The Issue Whether or not Petitioner's application for examination as a general lines agent should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: On or about September 2, 1989, Petitioner, Kimberly L. Strayer, formerly known as Kimberly Lindsay, filed an application for examination as a general lines agent with Respondent, Department of Insurance. Since January 1988, Petitioner has been the sole owner and president of Central Florida Insurance Agency (Central). On or about December 28, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner, by letter, that her application for examination as a general lines agent was denied for the following reasons: Petitioner operated Central Florida Insurance Agency without a licensed general lines agent in the full-time active charge of that agency from January 1, 1988 through August 31, 1988. During January 1988 Petitioner accepted applications and down payments from the following insureds: Robert Smallwood, Annelle Jones, Mickey Lawson, Donald Johnson, Thomas Jones, Manning O'Callahan and Christopher Stevens. Petitioner issued a binder and an automobile identification card for each insured indicating that coverage was bound with State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, as servicing carrier for the Florida Joint Underwriting Association (FJUA). At the time Petitioner had no authority to accept either applications or premiums on behalf of State Farm. Petitioner failed to forward such applications and premiums to the insurer until April 12, 1988. During January 1988, Petitioner accepted an application and premium payment of $274.00 from Tammy Clay. Petitioner issued a binder indicating that coverage was bound with State Farm and Union American Insurance Companies. Petitioner failed to forward either the application or the premium payment to any insurer. Petitioner issued a fictitious policy number to Ms. Clay and after nearly four months, submitted a money order to State Farm payable to Tammy Clay, on or about May 1989. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that she did not have a licensed general lines agent in full-time active charge of her agency; that she accepted applications and premium payments from the above-named insureds for auto insurance to be bound with State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and that she accepted an application for premium payment for automobile insurance from Tammy Clay in the amount of $274.00 for coverage to be bound by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. Petitioner was first employed in the insurance sales industry during the summer of 1987. At the time, she was only seventeen years old and had completed the eleventh grade. Petitioner's first employment in the insurance industry was with Friendly Auto Insurance (Friendly) which had several offices throughout Polk County, Florida. Friendly was owned by Petitioner's now husband, Larry Lindsay when she was hired. Petitioner formed Central during late 1987 and began operating Central on or about January 1, 1988. Petitioner received her supervision and training while employed with Friendly, primarily through on the job experiences. During late 1987, Petitioner's husband encountered problems with one of his business partners which resulted in strained relations. The resultant strained relations prompted Petitioner to organize Central. Central purchased several of Friendly's agencies of which her now husband had an interest, with Petitioner paying a nominal amount for the "book of business" that Friendly had generated. When Central commenced operations during January of 1988, Bob Seese was the licensed insurance agent who was authorized under the rules of the FJUA to accept applications and bind coverage through one of the FJUA servicing carriers, State Farm. Friendly and its successor, Central, generated a substantial volume of so-called high risk auto insurance business for drivers who could not obtain insurance through the regular market. Bob Seese had been associated with and served as the licensed agent for the Friendly agency in Lakes Wales which Central purchased in January 1988. At the time Petitioner commenced operating Central, she hired Bob Seese as the licensed general lines agent. She considered that Central was authorized to accept applications and continue to bind FJUA insurance coverage through State Farm. Petitioner forwarded all of the FJUA insurance applications which were bound by Bob Seese to State Farm within a period ranging from one week to approximately one month. State Farm refused to accept the applications submitted by Petitioner based on its contention that initially, Bob Seese was not authorized to bind coverage through Central, as he had not transferred his license to Central and Seese could only operate out of the Friendly agency of Lake Wales. 1/ Bob Seese was formally authorized by State Farm to conduct business through Central during February 1988. As a result of that authorization, all of the above-named insureds obtained insurance and none of the insureds suffered any monetary loss as a result of Seese's belated authorization. All of the premium payments that Petitioner received were, in time, forwarded to the respective carriers. Petitioner properly gave new insureds binder numbers which were serially dispensed in the order that premium payments were received. During January 1988, Petitioner accepted an application and premium payment for auto insurance from Tammy Clay for coverage to be bound by State Farm. Petitioner submitted Clay's application and premium payment to State Farm and it was returned on one occasion based on the fact that a facsimile stamp was used by the purported licensed agent (Seese). Petitioner resubmitted it and State Farm again returned it based on State Farm's contention that Seese was not authorized to conduct business through Central. Petitioner has now completed the required formal educational courses to demonstrate her eligibility to sit for the general lines agent's examination. Petitioner is now knowledgeable about insurance matters and is aware of the proper procedures for operating as a general lines agent. When Petitioner formed Central, she had less than one year's experience in the insurance business and was ineligible to sit for the general lines agent exam as she was not of majority age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for examination as a general lines insurance agent. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 31st day of October, 1990.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of various violations of the Insurance Code and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent has been licensed as a Life & Variable Annuity Agent (2-14), Life, Health and Variable Annuity Agent (2-15), Life Agent (2-16), Life and Health Agent (2-18), General Lines, Property and Casualty Agent (2-20), and Health Agent (2-40). Respondent holds license number A164221. Petitioner has disciplined Respondent on two prior occasions. By Consent Order filed November 28, 2000, Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $7500 against Respondent and placed her licenses on probation for two years. The Consent Order arose out of allegations that Respondent failed to place insurance coverage and failed to supervise adequately her employees. By Consent Order filed April 30, 2002, Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $2000 against Respondent. The Consent Order does not describe the underlying allegations. At all relevant times, Respondent has been a director, officer, and sole owner of AIA. She has owned the corporation since 1993. At all relevant times, Respondent was the only signatory on the AIA bank accounts. Customarily, Respondent markets the insurance and then sends customers to one of the AIA customer service representatives. A high-volume agency with over 15,000 active clients, AIA, which employs 10 persons, has issued about 50,000 policies since November 2001. For most, if not all, of the relevant period, AIA employed Tony Decambre as the primary agent, and customer service representatives performed much of the work in processing insurance applications. Petitioner attempted to prove that Respondent was the primary agent. Rather than produce copies of forms by which Respondent may have designated herself as the primary agent, Petitioner offered only copies of prints of screens of data maintained by Petitioner. The Administrative Law Judge excluded from evidence these data compilations. Respondent testified that Mr. Decambre was the primary agent. Petitioner's investigator testified that Respondent was the primary agent, at least the last time that he had checked. The investigator's testimony failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was the primary agent. On December 28, 2001, Fernando Gomez visited AIA to pay for a workers' compensation insurance policy to be issued by Florida United Businesses Association/Workers Compensation (FUBA). Respondent met with Mr. Gomez, who required the presence of another employee to translate into and from Spanish. As the producer, Respondent signed the application. FUBA bound the coverage on December 31, 2001. Among the three persons present on December 28, only Respondent testified. The application bears the date "December 28, 2001," although this handwriting is lighter than the remainder of the handwriting on the application and could have been written at a date subsequent to the date on which the application was taken. Petitioner contends that Respondent took the application on November 6, 2001, or somehow tried to bind FUBA as of November 6, 2001. The sole evidentiary basis for this contention is Petitioner Exhibit 9, which purports to be a certificate of liability insurance, bearing a date of December 28, 2001, but showing effective dates for general liability and workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Gomez of November 6, 2001. The certificate holder is stated to be Universal Drywall & Plastering, and the producer is stated to be AIA. The workers' compensation insurer is stated to be FUBA. Petitioner Exhibit 9 was admitted solely to prove what Universal Drywall & Plastering sent to FUBA to confirm the existence of Mr. Gomez's workers' compensation coverage. The certificate is false because it confirms workers' compensation insurance as of a date that neither FUBA nor AIA contends is correct. However, the failure to obtain testimony from Mr. Gomez, the AIA employee who translated, or an employee of Universal Drywall & Plastering who could explain how he or she obtained a copy of the certificate precludes a determination that Respondent is in any way responsible for the production or transmission of this false certificate. The certificate suggests that the person responsible for its preparation may not have had Respondent's presumed level of familiarity with FUBA. The person preparing the false certificate used a policy number that is not of a type used by FUBA to identify the workers' compensation policies that it issues. The false certificate bears an expiration date of November 6, 2002. In fact, the actual coverage issued by FUBA ended on April 1, 2002, because all of its workers' compensation policies expire each year on April 1. It appears that Universal Drywall & Plastering presented the false certificate to FUBA on January 2, 2002, so, as of that date, Mr. Gomez had workers' compensation coverage from FUBA. The record also fails to disclose why Mr. Gomez might have desired an earlier effective date. The information might have facilitated a determination of who was responsible for the fraudulent preparation of the certificate. Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Count I. On October 25, 2002, AIA issued an Evidence of Property Insurance to Meryl Levin, showing an effective date of October 25, 2002 for homeowners and flood insurance in the amount of $114,000. The document states that "United" would provide the homeowners insurance at $910 per year and flood insurance at $247 per year. On October 30, 2002, AIA received a check in the amount of $910 from Stephen J. Allocco, P.A., and AIA deposited that check into its noninterest-bearing bank account at Wachovia Bank. On November 8, 2002, United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (United) sent Mr. Levin a notice that he owed $810 for his insurance policy, which bore an effective date of November 8, 2002. The due date is "upon receipt." On January 14, 2003, United canceled the insurance because it never had received the $810. United received a check for $810 on February 26, 2003, but the accompanying package failed to contain a "no loss" statement, which would have assured United that the insured had not suffered a loss between the purported coverage date and the date of receipt of the premium check. Absent such an assurance, United routinely declines to provide coverage because it will not cover losses retroactively. United thus returned the check. Mr. Levin did not testify as to this transaction, nor did anyone from AIA except Respondent, who disclaimed any direct involvement with the matter. There is no evidence of any loss suffered by Mr. Levin, nor is there any evidence of any intentional wrongdoing by Respondent. The determination as to whether Respondent negligently failed to satisfy all applicable duties imposed on her is frustrated by Petitioner's failure to call an expert witness who could have explained office practices in insurance agencies and proved what is reasonable and unreasonable to expect of Respondent. The record does not establish that United sent a copy of its November 8 statement to AIA. Count II portrays a single case in which AIA failed to pay a premium to an insurer for over three months--nothing more. The determination of whether Respondent has demonstrated unfitness for this omission is impossible absent a basis for determining an appropriate minimum standard of agency office practice. Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Count II. On October 9, 2002, Respondent sent a letter to Gerald Kirby bearing the letterhead of AIA stating that "we" have reviewed your homeowner needs and "determined the best possible rate for you." Showing homeowners coverage of $518,000, as well as associated coverages, the letter quotes a total policy premium of $3278. The letter warns that "this quotation is an estimate and is not legally binding." At the bottom of the letter is: "Thanks!!!Joanne." The record reveals no other persons employed at AIA named "Joanne" besides Respondent. On the same date, AIA produced an evidence of property insurance, which shows homeowners and flood insurance with the same effective date of October 11, 2002, in the respective amounts of $518,000 and $250,000, and bearing respective premiums of $3278 and $411 annually. On October 11, 2002, AIA received a check in the amount of $3278 from Capital Abstract & Title and deposited that check into its noninterest-bearing bank account at Wachovia. AIA was to use these funds to purchase homeowners insurance from United, with coverage of $518,000 and an effective date of November 11, 2002 (according to the parties' stipulation, which misstates the year as "2001"). However, the premium for $518,000 of coverage from United was $1890 at the time. The proper amount of premium due for $518,000 of coverage was mooted by the fact that AIA, like all of United's agents at the time, lacked authority to bind United to more than $300,000 coverage without specific approval from a United representative. Such approval required, among other things, documentation of the value of the insured property. AIA sent United a check for $1777, which United received on November 12, 2002. This check was the proper premium for $300,000 of coverage. At the same time, AIA sent paperwork for the issuance of coverage to $587,000, but failed to send the documentation that United required. Thus, United issued only $300,000 of coverage, and Mr. Kirby was due a refund of $1501, which is the difference between the premium that he paid and the cost of the insurance that he received. AIA paid Mr. Kirby $1501 on February 24, 2003. After AIA or a United marketing representative submitted the required documentation, United approved on February 19, 2003, the increase of coverage to $518,000. It is unclear who paid the additional premium--AIA or Mr. Kirby. For the same reasons discussed in Count II, Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Count III. Although AIA's handling of the Kirby transaction was flawed, again, the acts and omissions are not so stark as to eliminate the necessity of expert testimony to establish the minimum standard, against which to measure Respondent's performance of her duties. Mr. Kirby appears to have suffered no loss, and there is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. Even though, as to this transaction, Respondent clearly had some personal involvement, it is impossible to determine her degree of responsibility for the uneven handling of the insurance transaction and short delay in sending the refund to Mr. Kirby or even whether these two aspects of the transaction demonstrate unfitness to transact insurance business. The remaining counts involve refunds from Pro Premium Finance Company (Pro Premium) to AIA and refunds from AIA to its customers. Pro Premium provides financing to persons purchasing insurance. Several customers of AIA borrowed money from Pro Premium to pay for insurance they were buying through AIA. For various reasons--typically, the cancelation of coverage--Pro Premium refunded portions of the premium to AIA, which subsequently refunded the unearned portion of the commission to the customer. Every two weeks, Pro Premium sends AIA refunds and statements, which clearly identify the insured, date of cancelation, amount of refund, and amount due the insured. The time that elapsed from when AIA received the refunds from Pro Premium to when AIA sent the customers their share of the refunds ranged from two to twelve months. AIA received the refunds from Pro Premium between April 15, 2003, and February 15, 2004, and AIA sent its customers their shares of the refunds between April 5, 2004, and May 12, 2004. The customer refunds are concentrated in a relatively short period of time because AIA discovered all of the unrefunded monies during a self-audit that it conducted during this six-week period. AIA performed the self-audit due to an audit underway at Pro Premium. Except as noted below, Respondent was not personally involved in any of these refund transactions. At the time of all of the Pro Premium transactions described in this recommended order, the policy of AIA was for the customer service representative to write the client within one week of receiving the refund from Pro Premium and ask for directions whether to apply the refund to new or existing insurance or to pay it to the customer. The customer service representatives were supervised by the agency manager, not Respondent. It is unclear what AIA's policy was if the customer did not respond. When AIA paid refunds, its policy at the time was for the agency manager to prepare the refund check, which Respondent would sign. In May 2004, AIA changed its handling of refunds by directing all Pro Premium refunds directly to the bookkeeper, who expedites the preparation of the refund checks, which can now be signed by Respondent or one of two other employees. As to Count IV, on April 15, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1361.03, which AIA deposited on May 7, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$117.21--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Erikna Guzman. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Guzman of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Ms. Guzman did not respond. On May 10, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Guzman a check for $117.21. Twelve months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Guzman the money due her. As to Count V, on May 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1538.36, which AIA deposited on June 10, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$43.83--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Shannon Campbell. By letter sent after obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Campbell of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Ms. Campbell did not respond. On April 17, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Campbell a check for $43.83. Ten and one-half months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Campbell the money due her. As to Count VII, on an unspecified date, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $720.38, which AIA deposited on July 8, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$347.35--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Marie Philippe. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Philippe of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Ms. Philippe did not respond. On April 5, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Philippe a check for $347.35. At least nine months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Philippe the money due her. As to Count VIII, on June 30, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1729.80, which AIA deposited on July 8, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$380.40--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Fernando Garcia. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Mr. Garcia of the refund and asked him to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. The first letter was returned by the postal service as undeliverable. Mr. Garcia had sold his house and moved. However, on April 7, 2004, AIA sent Mr. Garcia a check for $380.40. Nine months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Mr. Garcia the money due him. As to Count IX, on August 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1552.84, which AIA deposited on September 9, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$102.07--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Girline Reid. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Reid of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Ms. Reid instructed AIA to apply the refund to insurance issued to her husband, which AIA did. However, Respondent did not testify when AIA applied the refund to the account of Ms. Reid's husband. On May 7, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Reid a check for $102.07. Eight months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Reid the money due her. As to Count X, on August 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1552.84, which AIA deposited on September 9, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$169.06--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Guillermo Diaz, who is a significant customer of AIA. Respondent spoke with him shortly after AIA received the refund, and he instructed her to apply the refund to other insurance issued to him. Again, Respondent did not testify when Mr. Diaz instructed her to apply the refund to other insurance, but, given his importance as a repeat customer, he probably spoke with her shortly after AIA received the refund. However, on April 17, 2004, AIA sent Mr. Diaz a check for $169.06, to which he may not have been entitled. Eight and one-half months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Mr. Diaz the refund check. As to Count XI, on November 30, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $4994.25, which AIA deposited on December 9, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$143.18--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Bernardo Archibald. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Mr. Archibald of the refund and asked him to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Mr. Archibald directed AIA to keep the money to apply to insurance for which he owed additional premium because he had not yet obtained a four-point inspection (heating, wiring, roofing, and plumbing) of an older home, so as to be entitled to a reduced premium. However, Respondent did not testify when AIA received this direction from Mr. Archibald, although only five months elapsed from AIA's receipt of the refund from Pro Premium to its issuance, on May 7, 2004, of a check to Mr. Archibald for $143.18. As to Count XII, on an unspecified date, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $3881.67, which AIA deposited on January 13, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$488.83--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Danette Piscopo. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Piscopo of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that AIA sent a refund check, but Ms. Piscopo never cashed it. However, Respondent did not testify when it sent the earlier check, although only about three months elapsed from AIA's receipt of the refund from Pro Premium to its issuance on April 15, 2004, of a check to Ms. Piscopo for $488.83. As to Count XIII, on December 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1988.58, which AIA deposited on January 13, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$294.60--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Allam Masief. Respondent testified that AIA mistakenly issued two policies to Mr. Masief for the same coverage from two insurers and mistakenly paid Pro Premium twice, even though Mr. Masief paid only one premium. Both policies were canceled. Mr. Masief asked AIA to reinstate one policy, but it was unable to do so. Respondent did not testify when these discussions with Mr. Masief took place, but only four and one-half months elapsed from AIA's receipt of the refund from Pro Premium and to its issuance, on May 12, 2004, of a check to Mr. Masief for $294.60. As to Count XIV, on January 31, 2004, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $3260.03, which AIA deposited on February 10, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$886.74--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Geraldine DeStefanis. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. DeStefanis of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Ms. DeStefanis "probably" asked AIA to try to reinstate the canceled policy, but AIA was unable to do so. On May 7, 2004, AIA sent Ms. DeStefanis a check for $886.74. Three months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. DeStefanis the money due her. As to Count XV, on an unspecified date, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $4750.53, which AIA deposited on March 9, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$343.38--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Leslie Ramrattan. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Ramrattan of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Ms. Ramrattan asked AIA to try to reinstate the policy, but AIA was unable to do so. On May 7, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Ramrattan a check for $343.38. About two months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Ramrattan the money due her. Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Counts IV-V and VII-XV, with one exception each as to Counts VI, V, and VII. In general, there is no evidence of any intentional wrongdoing by anyone at AIA, nor is there evidence that Respondent should have known of the failure of her staff to promptly refund the monies due their insureds. In several of these transactions in which AIA held the customers' refunds for relatively long periods of time, the record demonstrates that this was in accordance with the customers' directions or otherwise justified. For the shorter periods-- five months or less--the record provides no basis for determining that Respondent should have known of this failure within this relatively short period of time. In several counts, AIA failed to meet its obligation, under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-196.010(2)(b), which is cited below, to refund or apply the unearned commissions within 15 days of receipt of the refund and statement from Pro Premium. These are Counts IV, V, VII, XIV, and XV. It is impossible to determine if AIA violated this rule in Count VIII, where the insured had moved; Counts IX-XI, where the insureds told AIA to apply the refunds to new or other insurance and presumably AIA did so, perhaps within the required 15 days; and Count XIII, where AIA appears to have paid for one policy out of its own funds and the insured may have received a windfall. As to Counts IV, V, VII, XIV, and XV, the question is whether Respondent is professionally responsible for the violations by AIA. These counts fall into two groups. In Counts IV, V, and VII, AIA wrongfully retained the refunds for long periods--12 months, 10 and one-half months, and at least nine months, respectively. In Counts XIV and XV, AIA wrongfully retained the refunds much shorter periods--less than three months and less than two months, respectively. Perhaps expert testimony could have established that Respondent should have detected, within a period of less than 90 days, the wrongfully retained funds, but, absent such testimony, an inference to this effect is impossible, especially when the standard is clear and convincing evidence. However, expert testimony is unnecessary to establish Respondent's professional responsibility for failing to detect this situation for 9-12 months. Given the long durations of time, the clarity of the Pro Premium's refund statements, the relatively small number of employees, Respondent's integral involvement in the daily operations of AIA as the only person authorized to sign checks, and the importance of restoring funds of customers to customers promptly, it is a reasonable inference that Respondent should have known that AIA staff had wrongfully failed to send these refunds to its customers for 9-12 months. Any suggestion by Respondent that the absence of a response from these customers justified retaining these moneys fails to account for the fact that AIA later sent the refund checks to the customers, even though they had still not contacted AIA, according to the record. Thus, for Counts IV, V, and VII, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has demonstrated her unfitness to transact insurance business.