Findings Of Fact Respondent is Santos Samarrippas, Sr., a farm labor contractor and holder of a certificate of registration issued by Petitioner at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Respondent's current certificate of registration was issued April 26, 1988. Respondent has renewed his certificate of registration on an annual basis since 1984. As of January 9, 1989, Respondent was indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $5,195.27. This sum represents unpaid unemployment compensation taxes, along with interest and penalties for nonpayment from 1984 to through 1988. In April of 1985, Respondent was informed of his liability for unpaid unemployment compensation taxes in 1984. He completed, after consultation with Petitioner's representative, requisite forms for tax reporting purposes, but neglected to pay the delinquent taxes. Respondent continued his failure to completely pay the required taxes in 1986 and 1987. He made only "pittance" payments. In 1988, Respondent and Petitioner's representative agreed upon a payment plan whereby Respondent agreed to pay the delinquent taxes, penalties and interest at a rate of $100 per week until the total amount owed by him was paid. Respondent made those payments from February 21, 1988 until April 5, 1988. He then ceased to make further payments. The proof establishes that Respondent, after subtraction of the minor payments he made, owed Petitioner a total sum for delinquent taxes, interest, and filing fees for each of the following years in the amounts shown: AMOUNT YEAR $2039 1984 $ 504 1985 $1468.09 1986 $1183.56 1988 Respondent made two timely quarterly tax reports to Petitioner out of a total of 14 required in the period 1984-88, but never made timely payments of the amounts of unemployment compensation taxes owed to Petitioner Also, Respondent never made full payments of the amount of taxes owed. As a result of Respondent's nonpayment of unemployment compensation taxes, Petitioner notified Respondent by letter dated November 17, 1988, of intent to revoke Respondent's Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration for his failure to comply with applicable rules of the United States or the State of Florida relating to unemployment compensation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 8th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Joel Chawk, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8209 Lakeland, Florida 33802-8209 Santos Samarrippas, Sr. 3501 Avenue K Northwest Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Suite 117 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Hugo Menendez, Secretary 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, Esquire 131 Montgomery Building 2563 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before the contractor displayed a current certificate of registration in violation of Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of relevant facts are determined: Respondent, David Torres, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 31, 1991 Larry Coker, during a routine grove inspection, observed a crew of farm workers picking fruit in the Happy Acres Grove, in Hardee County, under the supervision of Respondent. Respondent utilized Billy Handford and Antonio Torres to transport the farm workers to the grove. Mr. Handford was employed to recruit and transport farm workers for a fee to be paid by Respondent. Billy Handford did not have a Florida FLC license which authorized him to engage in this occupation. On January 31, 1991, Billy Handford recruited and transported six farm workers from the Bartow area to the Happy Acres grove in Hardee County. Respondent was cited for three violations of Chapter 450, on January 31, 1991.
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 Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $500 (dollars) and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANCISCO R. RIVERA, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. SUITE 307, HARTMAN BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0658 DAVID TORRES, POST OFFICE BOX 842 HAINES CITY, FL 33844 FRANK SCRUGGS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 303 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152 STEPHEN BARRON, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 307 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152
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 Respondent is currently a registered farm labor contractor with Social Security Number 248-92-9496 and certificate number 4-92-9496-G87R. On or about February 11, 1986, Respondent acted as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration which was in full force and effect, and in her possession. While acting as a farm labor contractor in February, 1986, she failed to display prominently at the site where work was to be performed, and also failed to display on all vehicles she used to transport employees, a written statement in the workers' language showing the rate of compensation she received from the grower, and the rate of compensation she was paying her employees. In connection therewith, Respondent also failed to submit evidence to Petitioner that each vehicle she used to transport employees complied with the requirements of Chapters 316 or 320, Florida Statutes, prior to transporting farmworkers, or in lieu thereof, bore a valid inspection sticker showing the vehicle had passed the inspection in the state in which it was registered. She also failed to