Findings Of Fact In 1984 and for many years prior Petitioner held a Certificate of Qualification to bid on and be awarded contracts let by the Department. On April 10, 1984, Petitioner entered into a voluntary plea, and was convicted of a one-count criminal violation of Title 15, USC, Section 1, which is commonly known as "The Sherman Antitrust Act." The charge involved a public contract with the Florida Department of Transportation in which Petitioner received a complimentary bid from another contractor who was bidding on the same project which was awarded to Petitioner. This practice is commonly known as "bid rigging." The conviction took place in the U. S. Northern District Court of Florida. Petitioner would have submitted the same bid on this project without the benefit of the complimentary bid. 33 C.F.R, Part 16, provides for a maximum debarment on first conviction of 36 months by a federal agency. Petitioner was debarred by the Federal Highway Administration for only six (6) months based upon a review and determination of culpability of the Petitioner in the crime of which Petitioner was convicted. Immediately subsequent to December 17, 1984, Petitioner was declared acceptable for employment on highway projects which required approval or concurrence of the Federal Highway Administration. On June 18, 1984, Respondent revoked the Petitioner's Certificate of Qualification for a period of 36 months pursuant to Florida Statutes 337.165(2)(a). The only reason given for the revocation was the aforementioned conviction. With the exception of Petitioner, who has never had a decision rendered on a Petition for Reinstatement by Respondent, every contractor who has been debarred and/or had its Certificate of Qualification revoked by Respondent pursuant to Section 337.165, Florida Statutes, who has petitioned for reinstatement, has been reinstated by Respondent. Exhibit "A" hereto is a list of contractors who were debarred by Respondent and were reinstated. It was in the public interest to reinstate each of these contractors. It is in the public interest and the interest of the Respondent to build roads, build them at a good price, and have a competitive bidding system with integrity. Petitioner has promptly and voluntarily continued to pay its fine of $65,000 to the Federal Court. No payment of damages has ever been requested by the State as a result of the Petitioner's violation of state or federal antitrust laws. The Petitioner notified the Respondent within thirty (30) days after his conviction of the contract crime. Petitioner has the manpower, equipment, financial resources, and contracting experience to meet the Respondent's requirements in those areas for the purpose of a Certificate of Qualification. Howard H. Hewitt became affiliated with Square D Contracting Company in 1967 when he acquired a minority interest in the company. He subsequently increased that interest to 50 percent. In 1980 he acquired the remainder of the stock and changed the name of the company to Hewitt Contracting Co., Inc. In 1980 the Florida Attorney General's Office commenced an investigation of bid rigging by road contractors. In February 1983 the Attorney General's Office subpoenaed Hewitt to appear under their Civil Investigative Demand procedures and give evidence about his knowledge of bid rigging in Florida. He appeared and, on the advice of counsel, refused to give testimony claiming protection under the Fifth Amendment. By Court Order, Exhibit 8, dated June 24, 1983, Hewitt was directed to give testimony to the Florida Attorney General under grant of immunity from criminal prosecution and from any civil penalty as provided in s. 542.21(1), Florida Statutes (1981), as to those transactions about which he testifies. In compliance with that order he submitted documents and testified before assistant attorneys general three times. A grant of immunity by the Florida Attorney General's Office would not shield Hewitt from federal prosecution. Following the filing of charges by the Federal District Attorney, Hewitt provided testimony to federal officials several times regarding his knowledge of contract crimes, dropped his membership in the Florida Road Builders Association, started using a different hotel during his appearances in Tallahassee, and limited his contacts with fellow contractors to those necessary to conduct business. In a subsequent damage trial brought by the Attorney General's Office against Ezelle Construction Company, Hewitt advised both parties that he would testify for neither and, upon advice of counsel, would claim the Fifth Amendment if subpoenaed. Neither side subpoenaed Hewitt. The jury found Ezelle not liable for damages as claimed by the Attorney General. The only witness called by Respondent, Assistant Attorney General Bayard W. Heath, testified that the critical part of the bid rigging investigation in which he was involved occurred in 1983 at which time Hewitt asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege and caused a change in the investigation plans of the antitrust division. When Hewitt's counsel in January 1985 advised Heath that Hewitt would take the Fifth Amendment if subpoenaed to testify in the civil damages suit brought against Frank Ezelle, et al., he released Hewitt from the subpoena and did not attempt to enforce the subpoena. Petitioner presented one rebuttal witness, the attorney who represented