The Issue Whether State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm General Insurance Company ("State Farm") made a material misrepresentation or material error in connection with the rate filing that is the subject of this proceeding. For the purpose of this proceeding, a misrepresentation or error would be material if it resulted in the Department approving "ex-wind" (meaning without windstorm coverage) homeowners insurance rates that are excessive for policyholders whose wind coverage is being non-renewed in Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties.
Findings Of Fact The parties in this proceeding have stipulated to the following findings of fact. Based upon a review of the record in this case, these stipulated facts appear to be accurate and are adopted. In December 1995, State Farm submitted a homeowners insurance rate filing effective April 1, 1996, for new business, and May 1, 1996, for renewal business. With regard to the December 1995, homeowners rate filing, the Department of Insurance approved a 13.8 percent statewide rate increase on February 12, 1996. On February 18, 1996, State Farm formally announced that it would non- renew over three years the wind coverage for 62,000 policies in Dade, Broward, and Pinellas Counties in Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association eligible areas. On February 22, 1996, the Department issued a Notice of Withdrawal of Rate Approval ("Notice") to State Farm with regard to homeowner rates approved for Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice, the Department requested that State Farm submit to the Department actuarial information giving further consideration to the proposed non-renewal of wind coverage to policyholders in Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties. The evidence adduced in this matter consisted of an affidavit of Douglas S. Haseltine, a Department actuary, on behalf of the Department, and of pre-filed testimony of Mark Brannon, a State Farm actuary, and of the rate filing that is the subject of this litigation and of certain actuarial information that had been provided by State Farm to the Department pursuant to the request described in paragraph 5 above. The record in this matter otherwise includes the Request For Formal Proceedings filed in this matter by State Farm, with attachments, which include the Notice, and the stipulation filed by the parties on May 31, 1996. The Haseltine affidavit provides in pertinent part that: "For policyholder whose wind coverage is non-renewed, their remaining premium for coverage ex-wind is not excessive." The Brannon testimony and the attachments to it establish the methodology by which State Farm establishes rates for policyholders in different territories throughout Florida for homeowners insurance, including both homeowners insurance policies that included wind coverage and policies that excluded wind coverage (hereinafter "ex-wind policies"). The Brannon testimony also provided that the rate filing did not reflect the distributional changes that would result from the non-renewal plan that was subsequently announced on February 20, 1996. Mr. Brannon further testified that, in his expert opinion, the failure to point out this non-renewal program did not constitute a material error or material misrepresentation because when the filing was made the decision to initiate these non-renewals had not been made, and because: Even if the non-renewal program had been announced prior to December 15, 1995, it would not have changed the rate request. State Farm's original rate request was a 24 percent increase. The approved rate request included a 40 percent wind or hail exclusion discount. This discount applied to the FWUA eligible areas of Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties. The amount of this discount was not changed by the non-renewal program. Thus, the non-renewal program would not have had a material effect on the filing, even if I had known of the program at the time the filing was made. Mr. Brannon further testified that the rates proposed in the filing are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory, stating: Q: Are the rates you have proposed in this filing excessive or unfairly discriminatory? A: It is my expert opinion that the proposed rates are reasonable and are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the proposed rates for both those policies which exclude windstorm or hail coverage, and the rates for those policies which include wind- storm or hail coverage, meet the statutory requirements and are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory. It appears that there is no misrepresentation or error in the rate filing itself, because the decision that the Department contends should have been disclosed had, as a matter of fact, not yet been made at the time of the filing. Moreover, if State Farm had an obligation to disclose this decision to the Department prior to the Department's approval of the rate filing, any misrepresentation or error flowing from the failure to disclose would not be material to the filing because the data subsequently provided to the Department and other evidence in this matter show that: Policyholders whose wind coverage will be non-renewed will receive a discount that is actuarially sound and commensurate with the reduction in coverage: and hence, Policyholders whose coverage will be renewed "ex-wind" will not be charged rates that are excessive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: (1) finding that there was not a material misrepresentation or material error made by the insurer or contained in the rate filing; and (2) dismissing the Notice. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 18th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire TAYLOR, DAY & RIO Suite 206 311 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1807 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether petitioner should assess a civil money penalty against respondent for failing to provide wage statements to workers or to keep records of any type in violation of Section 450.38(2), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), and Rule 38B- 4.12(1), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact When respondent Herbert A. Dockery originally applied for registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor, on March 19, 1986, he certified that he had read and understood "the Florida Farm Contractor Rules and Regulations. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. On June 25, 1986, Marshall Alexander Carroll and Henry Jefferson Parker, crew chief compliance officers in DLES' employ, discovered that Mr. Dockery was keeping no records of moneys he paid agricultural workers. They told him such recordkeeping was legally required and gave him blank forms, like those that came in as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which he could use, by keeping the originals for himself and giving the workers duplicates. On November 3, 1986, in the course of a scheduled payroll audit, Mr. Parker again asked Mr. Dockery about his recordkeeping, and asked him to produce his social security records, receipts or "anything he had." But Mr. Dockery was unable to produce any records and admitted that he had kept none, saying he had only worked three days 35 as a farm labor contractor in 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Beginning June 1, 1986, Tommy Price worked with Mr. Dockery "a short while" picking and loading watermelons and driving a truck hauling watermelons. Mr. Price worked for the respondent about a month all told but some of that time was in Missouri. During all the time he worked for Mr. Dockery, Mr. Price, who was paid in cash, never received any statements. Mr. Dockery didn't keep track of people's hours and might not even have known, at any one point, who was in the field working for him. The only records he kept were notations of how much he promised to pay different people for truckloads of watermelons.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner fine respondent two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00). DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June, 19B7, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Suite 117, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Herbert A. Dockery Post Office Box 664 Chiefland, Florida 32626
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent possessed a Certificate of Registration as a Farm Labor Contractor, issued under the provisions of Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes. The Certificate number is C-04-387166-D-88-R. It was issued on June 15, 1987, and expired on April 30, 1988. The Department of Labor and Employment Security is the state agency charged with regulating farm labor contractors. At the time Respondent applied for his certificate, on June 4, 1987, he gave as the address for sending documents, P.O. Box 2186, Lake Placid, Florida, 33852. At approximately 9:00 am on June 4, 1987, Larry Coker, a DLES Compliance Officer, observed the Respondent drive his 1980 Ford van up to a convenience store in the town of Ona, on State Road 64, in Hardy County, Florida. At the time, Respondent had thirteen migrant workers in the van with him. Mr. Coker's examination of the van at the time revealed that the seats in the van were not secured to the floor or the frame of the vehicle, and the vehicle was not insured. Mr. Coker attempted to discuss the matter with the Respondent, who had stopped at the store to purchase gas and ice, and to give the workers an opportunity to purchase food for lunch. However, Respondent indicated that he had to get to work, and Mr. Coker followed Respondent to a watermelon field where he and the other workers were to cut watermelons. Though at the hearing, Respondent denied that he was the contractor for the workers in question, at the field, on June 4, 1987, he had indicated that he paid his workers in cash on a daily basis, did not deduct for social security, did not keep names, addresses, or other records, nor did he give a wage statement to the workers. At the hearing, Mr. Crowl admitted making the statement, but contended that he was referring to his routine practice on those occasions when he served as a labor contractor. He unequivocally denies, however, that the workers in his van on June 4, 1987, were his employees. He insists they were the employees of another contractor whose van had broken down beside the road and to whom he was giving a ride, merely to assist them in getting to work. When Mr. Coker discussed the matter with the grower, Randall Roberts, and the crew leader in the field, Mr. McGahey, Roberts indicated that he had just hired Respondent, and that he paid Respondent, who was responsible for paying the workers. Under the circumstances, and considering the relative probabilities of the testimony, it is found that the workers in question were Respondent's employees, and that he did improperly manage them under the terms of Chapter 450, Florida Statutes. It is also found that Mr. Crowl's prior Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration expired in February, 1987. Even though expired, it should have been posted either at the work site or in the van, but was not. Respondent, also, was not authorized to transport workers in his van. As a result, Mr. Coker cited Respondent for failing to register as a contractor, (based on the expired certificate); failing to make, keep or preserve records; failing to provide wage statements to workers; failing to assure the safety of transportation vehicles; failing to