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing Counts I-III and VIII-XV of the Administrative Complaint; finding Respondent guilty of three violations (Counts IV, V, and VII) of demonstrating unfitness to engage in the insurance business, in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes; and suspending her insurance licenses for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Sevices The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Robert Alan Fox Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thompkins W. White White & Chang, P.A. 1650 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 1013 Tallahassee, Florida 32317
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent. The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida. The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency. After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts. The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal. In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before. With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately $150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500 to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900. At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage. As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all. Judy Nelson (Count V). Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated. Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage. Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her. On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990. Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security. Fred J. Miller (Count VI). On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage. A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt. It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account. Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card. On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed. Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990. Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy. Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV). Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.) On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security. Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III). Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security. In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly. On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing. One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle. At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/ Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs. John Stuiso (Count I). On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250. It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied. In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing. In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate. When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund. The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250. Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check. The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa. After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.). Wanda Mae Riley (Count II). In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business. Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did. Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing. In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether proposed rules promulgated by the Florida Department of Insurance related to sale of insurance products by agents affiliated with financial institutions are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Insurance is responsible for regulation of insurance transactions in the State of Florida. On January 29, 1997, the Department of Insurance issued a notice to interested parties of a rules workshop to address "parity" of insurance regulation. The workshop was conducted on February 21, 1997. The Department of Insurance published the final rule proposal on May 23, 1997. A public hearing was conducted on June 19, 1997. The record of the public hearing remained open until June 25, 1997, for submission of written comments. A Notice of Change was published on July 18, 1997. A Second Notice of Change was published on August 8, 1997. The Petitioners timely filed petitions challenging the proposed rules. All parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. As set forth in the rule proposal, the purpose and effect of the proposed rules is as follows: Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to adopt rules to assure parity of regulation in this state of insurance transactions as between an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a federally chartered financial institution, an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a state- chartered financial institution, and an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with an entity that is not a financial institution. (Emphasis supplied.) The summary portion of the published rule proposal states that the "proposed rules implement standards to provide parity pursuant to Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes." Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity statute," provides as follows: The department shall adopt rules to assure the parity of regulation in this state of insurance transactions as between an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a federally chartered financial institution, an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a state-chartered financial institution, and an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with an entity that is not a financial institution. Such rules shall be limited to assuring that no insurance agency or agent is subject to more stringent or less stringent regulation than another insurance agency or agent on the basis of the regulatory status of the entity that owns the agency or is associated with the agent. For the purposes of this section, a person is "associated with" another entity if the person is employed by, retained by, under contract to, or owned or controlled by the entity directly or indirectly. This section does not apply with respect to a financial institution that is prohibited from owning an insurance agency or that is prohibited from being associated with an insurance agent under state or federal law. (Emphasis supplied.) The word "parity" is not defined in the statute. Webster's Dictionary defines "parity" as "[t]he quality or state of being equal or equivalent." Pursuant to the specific statute requiring the Department to adopt rules, the Department's authority to adopt rules related to this issue is limited to those rules which provide for equivalent regulation of insurance transactions without regard to ownership or affiliation of the insurance agent or agency. Rule 4-224.002 (Settings and Circumstances) Proposed Rule 4-224.002 provides as follows: 4-224.002 Setting and Circumstances of Insurance Transactions. The setting and circumstances in which insurance transactions occur shall be structured so as to avoid deception as to, and to assist the consumer in understanding, the nature of the product sold, the identity of the insurer, and the identity and representative capacity of the insurance agent. When an agent is transacting insurance, any business cards and stationery used shall reflect his status as an insurance agent. Other materials used in insurance transactions which address the representative capacity of the agent shall identify the individual as an insurance agent. The published rule proposal indicates that Proposed Rule 4-224.002, Florida Administrative Code, is specifically authorized by Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, and implements Sections 624.307, 626.5715, 626.951, 626.9521, 626.9541, 626.9561 and 626.9611, Florida Statutes. Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, provides the Department with the general authority to adopt "reasonable rules necessary to effect any of the statutory duties of the department...." and states that willful violation of Department rules may result in a range of penalties including revocation of licensure. Section 624.307, Florida Statutes, generally sets forth the powers and duties of the Department. Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity" statute, provides as set forth herein. Section 626.951, Florida Statutes, is the "declaration of purpose" for the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act, and in part states as follows: The purpose of this part is to regulate trade practices relating to the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of Congress as expressed in the Act of Congress of March 9, 1945 (Pub. L. No. 15, 79th Congress), by defining, or providing for the determination of, all such practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined. Section 626.9521, Florida Statutes, prohibits and penalizes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices and provides penalties. Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes, addresses "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts" and provides as follows: UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS.--The following are defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices: Misrepresentations and false advertising of insurance policies.--Knowingly making, issuing, circulating, or causing to be made, issued, or circulated, any estimate, illustration, circular, statement, sales presentation, omission, or comparison which: Misrepresents the benefits, advantages, conditions, or terms of any insurance policy. Misrepresents the dividends or share of the surplus to be received on any insurance policy. Makes any false or misleading statements as to the dividends or share of surplus previously paid on any insurance policy. Is misleading, or is a misrepresentation, as to the financial condition of any person or as to the legal reserve system upon which any life insurer operates. Uses any name or title of any insurance policy or class of insurance policies misrepresenting the true nature thereof. Is a misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing, or tending to induce, the lapse, forfeiture, exchange, conversion, or surrender of any insurance policy. Is a misrepresentation for the purpose of effecting a pledge or assignment of, or effecting a loan against, any insurance policy. Misrepresents any insurance policy as being shares of stock or misrepresents ownership interest in the company. False information and advertising generally.--Knowingly making, publishing, disseminating, circulating, or placing before the public, or causing, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public: In a newspaper, magazine, or other publication, In the form of a notice, circular, pamphlet, letter, or poster, Over any radio or television station, or In any other way, an advertisement, announcement, or statement containing any assertion, representation, or statement with respect to the business of insurance, which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. Defamation.--Knowingly making, publishing, disseminating, or circulating, directly or indirectly, or aiding, abetting, or encouraging the making, publishing, disseminating, or circulating of, any oral or written statement, or any pamphlet, circular, article, or literature, which is false or maliciously critical of, or derogatory to, any person and which is calculated to injure such person. Boycott, coercion, and intimidation.-- Entering into any agreement to commit, or by any concerted action committing, any act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation resulting in, or tending to result in, unreasonable restraint of, or monopoly in, the business of insurance. False statements and entries.-- Knowingly: Filing with any supervisory or other public official, Making, publishing, disseminating, circulating, Delivering to any person, Placing before the public, Causing, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, any false material statement. Knowingly making any false entry of a material fact in any book, report, or statement of any person, or knowingly omitting to make a true entry of any material fact pertaining to the business of such person in any book, report, or statement of such person. Stock operations and advisory board contracts.--Issuing or delivering, promising to issue or deliver, or permitting agents, officers, or employees to issue or deliver, agency company stock or other capital stock, benefit certificates or shares in any common- law corporation, or securities or any special or advisory board contracts or other contracts of any kind promising returns or profits as an inducement to insurance. Section 626.9561, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to "investigate the affairs of every person involved in the business of insurance in this state in order to determine whether such person has been or is engaged in any unfair method of competition or in any unfair or deceptive act or practice. " Section 626.9611, Florida Statutes, provides for the adoption of Department rules as follows: 626.9611 Rules.