Hewitt during the civil investigative demand procedures by the antitrust division of the Attorney General's Office. He testified that he was never advised by Heath or any other attorney from the Florida Antitrust Division that there was a critical period during which Hewitt's testimony was wanted, or that they were in any manner dissatisfied with the cooperation given by Hewitt after the grant of immunity. This witness also testified that an offer by Hewitt to settle any charges against him by an offer to pay damages to the state was flatly rejected by the antitrust division and that he was told that if Hewitt cooperated with the antitrust division they would decide after the fact what action they would take against petitioner. Prior to the revocation of its Certificate of Qualification in 1984, Square D and subsequently Hewitt Contracting Co., Inc., enjoyed a reputation as a competitive bidder who completed projects in a timely and professional manner. Two witnesses employed by Respondent in the area of Petitioner's headquarters opined that reinstatement of Petitioner's Certificate of Qualification would enhance the road building and construction work in Florida by the addition of Petitioner as an active participant in the bidding process. Subsequent to the conviction in the Federal Court Petitioner prepared a Code of Conduct for Employees of Hewitt Contracting Company (Exhibit 4) and distributed this to all personnel involved in preparing bids for Petitioner. Additionally, Howard H. Hewitt personally approves all bids submitted by Petitioner and supervises those preparing these bids. Howard H. Hewitt expressed remorse about the company's prior activity leading to the conviction and is committed to ensuring that it never occurs again.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for her employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material finding of facts are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002).1 On August 8, 2003, Respondent was a sole proprietor in the construction industry by framing single-family homes. On that day, Respondent was the sub-contractor under contract with Marco Raffaele, general contractor, providing workers on a single-family home(s) located on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Riverview, Florida. It is the responsibility of the Respondent/employer to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. During the early morning hours of August 8, 2003, Donald Lott, the Department's workers' compensation compliance investigator, was in the Panther Trace subdivision checking on site workers for potential violations of the workers' compensation statute. While driving down Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Mr. Lott approached two houses under construction. There he checked the construction workers on site and found them in compliance with the workers' compensation statute. Mr. Lott recognized several of the six men working on the third house under construction next door and went over to investigate workers' compensation coverage for the workers.2 At the third house Mr. Lott interviewed Darren McCarty, Henry Keithler, and Mike Sabin, all of whom acknowledged that they worked for Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott ascertained through Southeast Leasing Company (Southeast Leasing) that three of the six workers, Messrs. Keithler, Sabin, and McCarthy were listed on Southeast Leasing Company's payroll through a valid employee lease agreement with Respondent as of August 8, 2003. The completed employee lease agreement provided for Southeast Leasing Company to provide workers' compensation coverage for only those employees whose names, dates of birth, and social security numbers are contained in the contractual agreement by which Southeast Leasing leased those named employees to the employing entity, Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott talked with the other three workers on site, Ramos Artistes, Ryan Willis, and Robert Stinchcomb. Each worker acknowledged working for (as an employee) Respondent on August 8, 2003, in the Panther Trace subdivision. In reply to his faxed inquiry to Southeast Leasing regarding the workers' compensation coverage status for Messrs. Artistes, Willis, and Stinchcomb, Southeast Leasing confirmed to Mr. Lott that on August 8, 2003, Southeast Leasing did not have a completed employee leasing contractual agreement with Respondent for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb. Southeast Leasing did not provide workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb on August 8, 2003.3 Southeast Leasing is an "employee" leasing company and is the "employer" of "leased employees." As such, Southeast Leasing is responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its "leased employees" only. Southeast Leasing, through its account representative, Dianne Dunphy, input employment applications into their system on the day such application(s) are received from employers seeking to lease employees. Southeast Leasing did not have employment applications in their system nor did they have a completed contractual employment leasing agreement and, therefore, did not have workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes and Willis at or before 12:08 p.m. on August 8, 2003. After obtaining his supervisor's authorization, Mr. Lott served