The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil money penalty of $1,000.00 for alleged violations of Sections 450.33(10), and 316.620(3) and (4)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michelle A. Blount, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 14, 1994, a vehicle transporting members of Respondent's farm labor crew was involved in an accident in St. Lucie County, Florida which resulted in the death of one passenger and serious injury to eight others. Respondent was hired by Willie J. Lampkin to transport, supervise, recruit and provide a crew for harvesting and loading fruit. Elva Ochoa was employed by Respondent to recruit, transport, supervise and provide a crew, in connection with Respondent's contract with Willie J. Lampkin. On January 14, 1994, ten farm workers were being transported to the groves of Lampkin at the direction of Ochoa. The vehicle used to transport the workers was a pickup truck with a cab covering the bed. It did not have secured seating, the tires were worn out and unsafe, and it did not have any means of communication between the passengers and the driver. The vehicle was not approved or insured to transport workers, nor did it have an inspection certificate on record with the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Sections 450.33 and 316.620, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. Should Respondent fail to pay fine, Respondent's license as a farm labor contractor should be suspended until the fine is paid in full. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-7. Respondent did not submit proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Michelle A. Blount 531 North Dollings Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805
Findings Of Fact Herbert W. Mize is a compliance officer for the Petitioner, the Department of Labor and Employment Security. On January 14, 1986, Mr. Mize was performing field checks in Hillsborough County. He arrived at a citrus grove, staying on the outside due to the canker problem. Ten to fifteen workers were up on ladders among the citrus trees. The Petitioner, Marvin James, was driving a vehicle loading up citrus. Mr. Mize asked Mr. James who was crew leader on the job at that time. Mr. James stated that he was the crew leader. A 1977 Dodge van was parked nearby. Mr. James told Mr. Mize that it was his van and that he drove workers to work that day in his van. The same 1977 Dodge van had previously been insured by Mr. James by the U.S. Fire Insurance Company, but Mr. James did not have insurance on the 1977 Dodge van on January 14, 1986. P. Ex. 4, 5, and 6. Mr. Mize gave a notice of noncompliance to Mr. James, and Mr. James acknowledged that he had seen it by signing it at the bottom. P. Ex. 3. Relevant to this case, Mr. James was informed by Mr. Mize that he was in noncompliance with state law by failure to carry and exhibit proper certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor and by failure to obtain adequate vehicle insurance. Id. Mr. James testified that he was very familiar with the law requiring farm labor contractor registration and vehicle insurance to transport workers since he had been a crew leader since 1978. Mr. James testified that on January 14, 1987, he was working for Carl Junior Mears, but only to load citrus, and that he did not transport workers in his van and did not supervise workers in the grove. His testimony is rejected as not credible for the following reasons: Mr. James testified that he was "under his van working" when Mr. Mize came up. He gave no explanation why he was working on his van instead of loading citrus as he testified at another point. Mr. Mears admitted that Mr. James did direct and supervise workers in the grove from time to time, and also admitted that Mr. James "sent" workers to him. Both of the worker witnesses presented by Mr. James testified that they had known James for a number of years, which indicates that they have had some sort of formal working relationship with him. If Mr. James in fact had told Mr. Mize that he was not the crew leader, it would have been logical for Mr. Mize to have then asked "well, who is the crew leader?" But Mr. James insisted that he did not tell Mr. Mize where the crew leader was because Mr. James said Mr. Mize did not ask. This is not believable. Mr. James testified that Mr. Mears was the crew leader, and that he was available in the grove on January 14, 1986. Considering the fact that Mr. James was familiar with the requirements of the law, if it were true that Mr. Mears was present in the grove, it would logically be expected that Mr. James would have tried to be helpful and would have voluntarily told Mr. Mize who Mr. Mears was and where he was even if Mr. Mize had somehow failed to ask. It is particularly unbelievable that Mr. James would not have, on his own, told Mr. Mize where Mr. Mears was located since Mr. James admitted that Mr. Mize that day cited him for crew leader violations, and Mr. James signed the citation. P. Ex. 3. The demeanor of Mr. Mize indicated credibility, while the demeanor of Mr. James indicated a lack of credibility. Mr. Mears paid Mr. James for his services as a crew leader. On January 14, 1986, Mr. James drove workers to the citrus groves in his 1977 Dodge van and he was supervising them as a crew leader, both for pay from Mr. Mears. Mr. James was not registered on January 14, 1986 as a crew leader, and did not have insurance on the 1977 Dodge van he used to transport workers.
