an annual, not quarterly, premium for the policy. United American Insurance Company wrote to Mrs. Smith and requested a copy of her cancelled check for $1,833.00 that she had given to the Respondent. Upon receiving Gretchen Smith's response and a copy of her premium check, the insurance company credited her account with payment of an annual premium and reversed out the quarterly payment that had been posted to her account. The Respondent was charged for the difference of $1,347.00. On or about September 6, 1996, Respondent received a check from Mr. and Mrs. Lew Kisver of Plantation, Florida, in the amount of $3,666.00 and made payable to United American Insurance Company. This sum was intended as the renewal premium payments of Mr. and Mrs. Kisvers' United American Medicare supplement insurance policies. Respondent endorsed this check and deposited it into his business account. The Respondent, on or about September 25, 1996, remitted only $1,894.00 of the money received from Mr. and Mrs. Kisver to United American Insurance Company in payment of a semi-annual premium on each Kisver policy. Respondent retained the remainder of the funds for his own use and benefit. On or about March 7, 1997, it was brought to the attention of United American Insurance Company by Mr. and Mrs. Kisver that they had paid an annual, not semi-annual, premium for each of their policies. United American requested Mr. and Mrs. Kisver to provide a copy of their cancelled check or receipt for their payment of the premium. In response, the Kisvers mailed to the insurance company a copy of their cancelled check for $3,666.00 that they had given to the Respondent to pay their policy premiums. Upon receiving the Kisvers' response and copy of their premium check, the insurance company credited their account with payment of annual premiums and reversed out the semi-annual payments that had been posted to their accounts. The Respondent was charged the difference of $1,894.00. By coincidence, at this same time in March 1997, Respondent remitted $1,894.00 to the insurance company in payment of the next semi-annual premium due on the Kisver policies. The insurance company subsequently credited the money to Mr. Iannucci's account as he had already been charged for the premiums. The Respondent's agency contract then in effect with United American Insurance Company provided in relevant part: The Agent shall immediately remit to the Company all premiums collected by the Agent or sub-agents in excess of the Agent's initial commission thereon. In addition, the contract limited the agent's authority to collect premiums by specifically providing that the Agent shall not "collect or receipt for premiums other than initial premiums with applications for insurance." At all times material, the United American Insurance Company had on file at the Capital Bank a letter of authorization. The letter of authorization read as follows, in pertinent part: This letter will authorize the captioned General Agent of United American Insurance Company [the Respondent] to endorse and deposit to the General Agent's account with your bank checks made payable to the United American Insurance Company for premiums collected at the time of application for insurance with this Company. The General Agent may also withdraw or disburse any such funds so deposited. Pursuant to both the agency contract and the letter of authorization on file with the bank, the Respondent lacked authority to deposit and cash checks received from customers in payment of their renewal premiums. Similarly, the Respondent lacked authority to hold premium funds in his bank account for lengthy periods of time. The Respondent was aware, or should have been aware, of these limitations on his authority. Between September 1996 and April 1997, the balance of Respondent's business bank account with Capital City Bank at the end of each month was less than the amount of the premium funds that Respondent had received from the Kisvers and Gretchen Smith but had not remitted to the insurance company. At the end of September and October 1996, Respondent's bank account had an ending balance of $1,659.91, and $1,589.82 respectively. At this time he should have been holding $1,894.00 of unremitted funds in trust on behalf of the Kisvers and the insurance company. In February 1997, the end of the month balance of the business account was only $71.19, even though Respondent should have been holding not only the $1,894.00 previously received from the Kisvers but also the $1,347.00 received from Gretchen Smith on February 12, 1997, but not remitted to the insurance company. Respondent had apparently applied the insurance premium payments received from the insureds for his own use and benefit, even though the funds were fiduciary in nature and were held in trust. At all times material to this case, it was the practice of United American Insurance Company to forward monthly statements to the Respondent. If the Respondent had a credit balance, the statement would be accompanied by a check in the amount of the credit balance. If the Respondent had a debit balance, the statement would request that the Respondent make "payment in full by return mail." Although the United American Insurance Company debited the Respondent's account for the portions of the Smith and Kisver funds that were not promptly forwarded to the insurance company, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the United American Insurance Company ever made demand on the Respondent to pay those specific amounts. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had any fraudulent or dishonest intent in connection with his handling of the Smith and Kisver funds discussed above. The Respondent's handling of those funds does, however, demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance as well as a lack of reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent violated Sections 626.611(7), 626.611(8), and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count One and in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the allegations that the Respondent violated Sections 626.611(9) and 626.621(4), Florida Statutes, should be dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence to establish those violations; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a suspension of the Respondent's License for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1998.