a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order against Respondent on August 8, 2003, at 12:08 p.m., requiring the cessation of all business activities and assessing a penalty of $100, required by Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, and a penalty of $1,000, as required by Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, the minimum penalty under the statute. On August 12, 2003, the Department served a Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order containing one change, corrected federal identification number for Respondent's business, Riopelle Construction. Mr. Stinchcomb, the third worker on the construction job site when Mr. Lott made his initial inquiry, was cutting wood. On August 8, 2003, at or before 12:00 p.m., Mr. Stinchcomb was not on the Southeast Leasing payroll as a leased employee covered for workers' compensation; he did not have individual workers' compensation coverage; and he did not have a workers' compensation exemption. On that day and at that time, Mr. Stinchcomb worked as an employee of Riopelle Construction and was paid hourly by Riopelle Construction payroll check(s). Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb, when he was working on the construction job site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on August 8, 2003, was an independent contractor fails for the lack of substantial and competent evidence in support thereof. On August 8, 2003, the Department, through Mr. Lott, served an administrative request for business records on Respondent. Respondent failed and refused to respond to the business record request. An Order requiring Respondent to respond to Petitioner's discovery demands was entered on December 1, 2003, and Respondent failed to comply with the order. On December 8, 2003, Respondent responded that "every effort would be made to provide the requested documents by the end of the day" to Petitioner. Respondent provided no reliable evidence and Mr. Stinchcomb was not called to testify in support of Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor as he worked on the site on August 8, 2003. Respondent's evidence, both testamentary and documentary, offered to prove that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor on the date in question failed to satisfy the elements required in Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part provides that: "[f]or purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph(d)(1)." Subsection 440.02(15)(d)(1) provides that an "employee" does not include an independent contractor if: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The testimony of Respondent and the testimony of her husband, Edward Riopelle, was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and incorrect dates and was so confusing as to render such testimony unreliable. Based upon this finding, Respondent failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and failed to demonstrate that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb, while working on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision was an employee of Respondent and was not an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stinchcomb did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Willis was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision as an employee of Respondent, who paid him $7.00 per hour. Mr. Willis was not listed on the employee list maintained by Southeast Leasing, recording those employees leased to Respondent. Mr. Willis did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Willis had neither workers' compensation coverage nor a workers' compensation exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Willis did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Artises was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision and was an employee of Respondent. Mr. Artises had been in the employment of Respondent for approximately one week before the stop work order. Mr. Artises did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Artises did not have a workers' compensation coverage exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Aristes did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, affirming and adopting the Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated August 12, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)1., (j) and (m), Florida Statutes (2004),1/ and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. CG C1507065. Respondent's license as a general contractor was first issued on April 12, 2004, and is current and active. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was part-owner and the qualifying agent of a Florida corporation named Golden Rule Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to "GRCG"). The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Facts Related to Freedman Property On or about June 1, 2005, Barry Freedman (hereinafter referred to as "Freedman") entered into a contract to construct a room addition and remodel a bathroom at Freedman's residence at 2349 East Manor Avenue in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The pre-printed contract indicated that the contractor was GRCG. Also, the letterhead on the contract included the name "Golden Rule Construction Group, Inc." and the company's address, telephone number, fax number, and Respondent's general contractor's license number. The contract