--The department may, in accordance with chapter 120, promulgate reasonable rules as are necessary or proper to identify specific methods of competition or acts or practices which are prohibited by s. 626.9541 or s. 626.9551, but the rules shall not enlarge upon or extend the provisions of ss. 626.9541 and 626.9551. (Emphasis supplied.) Proposed Rule 4-224.002 is an invalid delegation of legislative authority. The proposed rule exceeds the Department specific grant of rulemaking authority which is limited in this case to those rules which provide for equivalent regulation of insurance transactions without regard to ownership or affiliation of the insurance agent or agency. The rule does not provide parity of regulation. Proposed Rule 4-224.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The proposed rule provides no information as to how an insurance transaction may be "structured" so as to "avoid deception" of the purchaser. The determination of whether an insurance transaction has been "structured" to "avoid deception" is at the discretion of the Department. The proposed rule provides no standards for Department decisions which will be made under the rule. The proposed rule provides no assistance or information to regulated parties as to what types of transaction structures are prohibited or acceptable, other than to require that the agent be identified as such during the insurance transaction. Proposed Rule 4-224.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Neither the testimony of the Department's witnesses, nor the research information offered by the Department in support of the proposed rule, are sufficient to support validation of this rule. The evidence fails to establish the existence of substantial consumer confusion regarding marketing of insurance products by financial institutions. The Department cites a previous administrative action related to the sale of insurance products in a financial institution as evidence that consumer confusion exists. The Department also cites another administrative action where the agency prosecuted an insurer for the misleading sale of insurance products. The evidence establishes that the cited cases were prosecuted under currently existing rules and regulations and does not establish the validity of the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The existence of other rules relating to manner and means of insurance product sales is insufficient to establish the validity of the proposed rules at issue in this case. Rule 4-224.004 (Underwriting of Insurance- Authorization Required) Proposed Rule 4-224.004 provides: No entity which is not licensed as an insurer by the Department shall directly or indirectly assume the obligation to provide the benefits of an insurance contract, or otherwise transact insurance as an insurer in this state. As identified in the published rule proposal, Proposed Rule 4-224.004, Florida Administrative Code, is specifically authorized by Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, and implements Sections 624.11, 624.401, 626.5715, 626.051 and 628.151(1), Florida Statutes. Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, provides general rulemaking authority to the Department. Section 624.11, Florida Statutes, prohibits any person from transacting insurance in Florida without complying with the provisions of the Insurance Code, and provides for operation of "risk retention groups" pursuant to law. Section 624.401, Florida Statutes, requires each insurer to obtain a certificate of authority from the Department in order to conduct business either directly or indirectly, and provides that failure to obtain a certificate is a third degree felony. The section also provides for preemption by the state of the field of regulating insurers and their agents and representatives from local regulation. Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity" statute, provides as set forth herein. Section 626.051, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "life agent." Section 628.151(1), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: No domestic insurer shall engage directly or indirectly in any business other than the insurance business and business activities reasonably and necessarily incidental to such insurance business. At the hearing, the Department's witness testified that the proposed rule was in response to comments offered by participants in the rulemaking proceeding suggesting that recent court decisions would permit financial institutions to act as insurers and to assume the obligations of insurance contracts. Proposed Rule 4-224.004 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it exceeds the specific grant of rulemaking authority which is limited in this case to those rules which provide for equivalent regulation of insurance transactions without regard to ownership or affiliation of the insurance agent or agency. The proposed rule does not implement, interpret or make specific any provision of Florida law. Proposed Rule 4-224.004 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Anecdotal recollections of comments made by unidentified persons during rulemaking workshops do not constitute competent substantial evidence. Rule 4-224.007 (Primary Agent) Proposed Rule 4-224.007 provides: Each agency location where a licensed and appointed insurance agent is engaged in transactions with respect to insurance products shall be considered an insurance agency for purposes of Section 626.592, Florida Statutes. In those instances where an agent legally conducts insurance transactions at two or more agency locations, a separate primary agent need not be designated at each location, provided that no insurance transactions shall occur at any location when the agent is not present, and no unlicensed employee at the location has engaged in insurance activities requiring licensure. In those instances the agent shall be responsible for insurance transactions occurring at each location and one location shall be designated as the primary location. As identified in the published rule proposal, Proposed Rule 4-224.007, Florida Administrative Code, is specifically authorized by Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, and implements Sections 626.5715, 626.031, 626.041, 626.0428, 626.051, 626.062, 626.094, 626.112, 626.592, Florida Statutes. Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, sets forth the general rulemaking authority of the Department. Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity" statute, provides as set forth herein. Section 626.031, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "agent." Section 626.041, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "general lines agent." Section 626.0428, Florida Statutes, provides limitations on the activities of agency personnel as follows: 626.0428 Agency personnel powers, duties, and limitations.-- An individual employed by an agent or agency on salary who devotes full time to clerical work, with incidental taking of insurance applications or quoting or receiving premiums on incoming inquiries in the office of the agent or agency, is not deemed to be an agent, customer representative, or solicitor if his or her compensation does not include in whole or in part any commissions on such business and is not related to the production of applications, insurance, or premiums. No employee of an agent or agency may bind insurance coverage unless licensed and appointed as a general lines agent or customer representative. No employee of an agent or agency may initiate contact with any person for the purpose of soliciting insurance unless licensed and appointed as a general lines agent, customer representative, or solicitor. Section 626.051, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "life agent." Section 626.062, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "health agent." Section 626.094, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "insurance agency" as follows: 626.094 "Insurance agency" defined.--An "insurance agency" is a business location at which an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity, except for an employee of the individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity, and other than an insurer as defined by s. 624.03 or an adjuster as defined by s. 626.101, engages in any activity or employs individuals to engage in any activity which by law may be performed only by a licensed insurance agent or solicitor. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 626.112, Florida Statutes, requires licensure of agents, agencies and related personnel. Section 626.592, requires the designation of "primary agents" as follows: 626.592 Primary agents.-- On or before January 1, 1990, and annually thereafter, each person operating an insurance agency and each location of a multiple location agency shall designate a primary agent for each insurance agency location and shall file the name of the person so designated, and the address of the insurance agency location where he or she is primary agent, with the Department of Insurance, on a form approved by the department. The designation of the primary agent may be changed at the option of the agency and any change shall be effective upon notification to the department. For the purpose of this section, a "primary agent" is the licensed agent who is responsible for the hiring and supervision of all individuals within an insurance agency location who deal with the public in the solicitation or negotiation of insurance contracts or in the collection or accounting of moneys from the general public. An agent may be designated as primary agent for only one insurance agency location. For the purpose of this section, an "insurance agency" is a location where any agent is engaged in the business of insurance. The department may suspend or revoke the license of the primary agent if an insurance agency employs any person who has had a license denied or any person whose license is currently suspended or revoked. However, when a person has been denied a license for failure to pass a required examination, he or she may be employed to perform clerical or administrative functions for which licensure is not required. The primary agent in an unincorporated agency, or the primary agent in an incorporated agency in which no officer, director, or stockholder is an agent, shall be responsible and accountable for the acts of salaried employees under his or her direct supervision and control, while acting on behalf of the agency. Nothing in this section shall be construed to render any person criminally liable or subject to any disciplinary proceedings for any act unless such person personally committed or knew or should have known of such act and of the facts constituting a violation of this chapter. The department may suspend or revoke the license of any agent who is employed by a person whose license is currently suspended or revoked. No insurance agency location shall conduct the business of insurance unless a primary agent is designated at all times. Failure to designate a primary agent as required under this section shall constitute grounds for requiring that the agency obtain a license in accordance with ss. 626.112 and 626.172. Any insurance agency may request, on a form prescribed by the department, verification from the department of any person's current licensure status. If a request is mailed to the department within 5 working days after the date an agent is hired, and the department subsequently notifies the agency that an employee's license is currently suspended, revoked, or has been denied, the license of the primary agent shall not be revoked or suspended if the unlicensed person is immediately dismissed from employment as an insurance agent with the agency. (emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 4-224.007 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it exceeds the grant of rulemaking authority provided in Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes. The proposed rule does not provide parity of regulation. The proposed rule is not limited to assuring that no insurance agency or agent is subject to more stringent or less stringent regulation than another insurance agency or agent on the basis of the regulatory status of the entity that owns the agency or is associated with the agent. Proposed Rule 4-224.007 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges, modifies and contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. The proposed rule specifically states that "where an agent legally conducts insurance transactions at two or more agency locations, a separate primary agent need not be designated at each location. " Section 626.592, Florida Statutes, requires the designation of a primary agent for each insurance agency location. An insurance agency is defined as a location where any agent is engaged in the business of insurance. No insurance agency location can conduct the business of insurance unless a primary agent is designated at all times. A primary agent may be so designated for only one insurance agency location. The Department has no authority to waive the requirements of Section 626.592, Florida Statutes. Further, the proposed rule permits an agent to designate one location of several as a "primary location." There is no statutory authorization for designation of a "primary location." Proposed Rule 4-224.007 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The only testimony regarding this proposed rule relates to the alleged expense involved in requiring separate primary agent designation for some banks which may choose to offer insurance products. The testimony is not persuasive and does not constitute competent substantial evidence supporting the rule. Rule 4-224-012 (Coercion) Proposed Rule 4-224.012 provides: 4-224.012 Coercion No person shall by words, actions, or distribution of written materials require or imply that the purchase of insurance by a borrower or prospective borrower from a particular agent, agency, insurer or other entity is required as a condition of, or will influence the terms or conditions of, the lending of money or the extension of credit. To the extent that insurance may permissibly be marketed in connection with or in conjunction with any activities described in this section; The agent shall disclose at or before the initial discussion or in response concerning insurance coverage required or offered in connection with a loan or credit application, that: the purchase of insurance from any particular source is not a condition to the provision of, and will not affect the terms of, any loan of money or extension of credit; Insurance is available through agent not associated with a lender or creditor; and The choice of another insurance provider will not affect decisions relating to or terms of any loan or credit extension. 