obtain prescribed vehicle insurance; and failing to post his certificate of registration as required. The complaint was forwarded to DLES headquarters in Tallahassee. On June 29, 1987, Rod Willis, Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Programs for the DLES, by letter, notified Respondent that the Department was assessing a civil money penalty against him for the above cited six violations in the total amount of $2,450.00. Under the terms of the letter, Mr. Crowl was given twenty-one days to remit the amount of penalty due, or to request a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The letter was sent by certified mail to the address listed by Mr. Crowl in his application for registration, but was subsequently returned undelivered. Mr. Crowl contends that he never received the letter because shortly after the date of the incident here, he left for New York and did not return until November, 1987. Because requirements outlined in the certified letter referenced above were not complied with, on January 25, 1988, the acting director of the DLES entered a Final Order imposing the $2,450.00 fine, and advising Respondent of his right to appeal. No appeal was taken. On January 28, 1988, Mr. Willis, again by letter, notified Respondent of the Division's intention to revoke his Florida Farm Labor Contractor's Certificate of Registration, citing his failure to pay the previously assessed civil money penalty or to request a hearing. Mr. Crowl was again advised of his right to request a hearing on the revocation, and this hearing was the result. At the hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that if Respondent was willing to make arrangements for the payment of the $2,450.00 civil money penalty assessed, he would consider recommending to the Division Director a settlement that might result in allowing Respondent to retain his Contractor's Certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED, that Respondent, Erastious Crowl, be ordered to pay the previously assessed civil money penalty in the amount of $2,450.00, with the condition that if the payment of the penalty is not paid within a time period satisfactory to the Department, his Certificate be revoked. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: MOSES E. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY MONTGOMERY BUILDING, SUITE 117 2562 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 ERASTIOUS CROWL POST OFFICE BOX 2186 LAKE PLACID, FLORIDA 33852 HUGO MENENDEZ, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 206 BERKELEY BUILDING 2590 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 2nd day of February, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil money penalty of $1,000.00 for alleged violations of Sections 450.33(10), and 316.620(3) and (4)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michelle A. Blount, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 14, 1994, a vehicle transporting members of Respondent's farm labor crew was involved in an accident in St. Lucie County, Florida which resulted in the death of one passenger and serious injury to eight others. Respondent was hired by Willie J. Lampkin to transport, supervise, recruit and provide a crew for harvesting and loading fruit. Elva Ochoa was employed by Respondent to recruit, transport, supervise and provide a crew, in connection with Respondent's contract with Willie J. Lampkin. On January 14, 1994, ten farm workers were being transported to the groves of Lampkin at the direction of Ochoa. The vehicle used to transport the workers was a pickup truck with a cab covering the bed. It did not have secured seating, the tires were worn out and unsafe, and it did not have any means of communication between the passengers and the driver. The vehicle was not approved or insured to transport workers, nor did it have an inspection certificate on record with the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Sections 450.33 and 316.620, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. Should Respondent fail to pay fine, Respondent's license as a farm labor contractor should be suspended until the fine is paid in full. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-7. Respondent did not submit proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Michelle A. Blount 531 North Dollings Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Charles W. Ward, Jr., is a co-owner, with other members of his family, of a cattle ranch in south Hendry County known as Ward Farms. Respondent, Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc., is a licensed agriculture dealer engaged in the business of brokering agriculture products in the State of Florida. As an agriculture dealer, respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). One such requirement of the Department is that all dealers post a surety bond with the Department's Division of Licensing and Bond. To this end, respondent has posted a $50,000 surety bond with Fireman's Fund Insurance Company as the surety. In addition to raising livestock, petitioner also grows watermelons on his property. Pursuant to an agreement by the parties, between April 16 and May 15, 1990, respondent harvested and then transported petitioner's watermelons to other destinations outside the state. The parties have stipulated that respondent still owes petitioner $53,980.92 as payment for the watermelons. Respondent has agreed to pay petitioner the above sum of money on or before February 15, 1991, or within fifteen days after the agency's order becomes final, whichever is later. Otherwise, payment shall be made from respondent's bond posted by the surety, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that respondent, a licensed agriculture dealer, is indebted to petitioner in the amount of $53,980.92, and that such debt be satisfied in accordance with the time limitations set forth in this recommended order. Otherwise, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company shall be obligated to pay over to the Department the full amount of the bond, or $50,000. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles W. Ward, Jr. Star Route, Box 72 LaBelle, Florida 33440 Patricia Maddox Harper 4253 Kingston Pike Knoxville, Tennessee 37919 Barbara J. Kennedy, Esquire Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Post Office Box 193136 San Francisco, California 94119-3136 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Should the Department of Insurance (now known as the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation) (Department) approve three insurance endorsement forms that State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) filed on November 15, 2001?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: State Farm is a domestic insurance company that the Department has licensed to transact property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate insurers doing business in the State of Florida. State Farm offers five types of homeowners' policies that have been approved for use in Florida, an FP-7921 (HO1), FP-7923 (HO3), FP-7924 (HO4), FP-7925 ( HO5-Extra), and FP-2926 (HO6). The HO1 is a "named perils" policy and provides coverage only for those perils specifically named in the policy. This policy is not offered in other states, and in Florida accounts for less than one percent of all of all policies in force. The HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies are known as "open perils" policies providing coverage for all risks unless specifically excluded by the policy. Although similar to HO3, the HO5 policy provides somewhat broader coverage with respect to settlement provisions. The HO6 policy is specifically geared toward condominium owners and the HO4 policy is the policy form that applies to renters. Of all the policies offered in Florida, the HO3 is the most widely used policy form and will be quoted from and used as the exemplar in this Recommended Order. The HO3 policy contains introductory provisions entitled "Declarations" and "Definitions," and is then divided into two coverage sections, Sections I and II. Section I refers to property coverage and with Section II referring to liability coverage. Section I is divided into a number of subcategories including the following: Coverage A (Dwelling), Coverage B (Personal Property), Section C (Loss of Use), Additional Coverage, Losses Insured, Losses Not Insured, and Conditions. Following the Section II provisions there are additional sections entitled "Section I and II-Conditions" and a section entitled "Optional Provisions." The HO3 policy provides coverage under Coverage A (Dwelling) for all risks of loss unless it is a "loss not insured." As stated in the policy: "We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) However, coverage for personal property (Coverage B) does not provide such "open perils" coverage. Rather, it provides coverage only for 16 named perils, contains a number of limitations on personal property that it does cover, and reflects a number of personal property items that it does not cover. All of State Farm's homeowners' policies currently provide some limited coverage relating to mold. Although the policies exclude mold as a covered peril, they provide some limited coverage for mold-related losses resulting from covered perils, such as a covered water loss that causes mold-related damage. Historically, there have been exclusions in property insurance for ordinance of law, earth movement, flood, war, the neglect of the insured, and nuclear hazard. Mold that resulted from a covered peril has historically not been excluded. On November 15, 2001, State Farm filed three proposed endorsement forms (Fungus (Including Mold) Exclusion Endorsement): (1) FE-5397 for use with HO1 policies; (2) FE- 5398, for use with HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies; and (3) FE-5399 for use with HO4 policies. The homeowners' policies, which the endorsements were to apply, had been previously approved by, and were on file with the Department, in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The goal of the endorsements was to eliminate mold coverage from State Farm's existing homeowners policies in Florida. State Farm's current rates do not include the cost of providing the mold coverage that the endorsements seek to exclude. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that State Farm would need to substantially raise its rates to include those costs. Before filing the mold-exclusion endorsements, State Farm entered into discussions with the Department about giving policyholders the choice of buying back some of the to-be- excluded mold coverage through buy-back endorsements (buy- backs). State Farm filed its buy-backs in June 2002, after failing to work out a solution with the Department that would have allowed for their approval. Although the Department disapproved the buy-backs in December 2002, State Farm has committed itself to provide policyholders with the optional buy-backs, if the exclusions are approved. If the exclusion endorsements are approved along with the buy-back provisions, any cost increase would be restricted to those policyholders who choose to purchase mold coverage through a buy-back. State Farm's filings of mold-exclusion endorsements are consistent with a nationwide effort by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, an affiliate of State Farm to eliminate mold coverage in homeowners policies. In Florida, State Farm's endorsements accomplish the complete elimination of mold coverage chiefly through the addition of a new exclusion for fungus, including