was executed by Freedman, as the homeowner, and Steve DiBenedetto (hereinafter referred to as "DiBenedetto"), as the contractor. All negotiations and presentations relative to the contract were between Freedman and DiBenedetto. The contract price was $52,652.00. Of this amount, Freedman paid $14,657.00, all of which was accepted by DiBenedetto as contractor for GRCG. Initially, on or about May 31, 2005, Freedman gave DiBenedetta a $10,000.00 check as a deposit for the construction project. On or about July 13, 2005, Freedman gave DiBenedetto a $4,657.00 check as a second payment under the contract. The payee on both checks was GRCG. DiBenedetta and a man identified as John Smith3/ commenced the bathroom remodeling project in June 2005 and satisfactorily completed that project by September 2005. The bathroom remodeling project was started and completed, even though no building permit had been pulled. Based on representations of DiBenedetta and/or John Smith, Freedman believed no permit was necessary for the bathroom remodel.4/ The Contract does not delineate or specify the cost of the room addition and the cost of the bathroom remodeling project. However, the value of the bathroom remodel was estimated by a qualified independent third party to be $7,804.00. The room addition was to begin in September or October 2005, after the plans for the addition were completed. The plans were never provided by GRCG, and it never commenced work on the room addition as provided for in the Contract. Eventually, Freedman went to the architect and purchased the plans for the room addition in order to move forward on the project. After completing the bathroom remodel, GRCG abandoned the project and never began the room addition that was provided for in the contract. The amount paid by Freedman to GRCG, $14,657.00, exceeds the value of the work performed by $6,853.00. Facts Related to Ekstrom Property On or about October 28, 2004, Larry Ekstrom (hereinafter referred to as "Ekstrom") entered into a contract (hereinafter referred to as "Ekstrom Contract") with GRCG to construct a new home a 117 Creek Drive in Port Charlotte, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Eckstrom property"). The Ekstrom Contract was executed by Ekstrom, as the owner, and Keith Powell, as the contractor. The Ekstrom Contract price was $808,306.31. The Ekstrom Contract provided that work on the construction project was to commence upon issuance of the permit by Charlotte County. In accordance with that contract, after the permit was issued, GRCG began work on the construction project at the Eckstrom property. Eckstrom's understanding was that, pursuant to the Eckstrom Contract, GRCG would request periodic payments from Eckstrom that would be used to pay for materials, suppliers, and sub-contractors. Ekstrom made two payments to GRCG as payment for the project under the Ekstrom Contract. The first payment in the amount of $40,420.00 was made on October 29, 2004, when the Ekstrom Contract was fully executed. The second payment in the amount of $82,900.59 was paid to GRCG on or about March 3, 2005, as a "progress payment" under the terms of the Ekstrom Contract. On or about July 1, 2005, a Claim of Lien was recorded against Eckstrom's property by Tom Brunton Masonry, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Brunton Masonry"), for $18,029.91. The Claim of Lien was for the unpaid costs of labor, services, and materials furnished by Brunton Masonry for improvements to the Ekstrom property at 117 Creek Drive from April 2005 until May 2005. According to the Claim of Lien, Brunton Masonry provided the subject labor, services, and materials pursuant to a contract it had with GRCG. The Claim of Lien indicated that the total value of the labor, services, and materials furnished by Brunton Masonry was $39,243.91, "of which there remains an unpaid balance of $18,029.91." Eckstrom successfully negotiated with Brunton Masonry and the $18,029.91 lien was reduced to $14,000.00. On or about October 25, 2005, Eckstrom paid Brunton Masonry the negotiated amount of $14,000 to satisfy the Claim of Lien. On or about August 2, 2005, a Claim of Lien was recorded against the Eckstrom property by Murphy Concrete Works, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Murphy Concrete"), for $35,400.00. The Claim of Lien was for labor and material furnished by Murphy Concrete to perform concrete work on the Eckstrom property in accordance with a contract with GRCG. According to the Claim of Lien, the subject labor and materials were furnished between March 4 and 11, 2005. In order to remove the lien from his property, in or about September 2005, Eckstrom paid Murphy Concrete $35,400.00 to satisfy the Claim of Lien. Eckstrom paid a total amount of $49,400.00 to satisfy the above-referenced liens against his property. In April, May or June 2005, Eckstrom had a conversation with Keith Powell, in which Powell told Eckstrom that there was a company takeover by one of GRCG partners. In or about early summer 2005, GRCG stopped work on the Eckstrom property. Prior to that time, GRCG scraped and filled the lot and put in the foundation footers and stem wall. Prior to the liens being recorded against the Eckstrom property and after GRCG had ceased working on the property, Mr. Powell talked to Eckstrom and offered to complete the construction project. However, because previous discussions