submit proof that she had taken out a policy of insurance to insure against liability for damage to persons or property arising out of the operation or ownership of a vehicle she used in February, 1986, to transport workers in connection with her acting as a farm labor contractor. Respondent failed to prominently display a copy of her application for a certificate of registration at the site where work was being performed in February, 1986 and also on all vehicles she used to transport employees. Prior to contracting for the employment of farmworkers, Respondent did not insure that the farm labor contractor displayed to her a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty of $2600.00 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD 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 8th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary L. White 13 Garvey Lane Frostproof, Florida 33843 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2151
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, Randolph Roundtree (Roundtree), held a Florida farm labor contractor certificate of registration. By complaint filed on behalf of thirteen seasonal agricultural workers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (District Court), hearing Case No. 84-8235-CIV-JAG, damages were sought against Roundtree for violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA) under the provisions of 28 USC Sections 1331 and 1337. On November 20, 1985, an order by default was entered against Roundtree which found that he had intentionally violated the MSAWPA in that he had: Failed to post in a conspicuous place at the work site a notice setting forth the rights and protections afforded the workers ... Failed to keep payroll records for each weekly pay period showing as to each Plaintiff his total earnings, all withholding from earnings, net earnings, hours worked, wages per hour, the number of units of work performed and the rate per unit ... Failed to provide each Plaintiff at the end of each weekly pay period with a statement of all sums paid to them on account of the labor of each Plaintiff, an itemized statement of the amount withheld from such payments and the purpose for each withholding * * * Failed to pay the Plaintiffs their wages when due Violated, without justification, the terms of the working agreement made with the Plaintiffs... On November 20, 1985, a final judgment in the sum of 3,000 per plaintiff was entered against Roundtree, and that judgment remains unsatisfied. By certified letter dated April 21, 1987, Petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department), advised Roundtree that his failure to comply with the MSAWPA, as demonstrated by the District Court action, likewise constituted a violation of the provisions of Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and that the Department intended to revoke his certificate of registration. Roundtree filed a timely request for formal hearing. At hearing, the proof established that, as to the plaintiffs in the District Court action, Roundtree violated the provisions of Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, by: Failing to display prominently at the site where the work was performed by the farmworkers, and in all vehicles used by him for the transportation of farmworkers, a copy of his application for a certificate of registration, and a written statement showing the rate of compensation he received from the grower and the rate of compensation he was paying the farmworkers. Failing to keep a payroll slip for each weekly pay period showing as to each farmworker his total earnings, all withholdings from earnings, net earnings, hours worked, wages per hour, number of units of work performed, and the rate per unit. Failing to provide each farmworker at the end of each weekly pay period with a statement of all sums paid to them on account of labor of each worker, and an itemized statement of the amount withheld from such payments and the proofs for each withholding. Failing to pay the farmworkers their wages when due. Violating, without justification, the terms of the working agreement he made with the farmworkers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Roundtree's Florida farm labor contractor certificate of registration be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Montgomery Building, Suite 117 2562 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Randolph Roundtree Post Office Box 118 South Bay, Florida 33493 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner properly secured the payment of workers' compensation benefits for employees by securing proper workers' compensation insurance coverage, as delineated by Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2004) and, if not, what if any penalty for such failure is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this proceeding is a Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry. Its business domicile is Destin, Florida, and the job site at issue was in the town of Cinco Bayou, Florida. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, specifically Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2004), requiring employers to secure the payment of compensation benefits for employees in the event they have an on- the-job injury. In this proceeding the Respondent has charged that the Petitioner failed to abide by the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, regarding two subcontractors, Scott Williams, d/b/a Vinyl Masters, LLC, (Williams) domiciled in Alburn, Alabama, and J & L Concrete a/k/a Moses Construction, Inc., (J & L) of Liliburn, Georgia. There is no dispute that the Petitioner did not have its own workers' compensation insurance policy as of February 10, 2005. The most recent policy ended July 2, 2003. The Petitioner thus did not itself secure payment of workers' compensation on behalf of Williams or J & L during the period of proposed penalty assessment, September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005. The Petitioner was the general contractor engaged to perform construction operations at 1028 Anniston Court, Cinco Bayou, Florida (job site), on February 10, 2005, the date of the investigator's inspection visit and investigation. The Petitioner was sub-contracting certain vinyl siding work at that job site to Williams, a subcontractor. The Respondent's investigator, Ralph Taylor, conducted his investigation at the job site and observed four workers installing vinyl siding. Upon investigation he determined that the four workers were employed by Williams in this effort and identified the workers as Juan Oriz, Noe Mendieta, Jose Palma, and Jose Aboyte. Mr. Taylor's investigation revealed that Williams did not have a current workers' compensation exemption applicable to Florida law nor did he have a Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. He determined this by examination of the Respondent's data base, the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS). Williams informed Mr. Taylor, however, that he had obtained a policy of workers' compensation insurance through the Cruchfield Insurance Agency of Birmingham, Alabama. A facsimile of the declaration page from a workers' compensation insurance policy issued by Alabama Home Builders Self Insurance Fund to Vinyl Masters, LLC (Williams) was transmitted to Mr. Taylor by a representative of the Cruchfield Insurance Agency of Birmingham. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida policy or endorsement for such employees which employs Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440 as well as the Florida Insurance Code. See § 440.10(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2004). Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.019(2) requires that in order for an employer to comply with Sections 440.10(1)(g) and 440(38)(7), Florida Statutes, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove the fact of workers' compensation coverage for employees engaged in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. The insurance policy held by Williams did not satisfy the standard. First, the Alabama Home Builders self-insurance fund is not authorized to write insurance in Florida. Secondly, the premium was based on a rate that was less than the Florida premium rate. The policy declaration page shows that Alabama Home Builders insured Vinyl Master effective January 1, 2005, for carpentry operations under class code 5645 at a premium of $20.58 per $100 of payroll. The premium rate using Florida rates for that same class code should have been $38.40 for $100 of payroll. Thus Vinyl Masters/Williams was not in compliance with the coverage law requirements at that job site at the time of the investigation on February 10, 2005. Employers employing on job sites in Florida are required to keep business records that enable the Respondent to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. § 440.107(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). Investigator Taylor issued a request for production of business records to Williams on February 10, 2005. That same date the Respondent issued a request for production of business records to the Petitioner. Each request asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll, payments to each subcontractor, and proof of insurance. Williams produced no records. The Petitioner produced no records related to employment of Williams or Vinyl Masters. When an employer fails to provide requested business records which the statutes requires it to maintain and to make available to the Respondent Agency, the Respondent is authorized to impute that employer's payroll using "the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5." § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. (2004). The statewide average weekly wage for the four quarters beginning June 30, 2004, was $651.38. The Respondent thus could have imputed payroll for the entire three-year period for which it requested business records which were not produced. The Respondent imputed payroll however, for a lesser period, January 11, through February 10, 2005. This corresponds to the one-month period that the four Williams workers had told Investigator Taylor that they had worked "in the area." The amount that the Petitioner would have paid in premium under Section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes (2004), based on payroll imputed from the statewide average weekly wage of $651.38 for work under class code 5651, during the period January 11, through February 10, 2005, multiplied by the statutory multiplier factor of 1.5, yields a penalty amount of $5,629.52. In any event, Williams did not properly secure the payment of compensation for Williams or the four workers in question, named above. Under Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, (2004), the Petitioner could became the "statutory employer" of Williams and its workers if Williams, the subcontractor, had not secured the payment of workers' compensation. The