1. A written disclosure which addresses the elements of paragraph (a) above shall be provided to the consumer in a separate documents on Form DI4- (rev /97) or Form DI4- (rev /97) [sic] which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, or on another form approved in advance by the Department that provides equivalent disclosure, at or before the time the consumer completes an application or enrollment form or otherwise applies for coverage. 2. One copy of the form signed by the consumer shall be retained by the agent. The requirements of this rule 4-224.012 are inapplicable to credit insurance for which disclosures provided satisfy the disclosure requirements for excluding the premium of charge for insurance from the finance charge pursuant to Federal Truth in Lending Regulation Z, Section 12 CFR 226.4(d)(1) and (2), which is adopted incorporated herein by reference. As identified in the published rule proposal, Proposed Rule 4-224.012, Florida Administrative Code, is specifically authorized by Sections 624.308 and 626.9611, Florida Statutes, and implements Sections 626.5715, 626.051, 626.9541, 626.9551, and 626.9641, Florida Statutes. Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, provides the Department's general rulemaking authority. Section 626.9611, Florida Statutes, provides the Department's authority to adopt rules pursuant to Section 120, Florida Statutes, which specifically identify prohibited methods of competition, but limits such rules to those acts prohibited under Sections 626.9541 and 626.9551. Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity" statute, provides as set forth herein. Section 626.051, Florida Statutes, defines "life agent." Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes, addresses "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts" and is set forth herein. Section 626.9551, Florida Statutes, addresses the issue of coercion or "favoritism" and provides as follows: 626.9551 Favored agent or insurer; coercion of debtors.-- No person may: Require, as a condition precedent or condition subsequent to the lending of money or extension of credit or any renewal thereof, that the person to whom such money or credit is extended, or whose obligation the creditor is to acquire or finance, negotiate any policy or contract of insurance through a particular insurer or group of insurers or agent or broker or group of agents or brokers. Unreasonably disapprove the insurance policy provided by a borrower for the protection of the property securing the credit or lien. For purposes of this paragraph, such disapproval shall be deemed unreasonable if it is not based solely on reasonable standards, uniformly applied, relating to the extent of coverage required by such lender or person extending credit and the financial soundness and the services of an insurer. Such standards shall not discriminate against any particular type of insurer, nor shall such standards call for the disapproval of an insurance policy because such policy contains coverage in addition to that required. Require, directly or indirectly, that any borrower, mortgagor, purchaser, insurer, broker, or agent pay a separate charge in connection with the handling of any insurance policy required as security for a loan on real estate or pay a separate charge to substitute the insurance policy of one insurer for that of another. This paragraph does not include the interest which may be charged on premium loans or premium advances in accordance with the security instrument. Use or disclose information resulting from a requirement that a borrower, mortgagor, or purchaser furnish insurance of any kind on real property being conveyed or used as collateral security to a loan, when such information is to the advantage of the mortgagee, vendor, or lender, or is to the detriment of the borrower, mortgagor, purchaser, or insurer, or the agent or broker, complying with such a requirement. The department may investigate the affairs of any person to whom this section applies to determine whether such person has violated this section. If a violation of this section is found to have been committed knowingly, the person in violation shall be subject to the same procedures and penalties as provided in ss. 626.9571, 626.9581, 626.9591, and 626.9601. Section 626.9641, Florida Statutes, sets forth a series of standards known as Policyholder's Bill of Rights and provides as follows: 626.9641 Policyholders, bill of rights.-- The principles expressed in the following statements shall serve as standards to be followed by the department in exercising its powers and duties, in exercising administrative discretion, in dispensing administrative interpretations of the law, and in promulgating rules: Policyholders shall have the right to competitive pricing practices and marketing methods that enable them to determine the best value among comparable policies. Policyholders shall have the right to obtain comprehensive coverage. Policyholders shall have the right to insurance advertising and other selling approaches that provide accurate and balanced information on the benefits and limitations of a policy. Policyholders shall have a right to an insurance company that is financially stable. Policyholders shall have the right to be serviced by a competent, honest insurance agent or broker. Policyholders shall have the right to a readable policy. Policyholders shall have the right to an insurance company that provides an economic delivery of coverage and that tries to prevent losses. Policyholders shall have the right to a balanced and positive regulation by the department. This section shall not be construed as creating a civil cause of action by any individual policyholder against any individual insurer. Proposed Rule 4-224.012 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it exceeds the Department's grant of rulemaking authority. Such authority is limited to those rules which provide for equivalent regulation of insurance transactions without regard to ownership or affiliation of the insurance agent or agency. The evidence fails to establish that this rule provides for parity of insurance regulation. Proposed Rule 4-224.012 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges the specific provisions of law being implemented. The rule mandates a statement of disclosure for which there is no statutory requirement. The statutes cited as being implemented by this proposed rule clearly prohibit coercive activities, but do not impose any disclosure requirement as would be required by the rule. Proposed Rule 4-224.012 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because there is no competent substantial evidence supporting the rule. The Department asserts that research indicates consumers can be, and are, coerced into purchasing insurance products by lenders during credit transactions. The Department also cites a previous administrative action prosecuted under existing statutes as evidence that coercion occurs. The evidence offered by the Department, including the testimony of the Department's witnesses, fails to support the assertion that coercion by financial institutions in the sale of insurance products is a substantial problem. Neither the cited research nor the related testimony by the Department's witnesses was persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Michael White, establishes that there is little empirical evidence of coercion in the sale of insurance products by financial institutions. As additional support for the rule, the Department offered testimony related to the existence of other regulatory disclosure rules and of model language adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Neither the other rules or the model language establish that the proposed coercion rule meets the current requirements of law. Other disclosure regulations were adopted prior to recent amendments to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which altered the "reasonableness" standard under which such rules could have been appropriate. The relevant model language of the NAIC has not been adopted by the Florida legislature. Rule 4-224.013 (Remedies) Proposed Rule 4-224.013 provides as follows: 4-224.013 Remedies Any person violating the provisions of the Insurance Code implemented by this rule chapter shall be subject to the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order in accordance with the provisions of Sections 624.310(3) and 626.9581, Florida Statutes, and to the imposition of an administrative penalty pursuant to Sections 624.310(5) and 626.9521, Florida Statutes, and to such other sanctions or proceedings as are authorized by the Florida Insurance Code. If the majority owner, partner, manager, director, officer or other person who manages or controls an insurance agency violates any provision of the Insurance Code or any department rule, or knowingly permits violation of any requirement of these rules by an agent or employee of the agency, the agency must obtain a license as an insurance agency in accordance with the provisions of Section 626.112(8), Florida Statutes. As identified in the published rule proposal, Proposed Rule 4-224.013, Florida Administrative Code, is specifically authorized by Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, and implements Sections 624.310, 624.4211, 646.418, 626.5715, 626.051, 626.112, 626.9521 and 626.9581. Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, provides the Department with general rulemaking authority. Section 624.310, Florida Statutes, provides the Department with enforcement and prosecutorial powers for violations of the Insurance Code, including cease and desist orders, administrative fines, and removal of "affiliated parties." Section 624.4211, Florida Statutes, provides for imposition of administrative fines in lieu of other disciplinary penalties. Section 624.418, Florida Statutes, provides suspension or revocation of certificates of authority for certain violations and other conditions. Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity" statute, provides as set forth herein. Section 626.051, Florida Statutes, provides a definition of "life agent." Section 626.112, Florida Statutes, provides for licensure of agencies, agents and other representatives. Section 626.9521, Florida Statutes, prohibits and penalizes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices which are statutorily defined or determined pursuant to Sections 626.951 and 626.9651, Florida Statutes. Section 626.9581, Florida Statutes, provides the Department with the ability to issue cease and desist orders related to the commission of unfair or deceptive acts or practices or the unlawful transaction of insurance, and states as follows: 626.9581 Cease and desist and penalty orders.--After the hearing provided in s. 626.9571, the department shall enter a final order in accordance with s. 120.569. If it is determined that the person charged has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice or the unlawful transaction of insurance, the department shall also issue an order requiring the violator to cease and desist from engaging in such method of competition, act, or practice or the unlawful transaction of insurance. Further, if the act or practice is a violation of s. 626.9541 or s. 626.9551, the department may, at its discretion, order any one or more of the following: Suspension or revocation of the person's certificate of authority, license, or eligibility for any certificate of authority or license, if he or she knew, or reasonably should have known, he or she was in violation of this act. Such other relief as may be provided in the insurance code. The Department presented no evidence with respect to Proposed Rule 4-224.013. The Department asserts only that the proposed rule is intended to provide notice to non-traditional sellers of insurance that a violation of the Insurance Code will subject them to the penalties set forth in the Insurance Code. Proposed Rule 4-224.013 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is redundant and unnecessary. The rule does not implement, interpret or make specific any provision of Florida law. There is no competent substantial evidence which establishes the validity of the proposed rule. Rule 4-224.014 (Confidential Information) Proposed Rule 4-224.014 provides: 4-224.014 Confidential Information Obtaining confidential information for a stated purpose unrelated to the transaction of insurance when it is known that the information will or may be used for purposes of marketing insurance, and when the insurance-related purpose is not disclosed, constitutes a deceptive statement or omission and is an unfair and deceptive act or practice under the provisions of the Unfair Insurance Trade practices Act, Part X, Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. (2)(a) Any entity which is a non-insurance transaction obtains confidential information concerning an individual or entity where it is known the information will be used by an affiliate insurance agent or agency for purposes of marketing insurance, or where it is known or reasonably should be known that there is a present intent or plan to use such information in such a manner, shall conspicuously and clearly disclose that fact to the person at the time the information is obtained and the consumer should be afforded an opportunity to object to the utilization of such information. (b) If the disclosure is not provided on a separate form, it must be made on a document signed by the person, in which case the disclosure shall be made in a larger type size than that used elsewhere in the document, or in a manner that is otherwise clearly distinguishable from the remaining text of the document, and must appear immediately adjacent to the person's signature. If the disclosure is made on a separate form and if information obtained as a result of future transaction may be used for marketing purpose; The disclosure shall clearly reflect such fact, and After a period of three years a new disclosure form must be provided if additional confidential information is secured and this paragraph is not complied with. (3)(a) Insurance agents and insurance companies are prohibited under the Insurance Code from engaging in practices which are injurious to policyholders or the public. (b) Use of confidential information concerning any person for purposes of marketing insurance when the person has directed that the information not be used for such purposes entails conduct which is injurious to policyholders or the public. (4) For purposes of this rule 4-224.014, confidential information is information pertaining to an individual or entity that is generally not available, provided that in no event shall the name, address, or telephone number or any person be considered confidential. As identified in the published rule proposal, Proposed Rule 4-224.013, Florida Administrative Code, is specifically authorized by Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, and implements Sections 624.418(1)(b), 626.5715, 626.621(6), 626.9541(1), 626.9611 and 626.964(1), Florida Statutes. Section 624.308, Florida Statutes, provides the Department's general rulemaking authority. Section 624.418, Florida Statutes, provides suspension or revocation of certificates of authority for certain violations and other conditions. Subsection (1)(b) specifically provides for such penalties where the insurer is using such methods and practices in the conduct of its business as to render its further transaction of insurance in this state hazardous or injurious to its policyholders or to the public. Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, the "parity" statute, provides as set forth herein. Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes, sets forth grounds for denial or suspension of licensure, and provides as follows: 626.621 Grounds for discretionary refusal, suspension, or revocation of agent's, solicitor's, adjuster's, customer representative's, service representative's, managing general agent's, or claims investigator's license or appointment.--The department may, in its discretion, deny an application for, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license or appointment of any applicant, agent, solicitor, adjuster, customer representative, service representative, managing general agent, or claims investigator, and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or appointment of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or appointee any one or more of the following applicable grounds exist under circumstances for which such denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal is not mandatory under s. 626.611: * * * (6) In the conduct of business under the license or appointment, engaging in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as prohibited under part X of this chapter, or having otherwise shown himself or herself to be a source of injury or loss to the public or detrimental to the public interest. Section 626.9541, Florida Statutes, addresses "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts" and is set forth herein. Section 626.9611, Florida Statutes, provides the Department's authority to adopt rules pursuant to Section 120, Florida Statutes, which specifically identify prohibited methods of competition, but limits such rules to those acts prohibited under Sections 626.9541 and 626.9551. Section 626.9641(1), Florida Statutes, is the "Policyholder's Bill of Rights" and is set forth herein. Proposed Rule 4-224.014 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it exceeds the Department's grant of rulemaking authority. The evidence fails to establish that the cited statutes provide the Department with the authority to prohibit the collection or utilization of information. The proposed rule exceeds the Department's specific grant of rulemaking authority which is limited in this case to those rules which provide for equivalent regulation of insurance transactions without regard to ownership or affiliation of the insurance agent or agency. Proposed Rule 4-224.014 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The rule states that collection of information "when it is known that the information will or may be used for purposes of marketing insurance, and when the insurance-related purpose is not disclosed, constitutes a deceptive statement or omission. " The phrase "when it is known that the information...may be used" is vague and requires a post-collection determination of the intent of the data collector at the time the information was gathered. Further, proposed definition of "confidential information" as that which is "generally not available" is vague. The vagueness of the rule results in a lack of adequate standards for decision making and vests unbridled discretion in the Department. Proposed Rule 4-224.014 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The testimony related to this proposed rule consisted primarily of an analysis of the statutory support for the rule. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the undisclosed collection of information which may be used at some time in a non-insurance setting constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. There is no statutory provision which prohibits or restricts the sharing of information between a financial institution and an affiliated insurance agency. There is evidence that such prohibition as the Department intends to impose by this rule may violate the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 12 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(2), and the state Banking Code, Section 655.059(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ralph Edward Carter, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a life and health insurance agent and general lines agent - property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous lines by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed as a property and casualty insurance agent for Bankers Insurance Company (BIC) and Underwriters Guarantee Insurance Company (UGIC). In March 1987 respondent purchased an insurance franchise and began operating an insurance firm under the corporate name of Mr. Auto of South St. Petersburg, Inc. Records on file with the Department of State reflect that effective June 25, 1988 the name of the corporation was changed to Reliable Insurance of South St. Petersburg, Inc. Since February 1989 the business has been located at 3135 18th Avenue, South, No. C- 3, St. Petersburg, Florida. The corporation was primarily engaged in doing business as a general lines insurance agency. Respondent has been licensed as an agent since 1968, and during his tenure as an agent, has worked in sales with several large insurance companies. In January 1988 Betty Andrews purchased from respondent liability and property damage coverage on her two automobiles, a 979 Ford station wagon and a 1980 Chrysler. The insurance was written through UGIC and was effective for the year beginning January 8, 1988. Shortly after May 16, 1988 Andrews received a notice from UGIC reflecting that she owed an additional $38.90 on her policy. For some undisclosed reason, Andrews did not pay the additional premium owed. On July 6, 1988 Andrews visited respondent's office for the purpose of adding comprehensive and collision coverage on her two automobiles. After respondent quoted a rate, she agreed to purchase the additional coverage, filled out an application, and gave respondent two checks totaling $166. These monies were deposited into respondent's business account. The balance was to be paid in three monthly payments of approximately $55 each month through a finance company. Respondent gave Andrews a document entitled "Receipt and Binder Certificate" reflecting she had comprehensive and collision coverage with "Bankers" effective from July 6, 1988 to January 6, 1989. "Bankers" was in fact Bankers Insurance Company. When Andrews did not receive a policy from BIC, she attempted to contact respondent on several occasions to ascertain its whereabouts. Andrews could not recall when or how many times she telephoned respondent's office but indicated she was never able to reach him. This was probably because respondent operated a one-man office with no clerical help and was frequently absent from his office. In late August 1988 Andrews received a notice from UGIC advising that UGIC intended to cancel her policy effective September 7, 1988 because she failed to pay the $38.90 premium still due. At about this same time Andrews' husband sold the station wagon and purchased a truck. Accordingly, Andrews needed to transfer her insurance to the new vehicle. She went to respondent's office in early September 1988 and asked him why she had never received the new policy. She also asked him to find out why her existing policy was being cancel led and requested him to transfer coverage from the station wagon to the new truck. In Andrews' presence, respondent made a telephone call to UGIC and learned that Andrews' husband had failed to disclose on the insurance application that he had received a traffic ticket. This in turn caused a $38.90 increase in the annual premium, and because that amount had not been paid, the policy was being cancelled. Respondent attempted to persuade UGIC to reinstate the policy but was unsuccessful. Dissatisfied, Andrews told respondent she intended to file a complaint with the Department of Insurance. Respondent then wrote her a check for $166 which represented a full refund of her monies. There is no evidence to establish that respondent intended to defraud Andrews or to evade the requirements of the insurance code. Despite the fact that Andrews did not receive a policy, she was covered until September 1988 by her original policy and respondent's errors and omissions policy. Through testimony by an underwriting manager for BIC, David R. Wardlow, it was established that respondent had entered into a correspondent agreement with an agent of BIC. Wardlow's review of BIC's records reflected that BIC had never received Andrews' application and premium nor was a policy written on her behalf. However, there was no evidence to establish how promptly respondent was required to remit a new application and premium to BIC or whether respondent violated BIC policy by retaining the application and monies for some sixty days until he learned that the existing policy had been cancel led. Respondent readily conceded that he never forwarded the application and premium monies to BIC. He explained his actions by pointing out that after Andrews left his office he decided to secure the coverage from UGIC rather than BIC in order to have the entire coverage with one company at a cheaper rate. When he later learned that UGIC intended to cancel Andrews' policy for nonpayment of premium, he thought he might be able to persuade UGIC to reinstate the policy but was unsuccessful. He offered no excuse except inadvertence as to why he had not promptly followed up on Andrews' application. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Johnnie Ruth Bell who purchased automobile insurance from respondent in October 1988. Although Bell's testimony was often vague and confusing, the following facts were established. On or about October 1, 1988 Bell went to respondent's office to purchase full insurance coverage on her 1987 Toyota Corolla. After discussing various options with respondent, Bell agreed to purchase a policy issued through Redmond-Adams, a Sarasota underwriter for UGIC. Bell gave respondent a check in the amount of $227 as a down payment and agreed to finance the balance through a finance company at a rate of $78 per month for eight months. These monies were deposited into respondent's bank account. Respondent issued a "Receipt and Binder Certificate" reflecting coverage with "Underwriter - Redmond Adams". Because Bell had financed the car with a local bank, it was necessary for respondent to furnish the bank with evidence of insurance. Through inadvertence, but not intentionally or willfully, respondent misplaced the application and never forwarded the application and premium to the insurance company nor did he notify the bank of Bell's insurance coverage. However, Bell was covered during this period of time by respondent's errors and omissions policy. After Bell did not receive a copy of her policy from Redmond-Adams, but received a number of telephone calls and notices from her bank, she met with respondent around December 2, 1988. Respondent accepted an additional $156 in cash from Bell and issued her a new binder effective that date which was identical to the first binder except for the date. It is unknown why the additional money was collected. He then tore up the first binder. When Bell had still not received her policy by April 1989, she filed a complaint with petitioner. After respondent learned that Bell had filed a complaint, he contacted her in May 1989 and refunded all of her monies. There was no evidence to establish how promptly respondent was required to submit applications and premiums to UGIC or how that company construed the term "in the regular course of business" in the context of agents remitting applications and premiums. Respondent blamed his problems on the fact that he is the sole employee of his office and, according to his estimate, services some 500 active clients per year and more than 1,500 accounts. He desires to continue in the insurance profession and points to the fact that, of the many insurance transactions handled by him over the last twenty-two years, the Andrews and Bell transactions are the only two that have spawned any significant problems. Moreover, he has never been disciplined by petitioner during his tenure as an agent. Respondent asks that any penalty be limited to a period of probation during which time he can have the opportunity to improve his management and bookkeeping skills. There was no evidence to establish whether respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the insurance profession. As to respondent's knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by his licenses, he conceded he lacks training in bookkeeping and management skills, both needed for a general lines agent, but denied that he lacks the necessary skills in the sales part of the business. This was not contradicted. Finally, respondent has taken curative steps to insure that applications are not misplaced and the customer receives the requested insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating sections 626.611(8) and 626.734 and that his general lines license be suspended for thirty days. All other charges should be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of March, 1990, 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 13 day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 5-7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 8-11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. Respondent: A Partially adopted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Rejected since respondent did not move his office until February 1989. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. I. Partially adopted in findings of fact 3 and 8. Partially adopted in findings of' fact 7 and 8. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Note - Where a finding has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, cumulative, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner Plaza Level, The Capital Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Richard J. DaFonte, Esquire O. Box 41750 St. Petersburg, FL 33743-1750 Donald A. Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure as a resident general lines agent.