Recommendation For these reasons it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter its final order finding that the Respondent, Marvin James, on January 14, 1986, violated section 450.30(1), Fla. Stat., by failing to have a certificate of registration in full force and effect and in his possession and violated section 450.33(5), Fla. Stat., by failing to have a policy of insurance on his 1977 Dodge van used to transport farmworkers, and assessing a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000). DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1704 The following are rulings upon findings of fact by number or paragraph number as proposed by the parties which have been rejected. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: None. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Paragraph 2: Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 7. Paragraph 3: Rejected for the reasons stated in fending of fact 7. Paragraph 4: Mr. Mize had no need to talk to workers in the grove since Mr. James admitted he was the crew leader, and did not tell Mr. Mize then that Mr. Mears was the crew leader. Paragraph 5: Mr. Mize testified that he saw workers on ladders, and made it clear that his number was only an estimate. Paragraph 6: Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 7. Paragraph 7: Rejected for lack of testimony in the record as to these facts. Paragraph 8: Rejected in the conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Marvin James 1501 Island Avenue Dade City, Florida 33525 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Montgomery Building, Room 117 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have a $1,000 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Section 450.30, Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 38H-11.003, Florida Administrative Code (1989) by contracting for the employment of an unregistered farm labor contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on May 1, 1989, when Don R. Symonette, who is a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made an inspection of a farm owned by Ovid Barnett on State Road 846 some seven or eight miles east of Immokalee, Florida. The testimony as to what transpired during the course of the inspection is sharply in dispute. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. As Symonette drove by the farm that day, he observed a crew of approximately eighteen workers picking bell peppers in a field. Thereafter, Symonette drove his vehicle onto the premises for the purpose of determining if pertinent statutes and Division rules were being followed. He initially observed one Abel Flores (Abel) standing by a pickup truck in the same field where the laborers were harvesting the peppers. Abel is the brother of respondent, Alfredo Flores (Alfredo). Symonette and Abel were acquainted from several meetings over the prior years. Symonette asked Abel what he was doing, and Abel answered that he was helping his brother, Alfredo, who is a registered farm labor contractor. Abel also volunteered that he was being paid by Alfredo and received approximately $40 per day in compensation. Abel further acknowledged, and the Division records show, that he is not certified as a farm labor contractor. At that point, Symonette decided to give Abel the benefit of the doubt and to interview respondent, who was supervising a crew in an adjacent field. During the course of the interview, Alfredo advised Symonette that he (Alfredo) was the supervisor in charge of the crew and it was he who had contracted with the farm to supply the workers. Even so, Symonette concluded that because Abel was the only person standing in the other field, he was "supervising" the other crew and was doing so without a certificate of registration. Accordingly, Symonette cited Alfredo for using an unregistered contractor. On April 27, 1990, or almost a year later, the Division issued an administrative complaint charging Alfredo with using an unregistered farm labor contractor. On June 7, 1990, Symonette performed a "payroll audit" by sending by mail a form to Ovid Barnett requesting information regarding Abel's employment. On an undisclosed date, the form was returned to Symonette and contains what purports to be Barnett's signature However, the contents of the completed form are hearsay in nature and cannot serve as the basis for a finding of fact. Moreover, even if the response was not hearsay, it fails to disclose the nature of Abel's employment with the farm and whether the hourly compensation allegedly given Abel was being paid at the time the form was completed in June 1990 or when the inspection occurred thirteen months earlier. All compensation received by Abel was from his employer, Ovid Barnett. In some cases, he was paid by check from the farm, and in other cases, he was paid by his brother who had in turn been paid by the farm. To bolster the contention that Abel was not acting as a farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989, a supervisor at Barnett's farm established that Abel's job was to drive trucks between the field and the packing house when the inspection occurred, and as such, it was necessary for Abel to stand by his truck while the workers loaded the truck with produce. As a driver, Abel had the responsibility of overseeing the loading of produce on his truck and, when necessary, to direct the workers on how to properly do so. It is noted that at hearing, Symonette did not describe the activities being performed by Abel except that Abel was simply "standing" around his truck and "appeared" to be supervising the work crew. Accordingly, it is found that Alfredo was not using an unregistered farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. Copies Furnished: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Moses E. Williams, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Alfredo Flores P. O. Box 1611 Immokalee, FL 33934 Steven D. Barron, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