credible evidence at hearing reveals, however, that Williams has already entered into a payment agreement with the Respondent to pay the subject penalty, referenced above, concerning Williams' failure to have "Florida-complaint" workers' compensation coverage properly secured for Florida workers and Florida operations. Additionally, the testimony of Mr. Grubbs, the manager for the Petitioner (which is accepted), reveals that the four workers in question only worked three days at most. Moreover, their hourly wage rate was only $15.00 per hour. Therefore, although the Petitioner supplied no business records in advance to the investigator regarding the subcontractor, Williams, which might allow the Respondent to impute payroll based on average weekly wage for calculation for a penalty under the applicable statutory authority; in this de novo proceeding context, the Petitioner did supply sworn testimony and records showing the actual wage rate and time worked for these employees, thus obviating use of the average weekly wage and imputed payroll for penalty calculation. Additionally, the Petitioner showed, through the testimony of Mr. Grubbs, that indeed the Petitioner had a certificate of insurance showing, to the best of Petitioner's knowledge at the time, that Williams had secured the payment of workers' compensation through the Alabama insurance carrier, named above, in accordance with accepted industry practice. Thus the Petitioner was under a good faith, reasonable belief that this subcontractor, Williams, had secured proper payment of workers' compensation coverage at the time the Petitioner engaged Williams as a subcontractor on the job-site in question. In summary, in view of these facts the assessment of penalty to the Petitioner is incorrect. The Investigator, Mr. Taylor's, testimony itself shows that had he known that the workers only worked for three days, the penalty should only be based upon that amount of work or hours applied to the penalty calculation formula. Because Williams has undertaken and agreed to pay the penalty in question for not properly securing workers' compensation coverage, no penalty is justifiably assessed against the Petitioner. If that were done the Respondent, in effect, would be treating both Williams and the Petitioner as employers of the same employees simultaneously, for the same job and occurrence. No evidence justifying this, given the relevant statutory scheme and case law, has been adduced. Subcontractor J & L Concrete In response to the Respondent's request for business records from the Petitioner concerning subcontractor J & L Concrete, the Petitioner produced ledgers showing payments to J & L. The Petitioner contracted with J & L during the period September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005. During that period it paid J & L $155,413.98 for labor under class code 5403. During this period of time J & L had a workers' compensation policy covering its employees issued by Auto Owners Insurance Company of Lansing, Michigan (Auto Owners). The testimony of Maureen Haxton, a senior underwriter in the workers' compensation underwriting department of Auto Owners, confirmed that a policy endorsement was issued which took effect on July 13, 2004. That endorsement listed the State of Georgia in item 3A but did not list the State of Florida in item 3A. Auto Owners later issued a policy endorsement on May 10, 2005, that added Florida to item 3A, effective on March 18, 2005. The later endorsement issued by Auto Owners was not effective on February 10, 2005, when the SWO was issued to the Petitioner. The penalty sought to be assessed against the Petitioner for work attributable to J & L, based upon Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2004), is based on remuneration paid by the Petitioner to J & L for work under class code 5403 for period September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005. Keith Cowart is an authorized insurance agent for Auto Owners Insurance Company. His agency is located in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He originally issued a workers' compensation policy to J & L in July of 2002 and a current policy is in effect for J & L to and including July 2006 and was in effect during the penalty assessment period. Mr. Cowart testified that had an employee in Florida suffered an injury on or before February 10, 2005, that the employee would have received workers' compensation benefits from Auto Owners and that employees injured in Florida would have received the level of benefits required by Florida law. Cowart indicated in his testimony that there are annual audits of J & L, under their contractual arrangement, by Auto Owners, to determine how much of its payroll is attributable to work conducted in Florida for workers' compensation insurance premium purposes. The J & L payroll is audited annually and J & L is billed a premium rate based upon Florida work and payroll and premium rates for workers' compensation insurance attributable to work done by its employees in the State of Florida. J & L is thus charged a higher premium for employees working in Florida and is obligated to pay that Florida premium rate. J & L previously paid $40,000.00 in payroll for Florida workers on Florida jobs and was billed Florida premium rates for workers' compensation coverage based upon that payroll after an annual audit. It was projected for the year 2005-2006 J & L would owe premiums for at least $70,000.00 of workers' compensation payroll