mold, within "SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements, when coupled with the underlying policy, state in relevant part as follows: 2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as result of any combination of these: * * * g. Fungus. (Emphasis in the original.) (The text of the endorsement is underlined.) The endorsements delete all references to the term mold found in SECTION 1 - LOSSES INSURED. (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements define fungus as follows: "fungus" means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts produced or released by fungi. (Emphasis furnished.) This total exclusion of mold coverage, using language clearly encompassing all manner of causation and occurrence, replaces the mold exclusions in the existing policies that do not use such broad language. The difference between the post- and pre-endorsement policies can be seen from comparing the above-quoted endorsement as incorporated into HO3 policy on the one hand, with the mold exclusions as they currently exist in the HO3 policy on the other hand. While the endorsements totally exclude coverage for fungus (mold), and deny payment for mold damage historically provided to insureds, the endorsements are not ambiguous, notwithstanding the testimony offered by the Department to the contrary, which lacks credibility. The endorsements do not add coverage. Instead, the endorsements eliminate coverage for mold that currently exists. However, this fact alone does not render the endorsements inconsistent, misleading, or deceptive when the endorsements are read in their entirety along with the remaining provisions of the policies. State Farm's endorsements were initially deemed approved pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, which provides that an endorsement filed with the Department is deemed approved if it is not approved or disapproved within 30 days, or 45 days if there has been an extension, of its filing.. By letter dated June 28, 2002, the Department withdrew its deemed approval of the three endorsements and notified State Farm of its basis for disapproval. The Department's original disapproval letter cites three bases for disapproval. The Department asserts that State Farm's endorsements: (1) contain ambiguities in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; (2) deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract, also in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and (3) deny policyholders the right to obtain "comprehensive coverage" as that term is used in Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is part of the policyholders' bill of rights. On December 4, 2002, the Department moved for leave to amend its original disapproval letter. The motion was granted. The Department's amended disapproval letter, which the Department back-dated to June 28, 2002, reiterates the previously alleged bases for disapproval and cites two additional bases for disapproval: (1) the alleged violation of Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, itself constitutes a violation of Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) the endorsements, because they exclude coverage that "through custom and usage has become a standard or uniform provision" in Florida, violate Section 627.412(2), Florida Statutes. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the provision for mold coverage has, through custom and usage, become a standard or uniform provision. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that there is a "natural association between mold and water." In the fall of 2001, the Department began receiving a large influx of filings seeking to exclude or severely limit coverage for mold. Including State Farm's filing, the Department received between 400 and 450 filings representing between 200 and 250 insurers primarily between October 1, 2001, through the end of 2002. In the face of the inordinate number of filings, the Department sought input from all sectors of the public. The Department met with insurers and other interested persons and held four public forums around the state to determine the impact the filings would have on insurance contracts, the industry, and the market place. In the mean time, the Department routinely sought waivers from the insurers of the statutory review period set forth in Section 627.410(2), Florida Statutes, and additionally requested that insurers withdraw their filings. Insurers were advised by the Department that failure to waive the statutory review period or to withdraw their filings would result in the filing being disapproved. The Department initially approved the endorsements to limit or exclude mold coverage of three insurers: USAA, Maryland Casualty, and American Strategic. However, the Department withdrew its approval for each of these companies in letters dated September 18, 2002. The Department asserts that it does not have a policy to disapprove filings simply because they discuss mold or seek to limit or exclude coverage for claims involving mold damage. The Department admits that it is required to examine all filings based upon the statutory scheme. However, the Department has not approved a single one of the over 450 filings, regardless of the language or structure of the endorsements. The simple fact is that the Department had a policy from the fall of 2001 through December 16, 2002, imposing a moratorium on the exclusion or limitation of mold coverage. The Department altered that policy on December 17, 2002, when it entered into a settlement with Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), wherein Farm Bureau's endorsement was approved allowing a reduction in mold coverage from policy limits to a sub-limit of $10,000.00 per occurrence, $20,000.00 annual aggregate. The Department's previous position that policies offered to Florida's consumers should not be significantly reduced was abandoned at that time. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the $10,000.00 coverage was a reasonable amount of coverage for the vast majority of claims for mold damage. The endorsements seek to limit or exclude coverage for mold that has existed for decades. There is scant Florida experience to support the need for limitations or exclusions on mold coverage. Even so, the Department cannot disapprove endorsement forms without authority to do so. There is no statutory authority mandating mold coverage to the extent of policy limits or otherwise in order for policyholders to have comprehensive coverage. Beginning September 15, 2001, the Department did not approve a single mold endorsement seeking to exclude or limit coverage for mold as a resulting loss from a covered peril until December 17, 2002, when it approved a filing by Farm Bureau as a part of a settlement of an administrative proceeding in which the parties were awaiting ruling after a final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the endorsements filed with the Department by State Farm on November 15, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 5th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Ryan Reetz, Esquire Jim Toplin, Esquire Amie Riggle, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire State Farm Florida Insurance Company 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 344 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact On September 17, 1987, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to two felonies: possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. The plea was entered in Case No. 86-342-CF, in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Florida, and the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offenses. In the Court's judgment of guilt, it was found to the Court's satisfaction that the Petitioner was not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that RICHARD EPPS should suffer the penalty authorized by law. As a result of the Court's findings, the Petitioner, RICHARD EPPS, was sentenced to three years probation. He was ordered to serve five months in the county jail as a condition of that probation. On January 25, 1988, the Petitioner completed an application for a Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration. The purpose of the application was to obtain a new certificate as he was no longer eligible for a renewal of his prior certificate. On March 16, 1988, the Respondent notified the Petitioner of its intent to refuse to issue the certificate of registration. The reasons given were: 1) The U.S. Department of Labor recommended against it due to the felony convictions. 2) By rule, the Respondent is required to cooperate with any federal agency. 3) Once a certificate is obtained, each contractor must comply with all applicable statutes, rules, and regulations for the protection or benefit of labor. The Petitioner has used marijuana in the past. He has never used it during working hours, and his work crew was unaware that he has ever used marijuana. He has never allowed drugs in the work place and he no longer uses marijuana. The Petitioner has never used cocaine or other illegal drugs, except for the marijuana. The Petitioner's arrest on November 6, 1986, for the possession of cocaine and marijuana was a result of his location in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he went to his marijuana supplier's home to purchase marijuana for his personal use, the house was raided by the Arcadia Police Department. Originally, all of the people within the house where individually charged with possession of all of the drugs stored there. The Petitioner's plea of nolo contendere was a result of a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner is aware that his former drug activity was criminal in nature, and he has stopped his marijuana use with the help of voluntary counseling, his family, the fact that he is on probation, and the fact that his habit got him into serious trouble. The Petitioner will not endanger the safety of a work crew as a result of his past use of marijuana. There is no evidence that the safety of the work crew was ever endangered as a result of the Petitioner's past habit or that his presence in the fields will be harmful to farm workers. The Petitioner has never engaged in transporting farm workers beyond state lines. His crew leader activities are confined to less than twenty workers and he works for one farmer, Mr. Bobby Williams in Arcadia, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered farm labor contractor with social security number 264-86-0916 and certificate number 4-3266-K 86 I. He is part owner of Highlands Harvest Corporation and is registered with Petitioner as the Corporation's representative. Respondent signs payroll checks for Highlands Harvest, hires and fires its workers, and was referred to as the "bossman" by his brothers, Stanley and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Zephrin Augustine. On or about February 18, 1987, and March 2, 1987, Respondent recruited and hired farm workers for a fee, and directed, controlled and supervised their work as well as that of farm labor contractors who were not registered with Petitioner. Specifically, he hired and supervised Ortland Williams and Stanley Hawthorne as farm labor contractors, neither of whom had current and valid certificates of registration at the time. Respondent contracted with Ortland Williams and Stanley Hawthorne, who were acting as farm labor contractors, for the employment of farmworkers in February and March, 1987 before said contractors displayed to him a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. Respondent's actions were