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 1998, Robert Manns, a representative for Butler County, Missouri, filed a consumer complaint with the Missouri Department of Insurance, which alleged that Petitioner financed a premium for an insurance policy when the premium had, in fact, been paid by the county. On June 9, 1999, Petitioner was assessed a fine of $10,000.00 by the Missouri Department of Insurance based on Petitioner's having practiced forgery and deception in an insurance transaction. Specifically, it was found that Petitioner signed the names of the city finance director and county commission clerk to premium finance documents and letters representing that the city and county had financed a premium when, in fact, the city and county had paid the insurance premium for the city and county accounts in full on an annual basis. At the time Petitioner forged the premium finance agreement, he was licensed as an insurance agent in the State of Missouri. The Missouri Department of Insurance did not revoke Petitioner's license as an insurance agent in the State of Missouri. On February 14, 2000, the Indiana Department of Insurance denied Petitioner’s application for licensure based upon the Missouri administrative action. On September 19, 2003, Petitioner applied for licensure as a resident general lines agent in the State of Florida. Based on its review of Petitioner's application and the administrative documents from the Missouri Department of Insurance described in paragraphs 2 above, the Department denied Petitioner’s application. In regard to the incident described in paragraph 2 above, Petitioner denied that he forged the insurance contract, but he admitted that he forged the premium finance agreement associated with the subject insurance contract. However, Petitioner testified that "no one lost money" as a result of his forging the premium finance agreement. Petitioner testified that he was not proud of the incident, that he was very sorry for doing it, and that his actions could not be justified. The Department considers the forgery of documents and deception related to insurance documents and transactions by an insurance agent to be serious matters. This is particularly true in light of the fiduciary role of an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a resident general lines insurance agent in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny R. Howe 4367 Winding Oaks Circle Mulberry, Florida 33860 Michael T. Ruff, Esquire Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as an Ordinary Life, Disability and a General Lines agent should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for reasons set forth hereinafter by the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner on September 24, 1982. EXHIBITS The following exhibits were made part of the record: An Insurance Binder dated October 7, 1980, issued to Colon Aveiga by Center Insurance Agency, Inc., and signed by Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $554 for an auto insurance policy issued by Dixie Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 53). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated October 10, 1980, signed by Colon Aveiga and Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $514 (Petitioner's Exhibit 44). An Insurance Binder dated April 20, 1981, issued to Colon Aveiga and signed by Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $767 credit for premiums paid and $299 for premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 56). A copy of a cancelled personal check (numbered 128) written by Colon Aveiga, dated April 20, 1981, made payable to Metro Insurance Agency in the amount of $299 for payment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 57). A Notice of Cancellation of a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy dated March 25, 1981, and issued to Colon Aveiga for nonpayment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 52). An Amended Fireman's Fund Auto Insurance Policy dated February 6, 1981, issued to Colon Aveiga and showing a premium adjustment of $271 due (Petitioner's Exhibit 49). A Fireman's Fund Interoffice Memo dated March 23, 1981, written by Albert Sons, FJUA Underwriting Manager for Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, discussing Colon Aveiga's insurance policy application (Petitioner's Exhibit 42). A Fireman's Fund FJUA Underwriters Request for Information from Metro Insurance Agency regarding Colon Aveiga, dated December 1, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 46) A Fireman's Fund Underwriting memo dated January 14, 1981, requesting information about Colon Aveiga from Metro Insurance Agency and containing a new address for Colon Aveiga (Petitioner's Exhibit 47). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Gaston Aveiga's certified driving record, dated September 16, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 43). An Insurance Binder dated October 2, 1980, issued to Marc Gavidia by Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins, evidencing a payment of $140 for an auto insurance policy issued by Fireman's Fund (Petitioner's Exhibit 97). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement dated October 23, 1980, issued to Marc Gavidia by the Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 98). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Marc Gavidia's certified driving record, dated September 16, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 99). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated October 9, 1980, signed by Marc Gavidia and Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 101). A Policy Change Request for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated February 10, 1981, issued by Metro Insurance Agency, signed by Jon Scott Robbins, concerning Marc Gavidia's policy and listing his address as 5361 S.E. 11th Street, Tallahassee, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 111). A Notice of Cancellation of Marc Gavidia's auto insurance policy, dated February 27, 1981, issued by Fireman's Fund and citing material misrepresentation as the grounds for the cancellation (Petitioner's Exhibit 112). A copy of a cancelled personal check (No. 1726) written by Juana Perez, dated March 12, 1981, made payable to Metro Insurance Agency in the amount of $299 for payment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 62). An Insurance Binder dated March 12, 1981, issued to Rogelio Perez by Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins, evidencing auto insurance coverage by Utah Home Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 63). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement dated March 12, 1981, issued to Rogelio Perez by Metro Insurance Agency, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 78). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated March 12, 1981, signed by Rogelio Perez and Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 65). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage by Rogelio Perez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $978 (Petitioner's Exhibit 75). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage by Rogelio Perez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $881 (Petitioner's Exhibit 66). A receipt from Luby's Chevrolet of Miami, Florida, showing $1,084 received from Luis G. Capon (Petitioner's Exhibit 80). An Insurance Binder dated January 26, 1981, issued to Luis Capon by Metro Insurance Agency, signed by Jon Scott Robbins and evidencing auto insurance coverage provided by Utah Home Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 81). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy dated January 28, 1981, signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 84). A Policy Change Request for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy stating that Luis Capon's address had been changed to 2560 S.W. 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 86). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Luis Capon's certified driving record, dated September 12, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 79). A cancelled policy advisal dated July 8, 1981, regarding Luis Capon's Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy (Petitioner's Exhibit 90). A letter from Albert M. Sons, dated September 22, 1981, in his capacity as FJUA Manager stating that an inspection by Fireman's Fund established that Luis Capon had not moved to Gainesville, Florida, and that in fact he lived in Miami and was therefore in a higher rating zone (Petitioner's Exhibit 89). An Interoffice Memo from the file of Fireman's Fund dated March 23, 1981, in reference to Luis Capon questioning certain inconsistencies in that individual's application for insurance (Petitioner's Exhibit 83). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated September 10, 1980, issued to Javier Alvarez, showing a signature of "Javier Alvarez" and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage of Javier Alvarez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $737 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). A Return to Sender letter from Fireman's Fund to Javier Alvarez bearing the address of 4902 S.W. 84th Street, Plantation, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). A Fireman's Fund FJUA Underwriters request for Javier Alvarez' correct address, issued to Metro Insurance Agency, dated November 14, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement allegedly signed by Javier Alvarez, issued by Metro Insurance Agency, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 19). A letter from the National Insurance Finance Company to Javier Alvarez, 251 Crandon Boulevard, Miami, Florida, informing Alvarez of dates and terms of due payments (Petitioner's Exhibit 20). Deposition of A. M. Beverly, taken February 22, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). FJUA Rating Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Fireman's Fund FJUA Rating Examination (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). The following witnesses testified on behalf of the Petitioner: Gaston Aveiga, Albert M. Sons, Peter Gavidia, Marc Gavidia, Juana Perez, Luis Capon, and Javier Alvarez. The Respondent testified on his own behalf. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, post-hearing memoranda, documentary evidence received, pre-hearing stipulations and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jon Scott Robbins, was, during times material herein, licensed as an Ordinary Life, Disability and General Lines agent. By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated September 24, 1982, Petitioner, Department of Insurance, charged that the Respondent engaged in the following acts and/or conduct (in summary fashion) which amounts to conduct violative of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, to wit: Respondent failed to account for or pay to the insurer, insured, or other persons entitled to premiums or other funds received belonging to insurers or others in transactions under his license in a fiduciary capacity, in violation of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent diverted or appropriated such funds or portions thereof for his own use, in violation of Section 626.561(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent collected a sum as premium or charge for insurance in excess of or less than the premium or charge applicable to such insurance, in violation of Section 626.9541(15)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent misappropriated, converted, or unlawfully withheld monies belonging to insurers, insureds, beneficiaries, or others received in the conduct of business under his license, in violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly filed with a supervisor or other public official, or made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, or caused directly or indirectly to be filed with a supervisor, or other public official, or made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, any false material statement, in violation of Section 626.9541(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false material statement, in violation of Section 626.9541(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false entry of material fact in a book, report, or statement of any person, or knowingly omitted to make a true entry of a material fact pertaining to the business of such person in a book, report, or statement of such person, in violation of Section 626.9541(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent made false or fraudulent statements or representation on, or relative to, an application