and representations with Powell had not yielded any positive results, Eckstrom had no confidence in Powell and, thus, did not accept Powell's offer. After GRCG ceased work on the Eckstrom property for more than 90 days, Eckstrom contracted with Towles Corporation to complete the construction project. Towles completed the construction of the house at a cost of $934,000.00.5/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent, Keith C. Powell, violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)1., (j), and (m),6/ Florida Statutes, and imposing a $1,000.00 fine for each violation, for a total of $3,000.00; (2) requiring Respondent to make restitution to Barry Freedman in the amount of $6,853.00; (3) requiring restitution to Larry Eckstrom in the amount of $49,400.00; and (4) requiring Respondent to attend a minimum of seven additional hours of continuing education. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, 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 31st day of January, 2008.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Daniel Bruce Caughey has been licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent at least since 1981. He began working for Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. in 1971 as a file clerk. Once he was licensed, he worked as a salesman. In 1977, he assumed the executive vice-presidency of the agency, a position he still holds. Until the middle of March, 1983, respondent'- father, William Edward Caughey, managed the agency. He continues to own all 1,000 shares the corporation has issued, although he has not written a policy since he turned management of the agency over to the respondent and his brother Randy in 1983. In 1982 and thereafter until Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. (JORO), a multi-line general agency, stopped underwriting automobile insurance, Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. brokered automobile insurance through JORO. When an account current bookkeeping dispute arose between Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. and JORO, William Edward Caughey retained an accounting firm, Sizemore. On Sizemore's advice, he rejected JORO's claim for more than $20,900. On October 21, 1983, a JORO representative told Daniel Bruce Caughey that JORO would no longer deal with Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. unless he signed an "Individual Guarantee Agreement," personally guaranteeing the insurance agency's corporate indebtedness; and executed a promissory note in JORO's favor in the amount of $16,941. Respondent executed the documents. On December 3, 1986, JORO brought suit against the corporation and respondent personally. No. 86-21454 (Fla. 13th Cir.). On August 13, 1987, the court entered judgment against both defendants in the amount of $6,595.94. Jordan Roberts & Co. v. Cauqhey, No. 86-21454 (Fla. 13th Cir.; Aug. 13, 1987). Neither respondent nor the agency has paid the judgment. With the possible exception of filing the complaint that eventuated in the present proceedings, JORO has made no effort to collect. In Count I, JORO's complaint alleges the existence of a brokerage agreement between JORO and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc., entered into "[o]n or about April 27, 1982"; execution and delivery of respondent's guarantee "[o]n or about October 21, 1983"; and the agency's indebtedness "for premiums on policies underwritten by [JORO] for the sum of $20,975.36." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. In Count II, the complaint also alleges execution and delivery of a promissory note "[o]n or about October 21, 1983," without, however, explicitly indicating its relationship (if any) with the guarantee executed the same date. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The final judgment does not specify which count(s) JORO recovered on. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Attached to the complaint are copies of the promissory note, executed by ?CAUGHEY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., By: D B Caughey Vice President"; the guarantee, executed in the same way; and the brokerage agreement, executed on behalf of Caughey Insurance Agency by "William E. Caughey, President." Although the Individual Guarantee Agreement names respondent as guarantor in the opening paragraph, the corporation is shown as guarantor on the signature line. At hearing, both Daniel Bruce Caughey and William Edward Caughey testified that neither had withheld premiums owed JORO, and this testimony was not controverted.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, respondent became an officer after the brokerage agreement had been executed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the judgment could also be based on the promissory note. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, respondent did not sign as an individual guarantor. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 10 and 12 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, evidence respondent himself adduced showed that the judgment had not been satisfied. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Elias, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire McDonald, Fleming & Moorehead 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3-C Pensacola, FL 32501 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