The Issue Should the Department of Insurance (now known as the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation) (Department) approve three insurance endorsement forms that State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) filed on November 15, 2001?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: State Farm is a domestic insurance company that the Department has licensed to transact property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate insurers doing business in the State of Florida. State Farm offers five types of homeowners' policies that have been approved for use in Florida, an FP-7921 (HO1), FP-7923 (HO3), FP-7924 (HO4), FP-7925 ( HO5-Extra), and FP-2926 (HO6). The HO1 is a "named perils" policy and provides coverage only for those perils specifically named in the policy. This policy is not offered in other states, and in Florida accounts for less than one percent of all of all policies in force. The HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies are known as "open perils" policies providing coverage for all risks unless specifically excluded by the policy. Although similar to HO3, the HO5 policy provides somewhat broader coverage with respect to settlement provisions. The HO6 policy is specifically geared toward condominium owners and the HO4 policy is the policy form that applies to renters. Of all the policies offered in Florida, the HO3 is the most widely used policy form and will be quoted from and used as the exemplar in this Recommended Order. The HO3 policy contains introductory provisions entitled "Declarations" and "Definitions," and is then divided into two coverage sections, Sections I and II. Section I refers to property coverage and with Section II referring to liability coverage. Section I is divided into a number of subcategories including the following: Coverage A (Dwelling), Coverage B (Personal Property), Section C (Loss of Use), Additional Coverage, Losses Insured, Losses Not Insured, and Conditions. Following the Section II provisions there are additional sections entitled "Section I and II-Conditions" and a section entitled "Optional Provisions." The HO3 policy provides coverage under Coverage A (Dwelling) for all risks of loss unless it is a "loss not insured." As stated in the policy: "We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) However, coverage for personal property (Coverage B) does not provide such "open perils" coverage. Rather, it provides coverage only for 16 named perils, contains a number of limitations on personal property that it does cover, and reflects a number of personal property items that it does not cover. All of State Farm's homeowners' policies currently provide some limited coverage relating to mold. Although the policies exclude mold as a covered peril, they provide some limited coverage for mold-related losses resulting from covered perils, such as a covered water loss that causes mold-related damage. Historically, there have been exclusions in property insurance for ordinance of law, earth movement, flood, war, the neglect of the insured, and nuclear hazard. Mold that resulted from a covered peril has historically not been excluded. On November 15, 2001, State Farm filed three proposed endorsement forms (Fungus (Including Mold) Exclusion Endorsement): (1) FE-5397 for use with HO1 policies; (2) FE- 5398, for use with HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies; and (3) FE-5399 for use with HO4 policies. The homeowners' policies, which the endorsements were to apply, had been previously approved by, and were on file with the Department, in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The goal of the endorsements was to eliminate mold coverage from State Farm's existing homeowners policies in Florida. State Farm's current rates do not include the cost of providing the mold coverage that the endorsements seek to exclude. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that State Farm would need to substantially raise its rates to include those costs. Before filing the mold-exclusion endorsements, State Farm entered into discussions with the Department about giving policyholders the choice of buying back some of the to-be- excluded mold coverage through buy-back endorsements (buy- backs). State Farm filed its buy-backs in June 2002, after failing to work out a solution with the Department that would have allowed for their approval. Although the Department disapproved the buy-backs in December 2002, State Farm has committed itself to provide policyholders with the optional buy-backs, if the exclusions are approved. If the exclusion endorsements are approved along with the buy-back provisions, any cost increase would be restricted to those policyholders who choose to purchase mold coverage through a buy-back. State Farm's filings of mold-exclusion endorsements are consistent with a nationwide effort by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, an affiliate of State Farm to eliminate mold coverage in homeowners policies. In Florida, State Farm's endorsements accomplish the complete elimination of mold coverage chiefly through the addition of a new exclusion for fungus, including mold, within "SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements, when coupled with the underlying policy, state in relevant part as follows: 2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as result of any combination of these: * * * g. Fungus. (Emphasis in the original.) (The text of the endorsement is underlined.) The endorsements delete all references to the term mold found in SECTION 1 - LOSSES INSURED. (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements define fungus as follows: "fungus" means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts produced or released by fungi. (Emphasis furnished.) This total