in Florida and had paid premiums due for workers' compensation coverage in the past for Florida job workers based upon Florida premium rates, according to Mr. Cowart. In summary, the evidence, including Mr. Cowart's sworn testimony, establishes that J & L had a workers' compensation policy coverage in effect during the period of alleged non- compliance. Mr. Cowart opined that injured Florida employees during that period of time would have received the benefits authorized by Florida law. He established that J & L was charged Florida premium rates, and pursuant to the audit being conducted in July 2005, would be charged Florida premium rates for workers, jobs performed, and payroll attributable to Florida during the period of time in question in this case. Although the endorsement issued by Auto Owners showing Florida as a listed state in "item 3A," for purposes of the rule cited below, did not take effect until after March 18, 2005, the persuasive evidence, in the form of Mr. Cowart's testimony, shows that J & L had secured workers' compensation coverage which paid Florida- mandated benefits at Florida premium rates for workers at Florida jobs at times pertinent to the SWO. Moreover, the Petitioner required the sub-contractor J & L to provide evidence of workers' compensation coverage and relied on that evidence reasonably and in good faith. It changed its position to its detriment by continuing to work on the job without securing its own appropriate coverage.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent Agency rescinding Stop Work Order number 05-0721-1A issued to the Petitioner on February 10, 2005, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to the Petitioner on March 30, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael William Mead, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1329 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 David C. Hawkins, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Petitioner proved the elements necessary to demonstrate that she was subject to an unlawful employment practice as a result of Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, maintaining a sexually-hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau (BCFB or Respondent). She worked for the BCFB from December 15, 2006 until January 1, 2012. The BCFB is an organization created to work for and provide support to farmers in Bradford County. The BCFB has its office in Starke, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, James Gaskins was the President of the BCFB Board of Directors. He served in that capacity as an unpaid volunteer. The alleged actions of Mr. Gaskins towards the Petitioner form the basis for her claim of employment discrimination. Section 760.10(1), provides that: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect any individual?s status as an employee, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. Section 760.02(7) defines "employer" as follows: „Employer? means any person employing 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person. The threshold issue in this proceeding is whether the BCFB had the requisite number of employees to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as Petitioner?s “employer.” If Petitioner fails in her proof of that issue, any discussion of acts that may have constituted sexual harassment or resulted in the creation of a sexually- hostile work environment become superfluous and unnecessary. Facts Regarding the BCFB as an “Employer” At all times relevant to this proceeding, the BCFB had two paid employees. Ms. Griffith was the office manager and bookkeeper. Ms. Linzy was a part-time secretary and receptionist, although she worked full-time when Ms. Griffith was out. Ms. Linzy retired in October, 2012. In addition to the foregoing employees, the BCFB has a five-member board of directors. Although Mr. Gaskins, who was a member of the Board, served as an unpaid volunteer, there was no evidence as to whether the remaining members were paid for their services. For purposes of this Recommended Order, it will be presumed that they were. Based solely on the number of its employees, BCFB is not an “employer” as defined by section 760.10. Therefore, in order to prove the threshold element of her claim for relief, Petitioner must establish that employees of other entities should be imputed to the BCFB due to integrated activities or common control of BCFB?s operations or employees. Petitioner presented evidence of the relationship between the BCFB, the Florida Farm Bureau, and the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company (FFBIC) to establish the requisite integration or common control necessary to impute their employees to the BCFB. Florida Farm Bureau The Florida Farm Bureau has more than 15 employees. The Florida Farm Bureau has a mission similar to that of the BCFB of providing goods, services, and other assistance to farmers, though on a state-wide basis. Each county in Florida has an independent county farm bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has no common corporate identity with the BCFB. The BCFB is incorporated as a legal entity unto itself. The Florida Farm Bureau and the BCFB have no common officers, directors, or employees. The Florida Farm Bureau does not share or comingle bank accounts with the BCFB. The BCFB maintains its own finances, and has a bank account with the Capital City Bank Group. The Florida Farm Bureau has no operational control over the BCFB. The BCFB Board of Directors makes all employment decisions for the BCFB, has exclusive authority to hire and fire employees of the BCFB, and has exclusive control over the pay and the terms and conditions of BCFB employees. Employees of the BCFB are paid by the BCFB, and not by the Florida Farm Bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has the telephone numbers of all of the county farm bureaus, and can transfer calls received by the Florida Farm Bureau to any of the county farm bureaus. Other than that, as stated by Ms. Linzy, the county farm bureaus “are all on their own.” Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company The Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company is affiliated with the Florida Farm Bureau. The nature and extent of the relationship between those entities was not established. The relationship between those two entities does not affect their relationship, or lack thereof, with the BCFB. Petitioner introduced no evidence as to the FFBIC?s total number of employees. The FFBIC has no common officers or directors with the BCFB, nor do they share or comingle bank accounts. Brent Huber and Travis McAllister are insurance agents authorized to transact business on behalf of the FFBIC. They are self-employed independent contractors. Mr. Huber does business as “Brent Huber, Inc.” Neither Mr. Huber nor Mr. McAllister is an employee of the FFBIC. Mr. Huber is not employed by the BCFB, and does not perform duties on behalf of the BCFB. The evidence suggests that Mr. McAllister?s status, vis-à-vis the BCFB, is the same as that of Mr. Huber. Local FFBIC agents are selected by the FFBIC. Given the close relationship with local farmers/customers, the FFBIC selection of a local agent must be ratified by the county farm bureau in the county in which the agent is to transact business. Once ratified, an FFBIC agent cannot be terminated by the county farm bureaus. Mr. Huber and Mr. McAllister, having been appointed to transact business in Bradford County as agents of the FFBIC, maintain an office at the BCFB office in Starke. There being only four persons in the office, the relationship among them was friendly and informal. Mr. Huber described the group as “tight-knit” and “like a family.” Mr. Huber had no supervisory control over Petitioner or her work schedule. Due to the small size of the BCFB office, and limited number of persons to staff the office, Ms. Griffith?s absences would cause problems for the office as a whole. However, Mr. Huber never evaluated Ms. Griffith?s performance and never disciplined Ms. Griffith. The FFBIC provided sexual harassment, employment discrimination, workers? compensation, and minimum wage informational signs that were placed in the BCFB office break room. Those signs were “shared” between the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company and the BCFB. Thus, the BCFB did not maintain a separate set of signs. The BCFB office has a single telephone number, and calls are routed internally. If Mr. Huber was out of the office, Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would take messages for him. If Mr. Huber was alone in the office, he would answer the telephone. Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would occasionally make appointments for Mr. Huber, and assist him when clients visited the office. Mr. Huber did not pay Petitioner or Ms. Linzy for those services. At some point, Mr. Huber and Ms. Griffith determined that it would be mutually advantageous if Ms. Griffith were allowed to speak with FFBIC customers about insurance when Mr. Huber was out of the office. To facilitate that arrangement, Ms. Griffith, at Mr. Huber?s suggestion, obtained a license as a customer service representative, which allowed her to sell policies under Mr. Huber?s insurance agent license. The customer service representative license was not a requirement of Ms. Griffith?s position with the BCFB. Ms. Griffith would sell insurance policies only when Mr. Huber was out of the office. Mr. Huber compensated Ms. Griffith for writing insurance policies through “Brent Huber, Inc.” Ms. Griffith continued to be paid as a full-time employee of the BCFB because she thought the BCFB “would be OK with it.”
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations that, based upon Petitioner's failure to meet her burden of proof to establish that Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, is an “employer” as defined in section 760.02(7), the Employment Complaint of Discrimination be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. Suite 100 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jamison Jessup 557 Noremac Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent conducted business operations in Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage that met the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2009), for its employees, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Louisville, Kentucky-based corporation that is engaged in the construction, maintenance, and painting of elevated water tanks. Respondent has a second fabrication facility located in Newnan, Georgia. Respondent’s work constitutes construction. On March 4, 2010, Petitioner’s investigator, Lawrence F. Eaton, observed Respondent’s employees working on a water tower in Pace, Florida. While visiting the worksite, one of Respondent’s employees stated that he did not have any information regarding if and how the men were covered by workers’ compensation. The employee gave Mr. Eaton a