for an insurance policy for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money, or other benefit from an insurer, agent, broker or individual, in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false or fraudulent statement or representation in or with reference to an application or negotiation for insurance, in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent willfully violated a provision or provisions of the Insurance Code, in violation of Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Respondent demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices, in violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. Respondent engaged in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts as prohibited under Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. Respondent violated a provision of the Insurance Code, in violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent has shown himself to be a source of injury or loss to the public, or detrimental to the public interest, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. During times material herein, Respondent served as a General Lines agent and represented Fireman's Fund Insurance (Fireman's Fund). The complaint allegations, in summary fashion, may be grouped in two classifications; (1) that Respondent knowingly filed false statements of material facts concerning insureds in an attempt to attract more insureds by offering lower rates and (2) Respondent received premiums from insureds in excess of the actual premiums he submitted to Fireman's Fund and thereby unlawfully appropriated the excess monies to his own use. Albert Sons is the underwriting manager for the Florida Joint Underwriters Association (FJUA) in his capacity for Fireman's Fund and is a direct contact for Fireman's Fund with the Respondent. All FJUA premium rates are identical given the same variables such as age, type of vehicle, use and territory. Any variation of these factors changes the rate in a uniform manner and that change is uniform throughout the industry. As an example, Miami is a substantially higher rated territory than Gainesville (TR 31-32). An insured who cancels his insurance coverage is charged the amount of premium based on the amount of time that the coverage remained in effect plus a service charge exacted by the company for processing the application. Pursuant to negotiations for the purchase of auto insurance, Gaston Aveiga, speaking on behalf of his father Colon Aveiga, informed Respondent of his Florida driver's license number and date of birth. The same information was provided to the Respondent on behalf of Colon Aveiga. Gaston advised the Respondent that he would be the principal driver of the car to be insured. Colon Aveiga purchased an auto insurance policy from the Respondent on October 7, 1980 and was quoted a premium of $544. Colon received an insurance binder from Respondent reflecting his correct address: 1215 NE 110th Street, Miami, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 53). Approximately three days later, an application was made to Fireman's Fund on October 10, 1980, reflecting that Colon Aveiga's address is 1534 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida. The Aveigas have never lived in Gainesville nor have they indicated any intention of moving to Gainesville (TR 15). The insurance application further provides that Colon Aveiga is the only driver of the car and that he had an international drivers license whereas the Aveigas only have Florida driver's licenses; they specifically informed the Respondent of the same and that Gaston would be the principal driver of the insured car. The application submitted to Fireman's Fund on behalf of the Aveigas reflects a total premium of $514 which is, of course, $30 less than the premium quoted and collected from Colon Aveiga. On October 2, 1980, Marc Gavidia, and his father, Peter, purchased an auto insurance policy from the Respondent, doing business as Metro Insurance Agency. 2/ Respondent provided the Gavidias an insurance binder containing their correct address: 10441 SW 50th Street, Miami, Florida and evidencing a payment of $140 towards the balance due (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 97). The insurance was purchased to insure Marc Gavidia's Dodge van of which he was the principal driver. Marc Gavidia purchased the auto insurance from Respondent because of the cheaper rate (TR pp. 41-45). On October 4, 1980, an auto insurance application was tendered to Fireman's Fund on behalf of Marc Gavidia reflecting that he was self-employed (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 101). Marc Gavidia did not list himself as self- employed on the application (TR 49). Marc Gavidia gave Respondent his Florida driver's license which reflected a birth date of February 7, 1960 whereas the application submitted by Respondent on behalf of Marc Gavidia reflects a birth date of February 14, 1950 with a different driver's license number (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 101). On February 14, 1981 Respondent sent a policy change request for Florida auto insurance stating that the insured, Marc Gavidia, transferred schools to Tallahassee and now lives at 5361 SE 11th Street, Tallahassee, Florida (petitioner's Exhibit No. 111). Marc Gavidia has never lived in Tallahassee nor has he communicated to the Respondent any intent of moving to Tallahassee. (TR pp. 49-50). Juana Perez and her husband, Rogelio Perez purchased auto insurance from the Respondent based on the low rate quoted by Respondent. Ms. Perez wrote a check in the amount of $275 payable to Metro Insurance and received an insurance binder (TR pp. 53-54). Ms. Perez gave David Einhorn (a salesman of a local automobile dealership who was representing Respondent) Mr. Perez's Florida driver's license and Mr. Einhorn made a copy of the license (TR p. 56). An application for insurance was submitted to Fireman's Fund on behalf of the Perezes and reflects a total premium of $893. The application states further that the applicant has an international drivers license whereas Mr. Perez has never had an international drivers license (TR p. 59). The application reflects further that Mr. Perez was unemployed whereas he was employed at the time of his application for insurance (TR pp. 59, 63 and 65). An insurance premium finance agreement dated December 30, 1981, entered into by Mr. Perez shows $978 as a total amount of premiums minus the $275 downpayment leaving $704.20 as the amount to be financed (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 78). This represents approximately eighty-five ($85.00) dollars more than the premium sent to Fireman's Fund. On January 28, 1981, Luis Capon, purchased auto insurance from the Respondent and an application was submitted to Fireman's Fund reflecting a total premium of $789. At that time, Luis Capon paid $1,084 in cash to the Metro Insurance Company (TR p. 68). The application submitted by Respondent reflected further that Luis Capon had an international drivers license No. 1581934 and was born on January 15, 1944. At the time Luis Capon made application with the Respondent for auto insurance, he provided his Florida Drivers license which reflected his correct address: 419 NW 15th Avenue, Miami, Florida and his birth date, November 28, 1956 (TR p. 71). A policy change request for Fireman's Fund issued to Luis Capon states that Capon changed his address to 2560 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida. The policy change request form was signed by Respondent. Luis Capon has never lived in Gainesville nor has he evidenced to Respondent any intent of living in Gainesville. Further, Luis Capon has never received any refund from Respondent and in fact had to pay additional premiums (TR p. 73). The additional premium seems to have stemmed from additional violations as reflected by a DMV Driving Report. Javier Alvarez purchased an auto insurance policy from Respondent and was advised that the total cash premium for the policy was $830. Javier Alvarez paid $250 and financed the remaining $580 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19). An application submitted on behalf of Mr. Alvarez reflects a total premium of $730 which was submitted with the application. Mr. Alvarez has not received a refund of the difference in the amount quoted i.e. $830 and the amount $730 actually paid to Fireman's Fund by Respondent. When negotiating for the purchase of the auto insurance policy from the Respondent, Javier Alvarez gave the Respondent his Florida driver's license which contained his license number, birth date and address. The application submitted on behalf of Mr. Alvarez shows a Plantation, Florida address and reflects that Javier Alvarez has a Massachusetts driver's license and a birth date of August 16, 1940 whereas his correct birth date is February 22, 1961 and his address is 251 Crandon Boulevard, Apartment 342, Key Biscayne, Florida (TR p. 106). Mr. Alvarez has never had any address other than the Key Biscayne, Florida address and has never possessed a Massachusetts driver's license. On April 2, 1981, Respondent sent an endorsement request to Fireman's Fund advising that Javier Alvarez had transferred schools and was living in Gainesville, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Javier Alvarez has never attended any school in Gainesville, Florida nor has he indicated to Respondent any intent to do so (TR p. 110). THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION The Respondent testified on his own behalf and has been licensed since 1978. Respondent was first employed as a managing agent and as an underwriter for several years with another agency. During that employment, Respondent did not have the guidance and/or the assistance of a tutor. Respondent acknowledged that there were indeed numerous errors in addresses but he attributes same to the fact that he was a new agent without proper checks and balances in his office at the time, and that he, more than anyone else, was the victim of such mistakes. Respondent points to the fact that he earns commissions based on the amount of premiums and that the lower premiums quoted result in lower commissions to him. Finally, Respondent points to the fact that other agencies such as the chief complaining party in this case, Fireman's Fund, had a greater error ratio than the Respondent in the conduct of its insurance agency and that these errors were the result of sloppy clerical work and language barriers more than any intentional act on Respondent's part. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's insurance license as referred to herein be suspended for a period of two (2) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that eighteen (18) months of the subject suspension be suspended during which time the Respondent's license shall be placed on probation. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1983
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Peter Gregory Santisteban (Respondent) was licensed as a general lines agent by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Southern Associates Insurance Agency (Southern Associates) was a licensed general lines insurance agency by the State of Florida. Southern Associates was incorporated. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the owner, sole stockholder, president, and corporate director of Southern Associates. At all times material hereto, Respondent had sole responsibility for the financial affairs of Southern Associates and had sole signatory authority on Southern Associates’ checking account. AAPCO is a premium finance company. At all times material hereto, Respondent and AAPCO had an arrangement in which policies written by Respondent, which needed financing, would be financed by AAPCO. The arrangement between Respondent and AAPCO was executed as follows: Respondent maintained AAPCO drafts and had signatory authority on APPCO drafts. If a client needed financing, Respondent would receive a down payment from the client on the insurance premium. The down payment was approximately thirty-three percent of the premium. Respondent would receive a commission of approximately fifteen percent. His commission would be taken from the down payment. Respondent would execute an APPCO draft payable to the insurance company for the total premium less his commission. Respondent would forward the down payment less his commission (net) to AAPCO, the premium finance company. In or around 1990 or 1991, the execution of the arrangement changed in that, instead of writing a check to AAPCO for each insured’s net, Respondent would use transmittal forms which permitted Respondent to write one check for the net of multiple insureds. On or about March 25, 1994, Respondent issued check number 1503 from the account of Southern Associates payable to AAPCO in the amount of $1,215.14 for payment of multiple nets due to AAPCO. The check was deposited in the account of AAPCO but was returned for insufficient funds. On or about May 26, 1994, Respondent issued check number 1517 from the account of Southern Associates payable to AAPCO in the amount of $2,706.73 for payment of multiple nets due to AAPCO. The check was deposited in the account of AAPCO but was returned due to the account being closed. On or about July 13, 1994, AAPCO made demand for Respondent to pay the moneys due it. Respondent did not and has not paid AAPCO the moneys due. The total amount owed by Respondent to AAPCO is $3,921.87. Respondent attempted to reach an agreement with AAPCO wherein he would make monthly payments until the moneys due had been paid in full. AAPCO rejected Respondent’s offer and instead requested that Respondent make a lump sum payment of $2,000 and pay the remainder in monthly installments. Due to financial difficulty, Respondent was unable to agree to AAPCO’s payment option.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order Suspending the license of Peter Gregory Santisteban, as a general lines agent, for nine months; and Conditioning the reinstatement of his license after the expiration of the suspension upon his payment of $3,921.87 to AAPCO. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Prentiss, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Miguel San Pedro, Esquire 825 Southeast Bayshore Drive Suite 1541 Miami, Florida 33131 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