exclusion of mold coverage, using language clearly encompassing all manner of causation and occurrence, replaces the mold exclusions in the existing policies that do not use such broad language. The difference between the post- and pre-endorsement policies can be seen from comparing the above-quoted endorsement as incorporated into HO3 policy on the one hand, with the mold exclusions as they currently exist in the HO3 policy on the other hand. While the endorsements totally exclude coverage for fungus (mold), and deny payment for mold damage historically provided to insureds, the endorsements are not ambiguous, notwithstanding the testimony offered by the Department to the contrary, which lacks credibility. The endorsements do not add coverage. Instead, the endorsements eliminate coverage for mold that currently exists. However, this fact alone does not render the endorsements inconsistent, misleading, or deceptive when the endorsements are read in their entirety along with the remaining provisions of the policies. State Farm's endorsements were initially deemed approved pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, which provides that an endorsement filed with the Department is deemed approved if it is not approved or disapproved within 30 days, or 45 days if there has been an extension, of its filing.. By letter dated June 28, 2002, the Department withdrew its deemed approval of the three endorsements and notified State Farm of its basis for disapproval. The Department's original disapproval letter cites three bases for disapproval. The Department asserts that State Farm's endorsements: (1) contain ambiguities in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; (2) deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract, also in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and (3) deny policyholders the right to obtain "comprehensive coverage" as that term is used in Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is part of the policyholders' bill of rights. On December 4, 2002, the Department moved for leave to amend its original disapproval letter. The motion was granted. The Department's amended disapproval letter, which the Department back-dated to June 28, 2002, reiterates the previously alleged bases for disapproval and cites two additional bases for disapproval: (1) the alleged violation of Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, itself constitutes a violation of Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) the endorsements, because they exclude coverage that "through custom and usage has become a standard or uniform provision" in Florida, violate Section 627.412(2), Florida Statutes. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the provision for mold coverage has, through custom and usage, become a standard or uniform provision. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that there is a "natural association between mold and water." In the fall of 2001, the Department began receiving a large influx of filings seeking to exclude or severely limit coverage for mold. Including State Farm's filing, the Department received between 400 and 450 filings representing between 200 and 250 insurers primarily between October 1, 2001, through the end of 2002. In the face of the inordinate number of filings, the Department sought input from all sectors of the public. The Department met with insurers and other interested persons and held four public forums around the state to determine the impact the filings would have on insurance contracts, the industry, and the market place. In the mean time, the Department routinely sought waivers from the insurers of the statutory review period set forth in Section 627.410(2), Florida Statutes, and additionally requested that insurers withdraw their filings. Insurers were advised by the Department that failure to waive the statutory review period or to withdraw their filings would result in the filing being disapproved. The Department initially approved the endorsements to limit or exclude mold coverage of three insurers: USAA, Maryland Casualty, and American Strategic. However, the Department withdrew its approval for each of these companies in letters dated September 18, 2002. The Department asserts that it does not have a policy to disapprove filings simply because they discuss mold or seek to limit or exclude coverage for claims involving mold damage. The Department admits that it is required to examine all filings based upon the statutory scheme. However, the Department has not approved a single one of the over 450 filings, regardless of the language or structure of the endorsements. The simple fact is that the Department had a policy from the fall of 2001 through December 16, 2002, imposing a moratorium on the exclusion or limitation of mold coverage. The Department altered that policy on December 17, 2002, when it entered into a settlement with Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), wherein Farm Bureau's endorsement was approved allowing a reduction in mold coverage from policy limits to a sub-limit of $10,000.00 per occurrence, $20,000.00 annual aggregate. The Department's previous position that policies offered to Florida's consumers should not be significantly reduced was abandoned at that time. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the $10,000.00 coverage was a reasonable amount of coverage for the vast majority of claims for mold damage. The endorsements seek to limit or exclude coverage for mold that has existed for decades. There is scant Florida experience to support the need for limitations or exclusions on mold coverage. Even so, the Department cannot disapprove endorsement forms without authority to do so. There is no statutory authority mandating mold coverage to the extent of policy limits or otherwise in order for policyholders to have comprehensive coverage. Beginning September 15, 2001, the Department did not approve a single mold endorsement seeking to exclude or limit coverage for mold as a resulting loss from a covered peril until December 17, 2002, when it approved a filing by Farm Bureau as a part of a settlement of an administrative proceeding in which the parties were awaiting ruling after a final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the endorsements filed with the Department by State Farm on November 15, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Ryan Reetz, Esquire Jim Toplin, Esquire Amie Riggle, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire State Farm Florida Insurance Company 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 344 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State Farm General Insurance Company ("State Farm") made a material misrepresentation or material error in connection with the rate filing that is the subject of this proceeding. For the purpose of this proceeding, a misrepresentation or error would be material if it resulted in the Department approving "ex-wind" (meaning without windstorm coverage) homeowners insurance rates that are excessive for policyholders whose wind coverage is being non-renewed in Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties.
Findings Of Fact The parties in this proceeding have stipulated to the following findings of fact. Based upon a review of the record in this case, these stipulated facts appear to be accurate and are adopted. In December 1995, State Farm submitted a homeowners insurance rate filing effective April 1, 1996, for new business, and May 1, 1996, for renewal business. With regard to the December 1995, homeowners rate filing, the Department of Insurance approved a 13.8 percent statewide rate increase on February 12, 1996. On February 18, 1996, State Farm formally announced that it would non- renew over three years the wind coverage for 62,000 policies in Dade, Broward, and Pinellas Counties in Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association eligible areas. On February 22, 1996, the Department issued a Notice of Withdrawal of Rate Approval ("Notice") to State Farm with regard to homeowner rates approved for Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice, the Department requested that State Farm submit to the Department actuarial information giving further consideration to the proposed non-renewal of wind coverage to policyholders in Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties. The evidence adduced in this matter consisted of an affidavit of Douglas S. Haseltine, a Department actuary, on behalf of the Department, and of pre-filed testimony of Mark Brannon, a State Farm actuary, and of the rate filing that is the subject of this litigation and of certain actuarial information that had been provided by State Farm to the Department pursuant to the request described in paragraph 5 above. The record in this matter otherwise includes the Request For Formal Proceedings filed in this matter by State Farm, with attachments, which include the Notice, and the stipulation filed by the parties on May 31, 1996. The Haseltine affidavit provides in pertinent part that: "For policyholder whose wind coverage is non-renewed, their remaining premium for coverage ex-wind is not excessive." The Brannon testimony and the attachments to it establish the methodology by which State Farm establishes rates for policyholders in different territories throughout Florida for homeowners insurance, including both homeowners insurance policies that included wind coverage and policies that excluded wind coverage (hereinafter "ex-wind policies"). The Brannon testimony also provided that the rate filing did not reflect the distributional changes that would result from the non-renewal plan that was subsequently announced on February 20, 1996. Mr. Brannon further testified that, in his expert opinion, the failure to point out this non-renewal program did not constitute a material error or material misrepresentation because when the filing was made the decision to initiate these non-renewals had not been made, and because: Even if the non-renewal program had been announced prior to December 15, 1995, it would not have changed the rate request. State Farm's original rate request was a 24 percent increase. The approved rate request included a 40 percent wind or hail exclusion discount. This discount applied to the FWUA eligible areas of Dade, Broward and Pinellas Counties. The amount of this discount was not changed by the non-renewal program. Thus, the non-renewal program would not have had a material effect on the filing, even if I had known of the program at the time the filing was made. Mr. Brannon further testified that the rates proposed in the filing are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory, stating: Q: Are the rates you have proposed in this filing excessive or unfairly discriminatory? A: It is my expert opinion that the proposed rates are reasonable and are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the proposed rates for both those policies which exclude windstorm or hail coverage, and the rates for those policies which include wind- storm or hail coverage, meet the statutory requirements and are not excessive or unfairly discriminatory. It appears that there is no misrepresentation or error in the rate filing itself, because the decision that the Department contends should have been disclosed had, as a matter of fact, not yet been made at the time of the filing. Moreover, if State Farm had an obligation to disclose this decision to the Department prior to the Department's approval of the rate filing, any misrepresentation or error flowing from the failure to disclose would not be material to the filing because the data subsequently provided to the Department and other evidence in this matter show that: Policyholders whose wind coverage will be non-renewed will receive a discount that is actuarially sound and commensurate with the reduction in coverage: and hence, Policyholders whose coverage will be renewed "ex-wind" will not be charged rates that are excessive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: (1) finding that there was not a material misrepresentation or material error made by the insurer or contained in the rate filing; and (2) dismissing the Notice. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire TAYLOR, DAY & RIO Suite 206 311 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1807 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil penalty for acting as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence addressed at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about February 26, 1987 the Respondent was charged with failure to register as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes. As a result of this charge, Respondent registered as a farm labor contractor on March 2, 1987 and was issued a certificate of registration on March 6, 1987 which expired on October 3, 1987, the day after Respondent's birthdate, for failure to make application for renewal in accordance with Section 450.31, Florida Statutes. On November 30, 1989, during a routine check of farm labor contractors in DeSoto County, Florida, the Respondent was found to be transporting ten farm laborers who he had hired to pick at 18 per box. Respondent was being paid a fee of 75 per box to have the fruit picked. Respondent was responsible for, and supervised, the ten farm laborers referred to in paragraph 2. In addition to being paid for harvesting the fruit, Respondent received $75.00 per trailer to drive the van and load fruit on the trailer and other duties. Another farm labor contractor, Chris Marroquin, owns the van in which Respondent was transporting the farm laborers and was the individual who paid Respondent for picking the fruit, driving the van and loading the trailer. Although Respondent was acting as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes, on November 30, 1989, he did possess a certificate of registration as required under Section 450.30, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was charged with: (a) failure to register in violation of Section 450.30, Florida Statutes; (2) failure to put registration in violation of Section 450.33(4), Florida Statutes and; (3) transporting farm laborers without authorization in violation of Rule 38H-11.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent applied for a certificate of registration on December 1, 1989 and was issued same on December 5, 1989.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the factors set forth in Rule 38H-11.012(2)(a-q), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing civil penalty against the Respondent, Leopoldo Cantu, Jr. in the account of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Berkeley Building, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel 2012 Capitol Circle, S.E. Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Leopoldo Cantu, Jr. Route 6, Box 495L Edinburg, TX 78539 Moses Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle Suite 117 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Ruth Ann Weaver Bureau of Agricultural Progrms Post Office Box 1698 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1698
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the Statutes and Rules, cited in pertinent part below, designed to regulate the practice of farm labor contractors in the State of Florida, and with enforcing compliance with that authority and imposing sanctions for violation of it. There is no dispute that James Wilson is licensed as a farm labor contractor but, as will be seen below, he was not functioning as a farm labor contractor and thus is not chargeable for the violations alleged herein with regard to the activities observed by the Department's representatives on June 17, 1986, the date pertinent to this proceeding. On June 17, 1986, Mr. W. R. Brooks, an agent for the Department of Labor and Employment Security, had cause to make an inspection of an eggplant harvesting/grading operation near Summerfield, Florida. The farm is owned by Mr. Mark Arnold. Mr. Brooks, acting on his belief that the Respondent James Wilson was functioning as a farm labor contractor and recruiting and transporting workers to the eggplant field and supervising them, made an inspection of the farm and the grading shed where the eggplants harvested were graded by Wilson and other workers. Mr. Brooks was of the belief that Wilson was hired by Mr. Arnold to recruit and transport workers to the eggplant harvesting field and grading shed and to supervise them. He partially based this belief on the fact that Willie Davis, an employee of Mr. Arnold working at the site, informed him that Mr. Wilson was the "foreman." It was not shown, however, that Willie Davis informed Mr. Brooks of any details concerning any arrangement between Mr. Wilson and the farm owner, Mr. Arnold. Mr. Brooks' testimony, based in part upon discussions he had with Willie Davis and Mr. Wilson at the farm site, failed to establish that Mr. Wilson was paid any fee or consideration of any kind in return for transporting, recruiting or supervising workers. Ms. Rosie Jenkins was also called by the Department to testify. Mr. Brooks had interviewed Ms. Jenkins early one morning when she had been drinking most of the night, and by her own admission, was still drunk as she was talking to