telephone number for Respondent. Next, Mr. Eaton consulted the Kentucky Secretary of State website to find information concerning the corporate status of Respondent. The website indicated that Respondent was incorporated in 1892 and that it had three corporate officers. Mr. Eaton then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS contains workers’ compensation policy information for each employer that has a Florida policy and information relative to workers’ compensation exemptions that have been applied for and issued to individuals by Petitioner. Mr. Eaton was unable to find any indication on CCAS that Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage by purchasing a Florida policy. CCAS also provided no evidence that Respondent had entered into an arrangement with an employee leasing company to provide workers’ compensation coverage to its employees. Additionally, CCAS did not show that Respondent had obtained exemptions for its corporate officers. Mr. Eaton subsequently spoke with one of Respondent’s representatives. Mr. Eaton was informed that Respondent was self-insured for workers’ compensation in Kentucky. Mr. Eaton also learned that Respondent had another workers’ compensation policy. Respondent’s representative indicated that she would send Mr. Eaton the policy paperwork. When he received the paperwork from Petitioner, Mr. Eaton determined that the insurance coverage did not comply with the requirements of Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The paperwork included an excess policy of workers’ compensation and a Georgia workers’ compensation policy. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. Specifically, the Stop-Work Order states that Respondent was not in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, because Respondent failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. On March 8, 2010, Respondent provided Mr. Eaton with additional workers’ compensation policy information. The information included the declarations page for Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942. The Chartis policy is a Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Policy. In Item 3A, the policy lists the states that are covered, in Part One of the policy, pursuant to each state’s workers’ compensation law. Georgia is named as a covered state in Item 3A. In Item 3C, the Chartis policy lists the states that are covered, in Part Three of the policy, as "other states insurance." Florida is listed only in Item 3C. Item 4 of the Chartis policy states that "[t]he premium of this policy will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit." In response to the request for business records, Respondent provided Petitioner with payroll information for work it had performed in Florida between September 2007 and February 2010. After receiving this information, Respondent’s Penalty Calculator, Robert McAullife, calculated a penalty. Because Respondent had not provided all of the requested business records, Mr. McAullife imputed Respondent’s payroll for a portion of the relevant time period. In calculating the penalty, Mr. McAullife first sought to determine the amount of premium that Respondent would have paid had it been properly insured for the relevant three-year period. Mr. McAullife assigned a class code for each of Respondent’s employees, reflecting the work they performed. Mr. McAullife then took 1/100th of the payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to each class code. Mr. McAullife then took the previously obtained product and multiplied it by 1.5 to find a penalty in the amount of $122,242.23. This penalty is based on Respondent having $382,146.90 in Florida payroll that would have required $81,494.66 in workers’ compensation premium. There are no errors in Mr. McAullife’s penalty calculation. Mr. Eaton issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on March 23, 2010. On March 24, 2010, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty that required ten percent of the penalty to be paid in advance and the remainder to be paid in 60 interest-free monthly payments. Respondent also produced a policy that provided coverage in compliance with Florida law with an effective date of March 12, 2010. As a result, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release, permitting Respondent to return to work. During the hearing, Respondent presented evidence that it is a registered self-insured company in Kentucky for the first $500,000.00 of workers’ compensation. Additionally, Respondent has excess insurance for any workers’ compensation claims that exceed the $500,000.00 threshold. Because it is self-insured in Kentucky, Respondent must purchase letters of credit on an annual basis. Respondent paid the following for its recent letters of credit: (a) 2007, $26,755.54; (b) 2008, $32,438.48; (c) 2009, $33,626.38; and (d) 2010 to date, $8,931.39. The State of Kentucky assesses qualified self-insureds a six and one half percent tax based on an annual simulated premium. The amount of the simulated premium represents what a qualified self-insured would pay for a "first dollar" policy of workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent’s recent simulated premiums are as follows: (a) 2007, $453.440.00; (b) 2008, $480,637.00; (c) 2009, $623,940.00; and (d) 2010, $1,006,243.00. Respondent also maintains a "high dollar" deductible policy of insurance that provides workers’ compensation coverage for its Georgia employees. Respondent’s Georgia