taken on behalf of Highlands Harvest Corporation for growers in Highlands County, Florida. However, as registered agent of the Corporation and based upon his role as the principal managing partner of the Corporation, Respondent is responsible for these actions. Therefore, his argument that the Corporation, not he, should be held responsible is rejected. Ortland Williams and Stanley Hawthorne functioned as "goat drivers," as the term is used in the industry, at all times material hereto. Specifically, they gave directions to, and controlled the daily work of up to 15 farm workers under their direct supervision. They received a fee based upon the number of boxes picked each day by their crew. Williams transported such workers to the groves in February, 1987, and Stanley Hawthorne was responsible for recruiting and hiring the workers, according to a statement, he gave to Larry Coker, compliance officer, on March 2, 1987. As such, Williams and Stanley Hawthorne were acting as farm labor contractors. An administrative penalty of $1000 has previously been assessed against Respondent for violating Section 450.35, Florida Statutes, following an administrative hearing in DOAH Case Number 87-1644.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty of $2000.00 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3636 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 6, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant to this case. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Ruling on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Rejected in Finding of Fact 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building, Suite 117 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire 150 North Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2590 Executive Center Circle East 206 Berkeley Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East 131 Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2151
Findings Of Fact C & W Sales, Inc., was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products under license No. 1367 and was so licensed at all times here relevant. At the time of the incorporation of C & W Sales, Inc., Henry T. Watson was listed as an officer (President) and director of the company. The company was run by Philip A. Roberts, the brother-in-law of Watson. Roberts applied on behalf of C & W Sales, Inc., to FFB for an agriculture bond in the amount of $20,000 for the period 5/19/79 until 5/19/80 (Exhibit 1) . As a condition for issuing this bond FFB required and obtained a general agreement of indemnity from Roberts and Watson and their wives (Exhibit 2) which was executed on 2 May 1979. In addition to agreeing to save Florida Farm Bureau harmless from all claims arising out of the bond paragraph 14 provided: That this indemnity is continuing and will apply to any and all bonds, as provided in the opening paragraph of this Agreement which the Company may have executed or procured the execution of from time to time, and over an indefinite period of years; however, any Indemnitor may by written notice to the Company at its Home Office, Gainesville, Florida disavow his liability as to bond(s) which may be executed by the Company subsequent to fifteen days after receipt by the Company of such notice. Agriculture bond (Exhibit 4) was issued on 5/19/79 for one year and upon expiration on 5/19/80 the bond was renewed for an additional period of one year (Exhibit 5). Subsequent to the expiration of the 1979-80 bond (Exhibit 4) and reissuance of the 1980-81 bond (Exhibit 5) but within the prescribed time for submitting a claim against the agriculture dealer and his bond, John T. Brantley, Jr., filed a claim against C & W Sales in the amount of $8,317.05 for payment owed on a transaction which occurred during the 1979-80 period. When C & W Sales failed to pay or respond to the Commissioner of Agriculture's demands for payment, claim was made on the 1979-80 bond and FFB remitted to the Commissioner of Agriculture a check for the Brantley claim (Exhibit 6). Around February 1980 Watson became disenchanted with Roberts' running of C & W Sales, Inc. and wanted out. He told Roberts to get someone to buy his (Watson) stock and to get his name out of the company. Roberts said he would. Watson never advised FFB that he would no longer be an indemnitor under the bond. During the period covered by the bond year beginning 5/19/80 claims against C & W Sales, Inc., were submitted to the Commissioner of Agriculture by Henry L. Watson in the amount of $32,326.50; Hugh D. Martin in the amount of $1,932.80; Jesse J. Wilson in the amount of $1,490.00; John T. Brantley, Jr., in the amount of $15,024.40; and Philip Dean and Willie Bass in the amount of $4,919.13, for a total of $55,692.83. The Commissioner of Agriculture notified C & W Sales of these claims and advised them of the opportunity to contest the validity of the claims. No response was received from C & W Sales and Roberts appears to have departed the area to parts unknown. An order demanding payment was submitted to C & W Sales and when payment of these claims was not made, FFB, as surety on the bond, was notified by the department of its surety on the bond, was notified by the department of its obligation under the bond and a demand for payment of $20,000 to the department was made. There is no dispute regarding the accuracy or validly of the claims against C & W Sales contained in Finding 7 above. Nor does FFB contest its liability under the agriculture bond it issued for the 1980-81 bond year. However, FFB claimed an equitable setoff for the percentage of the $20,000 that would go to Watson. This setoff is claimed by virtue of Watson's indemnity agreement. By the stipulation the parties have agreed that the FFB is entitled to the pro rata share of the $20,000 to Watson.