Mr. Brooks at the door of her residence. Ms. Jenkins testified that she was too intoxicated on the occasion of her interview with Mr. Brooks to understand clearly the nature of his questions or to understand or recall the precise nature of her answers. Her testimony at hearing establishes that Mark Arnold hired her for the job and was the only supervisor at the job site. Ms. Jenkins occasionally borrowed money from James Wilson and would repay him with interest and would also pay him a dollar per trip when he transported her to the field on some occasions. Ms. Jenkins' statement that the owner, Mr. Arnold, was the only supervisor at the job site is corroborated by Willie Davis, who was also employed at the harvesting and grading operation on the day in question. He established that there was no reason for any supervision because, as Ms. Jenkins put it, all the employees already knew their jobs and, according to Mr. Davis, they were working on "piece work" anyway, which means they were paid according to how many boxes of eggplants they prepared for transportation to the packing house. The more eggplant they graded correctly and packed for transportation, the more they were paid as wages, thus, inasmuch as the workers were already trained, there was no incentive for the owner to pay any person such as Wilson to supervise them. Ms. Dorothy Walker worked for Mark Arnold at the eggplant farm for approximately three years. She worked in the grading shed area grading eggplant and established that no supervision was needed for workers in that area since they were all trained in their jobs. She was hired by Mr. Mark Arnold and on some occasions "caught a ride" with James Wilson in order to get to work. This was not shown to be a regular practice, however. She also stated that Mr. Mark Arnold was her supervisor and that James Wilson was an employee just like any other employee without supervisory authority. Each of the workers would from time to time tell another worker, who was doing something improperly, the proper means of performing the job, including Wilson, but Mark Arnold was the only person with supervisory authority over the workers. Mr. Mark Arnold, the owner of the eggplant farm in question, established that there was no contract between him and James Wilson to recruit, transport or supervise employees. Mr. Wilson's employment was not conditioned upon his recruiting, transporting or hiring employees. Mr. Arnold stated that he did not pay Wilson a fee or other valuable consideration for transporting workers to his field and Wilson was not paid a fee or other consideration for supervising or controlling the workers at the job site. Wilson was paid on an hourly basis, the same as the other workers, and additionally was paid by the box for hauling eggplants to the packing house from the farm site. Mr. Wilson was expected to work the same hours as other employees. Mr. Arnold acknowledged that on some occasions, when he had to leave the field for any reason, he would sometimes tell Wilson to look after the operation while he was gone, but this was not a regular supervisory position and Mr. Wilson was not paid by Arnold for doing so. Mr. Arnold's testimony was not rebutted by the Department and it is noteworthy that at no time in the investigatory process was Mr. Arnold contacted personally by any Department personnel concerning the allegations at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Wilson's testimony corroborated that of Mr. Arnold in demonstrating that he was paid an hourly fee the same as other employees and did not direct, supervise or control the workers, whether or not he transported them to the eggplant farm. Wilson was compensated on a per box basis for transporting the eggplants to the packing house, but that was an arrangement solely between him and Arnold and involved no other employees in terms of transportation, supervision or hiring. In years past, Mr. Wilson has worked as a farm labor contractor in the citrus industry, at which time he did recruit his own crew and transport them to the job site. Although he maintains his farm labor contractor's license at the present time, he was not acting in that capacity at the job site in question. None of the employees he recruited in the citrus industry were the same employees at the eggplant farm. He renews his farm labor contractor's license annually and hopes eventually to return to employment in that capacity in the citrus industry, which he left as a result of the late, disastrous freeze which significantly curtailed citrus operations in the central Florida area involved. In summary, it has not been established that Mr. Wilson was paid by Mr. Arnold or any third party for transporting workers to the field. It was shown at most that occasionally Mr. Wilson was compensated by the employees themselves in return for him giving them rides to work, which is nothing more than a car pooling arrangement. Moreover, it was not demonstrated that Mr. Wilson exercised any supervisory authority over the workers at the eggplant harvesting and grading site. Because of his long history of successful employment with Mr. Arnold, Mr. Arnold did occasionally entrust him with oversight of the operation while he left the field to go on errands during a given work day. The point is, Mr. Wilson was not compensated any extra for such services and was paid the same hourly wage as other workers in the field and the grading shed. Although Mr. Wilson was paid on a per box basis for transporting the eggplant from the farm to the packing house, this was not a means of compensating him for transporting, recruiting or supervising employees because he performed an additional service with his own vehicle in return for that compensation, that is, he loaded the boxes on his vehicle, transported them to the packing house, and returned, paying his own expenses. It therefore cannot be found that the payment for transporting the boxes was merely a means of giving him additional compensation for the alleged supervision, transportation and recruitment of workers.