policy, Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942, which includes Florida as part of "all other states" in Item 3C of the declarations page, also requires the payment of premiums. Respondent recently paid the following premiums for this insurance: (a) 2007, $124,736.78; (b) 2008, $125,950.08; and (c) 2009, $64,465.28. The premiums paid by Respondent for the Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942 are not based on Florida rates. From 2007 to 2010, Respondent provided workers’ compensation benefits for at least four different workers that were injured while performing work for Respondent in Florida. The workers’ compensation benefits paid by Respondent on these claims totaled $147,958.25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order, finding that Caldwell Tanks, Inc., failed to comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $122,224.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Claude M. Harden, III, Esquire Carr Allison 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jamila Georgette Gooden, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have a $1,000 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Section 450.30, Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 38H-11.003, Florida Administrative Code (1989) by contracting for the employment of an unregistered farm labor contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on May 1, 1989, when Don R. Symonette, who is a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made an inspection of a farm owned by Ovid Barnett on State Road 846 some seven or eight miles east of Immokalee, Florida. The testimony as to what transpired during the course of the inspection is sharply in dispute. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. As Symonette drove by the farm that day, he observed a crew of approximately eighteen workers picking bell peppers in a field. Thereafter, Symonette drove his vehicle onto the premises for the purpose of determining if pertinent statutes and Division rules were being followed. He initially observed one Abel Flores (Abel) standing by a pickup truck in the same field where the laborers were harvesting the peppers. Abel is the brother of respondent, Alfredo Flores (Alfredo). Symonette and Abel were acquainted from several meetings over the prior years. Symonette asked Abel what he was doing, and Abel answered that he was helping his brother, Alfredo, who is a registered farm labor contractor. Abel also volunteered that he was being paid by Alfredo and received approximately $40 per day in compensation. Abel further acknowledged, and the Division records show, that he is not certified as a farm labor contractor. At that point, Symonette decided to give Abel the benefit of the doubt and to interview respondent, who was supervising a crew in an adjacent field. During the course of the interview, Alfredo advised Symonette that he (Alfredo) was the supervisor in charge of the crew and it was he who had contracted with the farm to supply the workers. Even so, Symonette concluded that because Abel was the only person standing in the other field, he was "supervising" the other crew and was doing so without a certificate of registration. Accordingly, Symonette cited Alfredo for using an unregistered contractor. On April 27, 1990, or almost a year later, the Division issued an administrative complaint charging Alfredo with using an unregistered farm labor contractor. On June 7, 1990, Symonette performed a "payroll audit" by sending by mail a form to Ovid Barnett requesting information regarding Abel's employment. On an undisclosed date, the form was returned to Symonette and contains what purports to be Barnett's signature However, the contents of the completed form are hearsay in nature and cannot serve as the basis for a finding of fact. Moreover, even if the response was not hearsay, it fails to disclose the nature of Abel's employment with the farm and whether the hourly compensation allegedly given Abel was being paid at the time the form was completed in June 1990 or when the inspection occurred thirteen months earlier. All compensation received by Abel was from his employer, Ovid Barnett. In some cases, he was paid by check from the farm, and in other cases, he was paid by his brother who had in turn been paid by the farm. To bolster the contention that Abel was not acting as a farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989, a supervisor at Barnett's farm established that Abel's job was to drive trucks between the field and the packing house when the inspection occurred, and as such, it was necessary for Abel to stand by his truck while the workers loaded the truck with produce. As a driver, Abel had the responsibility of overseeing the loading of produce on his truck and, when necessary, to direct the workers on how to properly do so. It is noted that at hearing, Symonette did not describe the activities being performed by Abel except that Abel was simply "standing" around his truck and "appeared" to be supervising the work crew. Accordingly, it is found that Alfredo was not using an unregistered farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER 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 20th day of August, 1990. Copies Furnished: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Moses E. Williams, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Alfredo Flores P. O. Box 1611 Immokalee, FL 33934 Steven D. Barron, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