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the charges against James Wilson be dismissed in their entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3657 Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its second sentence, which is not in accordance with the preponderant testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Respondent James Wilson's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected as not constituting a Proposed Finding of Fact, but rather legal argument. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Room 117, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Archie O. Lowry, Jr., Esquire PULLUM & JUDSON Post Office Drawer 2160 Leesburg, Florida 32748 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered farm labor contractor whose Social Security number is 419-50-8742 and who has been issued certificate number 02949. At all times material hereto, Respondent failed to possess, for a period of three years, proof of payment showing the nature and amount of each payment made on behalf of each farmworker for whom he acted as a farm labor contractor. The records which Respondent failed to maintain included payments for social security, income tax withholdings, and payments for transportation and food. When Respondent made payments of wages to farmworkers for whom he acted as a farm labor contractor in June, 1986, he failed to furnish the workers any itemized statement in writing showing in detail each and every deduction made from their wages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty of $500.00 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Joe Louis Rivers Route 3, Snell Street Wauchula, Florida 33873 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2151
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Sections 450.33(5), (6), (9), and (10) and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1997), by failing to make, keep, or preserve payroll records; failing to maintain the required inspection of a vehicle used to transport workers; failing to maintain insurance on such a vehicle; utilizing an unregistered crew leader; allowing an unlicensed driver to transport workers; driving without authorization; transporting workers without authorization; and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating farm labor in the state. Respondent is a registered farm labor contractor and crew leader pursuant to certificate of registration CO4-957228I98R. Respondent’s certificate of registration was effective through September 30, 1999. On December 10 and 11, 1998, Respondent and his crew were harvesting fruit in Polk County, Florida. Compliance Officer Teresa McCutchen approached the crew and asked for the crew leader. Respondent identified himself as the crew leader and produced his certificate of registration. The registration did not authorize Respondent to drive or transport farm workers. Respondent transported his crew to the field on December 10, 1998, through Respondent’s employee, Mr. Roberto Gomez-Gonzalez. Mr. Gomez-Gonzalez is an unlicensed driver and acted as a farm labor contractor, within the meaning of Section 450.28(1)(a), without being registered as a farm labor contractor. At Respondent’s direction, Mr. Gomez-Gonzalez drove Respondent’s crew to the field on December 10, 1998, in a blue 1984 Chevrolet van. The license plate on the van was issued to Respondent for a 1994 Pontiac two-door sedan. The 1984 Chevrolet lacked insurance coverage for the transportation of farm workers and had not received the required safety inspections. Respondent did not maintain required payroll records for his crew. On December 11, 1998, Officer McCutchen returned to the field with Compliance Officer Joe Machado to interview the Spanish-speaking crewmembers. That morning, Respondent had driven the crewmembers to the field in the 1984 blue Chevrolet van. Respondent has a prior history of similar violations. On January 7, 1997, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with Petitioner. Petitioner had assessed a civil penalty of $1,250 against Respondent for failure to maintain insurance on a vehicle used to transport workers, failure to maintain safety inspections, and the unauthorized transportation of workers. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Respondent paid a civil penalty of $1,000. Section 450.35 authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil penalty up to $7,000 for the seven violations in the Administrative Complaint. The $5,750 civil penalty is reasonable based on the facts in this case and Respondent’s prior disciplinary history involving similar violations. Failure to impose a civil penalty would result in an economic inducement for Respondent to violate state requirements to maintain vehicle insurance, safety inspections, and payroll records. Respondent could reduce the cost of goods sold by evading the cost of insurance premiums, vehicle maintenance required to comply with safety inspections, and accounting fees for record keeping. A civil penalty operates to negate the economic benefit to Respondent from violating applicable law and also tends to reduce the competitive advantage Respondent’s violations give him over other businesses which comply with state law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a civil penalty of $5,750. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 7th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Porfirio Loredo Post Office Box 5503 Eloise, Florida 33880
