The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and licensing the entry of insurance agents into the profession of insurance and with regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida. The Respondent, at all times pertinent hereto, was and is licensed by the State of Florida as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. The Respondent procured applications for life insurance to be issued from Pacific to the 30 named individuals and entities set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint in its 25 counts. Pacific was not authorized to transact insurance business in the State of Florida because the company was not yet licensed. However, it was in the process of becoming licensed and licensure was imminent. The company Regional Director, C. Manley Denton, and other company officials, when they recruited the Respondent to sell insurance policies in Florida, assured him that licensure was imminent, that there was no impediment to finalization of the licensure procedures in the very near future, and that the Respondent could legally obtain life insurance policy applications and sell policies in Florida if he took the applications and dated them in and from his Tulsa, Oklahoma, office. He was assured that this procedure would render his activities legal. In reliance on these representations by officials of Pacific, the Respondent undertook to and did obtain the applications for, and sell the insurance policies, referenced above and in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, for many years, has transacted insurance business as a general agent of life and health insurance in Oklahoma and in Florida. He is a resident of both states, spending part of each year in each state. Many of the policyholders referenced above and in the Amended Administrative Complaint were clients of the Respondent, who had already had other insurance policies issued by him through companies he represents. In the particular instances involved in this proceeding, many of these clients had been policyholders of the First Capital Life Insurance Company, which had experienced financial difficulties and gone into receivership. Because of his policyholders' concern and his own concern about the possibility of the future inability to pay claims by the company in receivership, the affected clients and the Respondent were desirous of replacing those policies with policies in a different and sounder insurance company. This desire dovetailed neatly with the desire by the executives at Pacific to obtain a large block of insurance policy business in Florida and in other states in the mainland United States. This desire by Pacific executives was due to a recent merger of that company with the Hawaiian Life Insurance Company, a company which was owned by Meiji Mutual Life of Tokyo Japan (Meiji). The resulting merged company, Pacific, was owned by Meiji. The executives at Pacific, which had historically been headquartered in San Jose, California, desired to continue to maintain the company domicile and their own personal residences in California and avoid having to relocate to Hawaii. This was the reason they desired to secure a large block of insurance business very rapidly in order to enhance the sales record of the "stateside branch" of the company. They believed that this would insure that their relocation would not have to be accomplished. With this interest in the forefront of their plans, the executives of Pacific began to search for the best insurance agents in the nation who have a record of successfully writing large volumes of life insurance policy business. The Respondent is such an insurance agent. He had recently achieved a nationally-recognized ranking as one of the highest volume life insurance producer agents in the country. Because the Respondent was desirous of placing a high-dollar volume of life insurance policies for the clients referenced above, who had had policies in the financially-troubled First Capital Life Insurance Company, the Respondent agreed, at the behest of the officials of Pacific, to attempt to write a large block of life insurance business in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a well-respected general life insurance and health insurance agent. He is widely known throughout the insurance profession and industry, throughout the United States, as an ethical, competent and successful life insurance policy producer. He has no blemish on his licensure and practice record as an agent, throughout the approximate 40 years he has engaged in the profession. When the Respondent obtained the insurance policy applications and policies at issue in this proceeding, he engaged in one course of conduct. That is, he contacted the clients and obtained their applications and arranged for the sale of the insurance policy contracts to them, as either new policies and clients, or as replacement policies for his existing clients, as the case might be. He engaged in this essentially-identical transaction with all 30 of these policyholders, in the genuine, good-faith belief that he was legally writing insurance policy business in the State of Florida based upon the circumstances related to him by officials of Pacific, upon which he relied. He candidly acknowledges, through counsel, that, in so relying, he knew that the company was not actually licensed in the State of Florida, but that that eventuality was imminent in the very near future, and that based upon the method the company assured him of writing the policies through the Tulsa, Oklahoma, office, he would be obtaining and transacting this business in a legally acceptable way. He also candidly acknowledges that, in fact, he understands, from his contact with the Department since that time, this was not the case and that he was writing the business for a company not legally authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The Respondent has freely admitted these above-found facts and does not dispute that he was in violation of the portion of the charges that do not depend on intent. He has established, however, through the exhibits admitted as explanatory hearsay and the agreed-upon proffer of his counsel, that the transactions at issue, all of which were the result of one essentially-identical course of conduct, were accomplished with no intent to defraud the policyholders, the company, or the Florida Department of Insurance. There was no willful, dishonest or deceitful intent by the Respondent during the course of his engagement in these transactions. There was no such willful wrongful intent in the course of his contact and relations with the company, those policyholders, or the Department of Insurance since that time. No policyholder or company suffered any financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's conduct, nor did any insurance coverage lapse at any time. Although there were some 30 policyholders who were sold insurance by the Respondent, as the agent for a company not actually licensed in the State of Florida, that circumstance had no effect on the validity of the policy coverages involved and there were no actual "victims" of the Respondent's conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, finding the Respondent, Wayne Harland Creasy, guilty of a violation of Section 626.901(1), Florida Statutes, in the manner found and concluded above and that a penalty of $3,000.00 be imposed, together with the award of $500.00 in attorney's fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 1st day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-32. Accepted. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, in a technical sense, but not in the sense that any overt, intentional effort to circumvent Florida law was committed by the Respondent. Rather, it was a negligent failure to act in a legal way due to being misled by Pacific Guardian Life Insurance Company, Ltd. or its officers or employees. Accepted, as to the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint, but not as to their legal import, and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not ruled upon or considered because they were not timely filed, being approximately one month out of time with no motion for extension of time, during the originally-set time period, being filed. Consequently, the Petitioner's motion to strike the Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is granted. COPIES FURNISHED: Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Rabon Martin, Esquire Martin and Associates 403 South Cheyenne Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of Case Number 01-2295, reflect statements of agency policy which should have been adopted as rules pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties United is a foreign insurer, domiciled in the State of Wisconsin holding a certificate of authority from the Department to transact the business of insurance in this state. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. The Department, through its agency head, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, has regulatory jurisdiction over United in connection with certain matters set forth in the Complaint. The regulatory scheme for out-of-state health insurance companies Health insurance companies operating pursuant to in-state regulatory schemes are subject to oversight regulation of the corporate entity including financial solvency and market conduct. Rates are required to be filed and approved prior to being used in the state. The review process involves a review of the rates to determine if they are reasonable in relation to the benefits provided. In regard to this, the Department has rules which it has adopted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which it uses to determine the standards and formulae for making that determination. Certain out-of-state health insurers, such as United, are not subject to such stringent regulation. No review of premium rates is conducted by the Department in the case of these insurers, but it would be incorrect to state that they are not subject to regulation by the Department at all. Approximately 40 percent of the health insurance market in Florida is written through out-of-state group arrangements that do not provide policyholders consumer protections afforded to policyholders holding in-state policies regulated by the Department. United is required by Florida law to provide certain types of coverage. United must also ensure that certificates of coverage provided to residents of Florida contain the following language: The benefits of the policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the law of a state other than Florida. Indent Background At all times pertinent, American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS), was a Florida-licensed administrator authorized to market and administer United's out-of-state group health insurance plans in Florida. AMS, like United, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Medical Securities Group, Inc. In May 1993, United, through AMS, filed for approval with the Department pursuant to Section 627.5515(2), Florida Statutes (1993), as an out-of-state group health insurer who would provide policies to be offered through an Alabama entity called the Prescription For Good Health Trust, which was formed primarily for the purpose of providing group insurance. The Department approved this filing. On March 2, 1995, the Department participated by conference call in a Regulatory Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The mission of the task force was to attempt to address a number of problems facing the insurance market. One of the problems discussed was rate protection for consumers when faced with "tier rating" or "tier blocking." The two terms are synonymous and mean, as to group health insurance, reclassifying insureds subsequent to having been initially placed in a class. This practice will be discussed in more detail below. In 1996, United made a filing for the Prescription For Good Health Trust which proposed tier rating. Sometime during 1996, after the Department objected to the filing, United withdrew it. The Department had never seen such a filing previously. United is the only health insurer to assert before the Department that reclassification by movement between classes would be permissible under the Florida Insurance Code. Section 627.6515(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a group health insurance policy issued or delivered outside this state under which a resident of Florida is provided coverage, shall comply with the provisions of Part VII, of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, in the same manner as health policies issued within the state. Part VII of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, provides for a comprehensive regulatory scheme for group health insurance. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, however, sets forth a number of exemptions. Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, provides an exemption for an insurer like United, which provides health insurance through an association formed for a purpose other than that of offering insurance, which provides the language referred to in paragraph 5, supra, on the face of the certificate, and which offers the bundle of coverages provided in Subsection (c). This exemption applied to the Prescription For Good Health Trust. The Department concedes that it has no authority to set premium rates for out-of-state insurers like United. In November 1996, United through AMS, filed with the Department, pursuant to Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes, a request for approval of an out-of-state group health insurance policy termed the "MedOne Choice" plan. This plan was to be offered through an Ohio association called the Taxpayers' Network, Inc. (TNI). The association was formed primarily for purposes other than providing insurance. In January, 1997, the filing was accepted by the Department as meeting the requirements of Section 627.6515(2), Florida Statutes. Chapter 96-223, Laws of Florida, created Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 25, 1996. When created, the section only addressed the renewability of individual coverage. Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida, substantially amended Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, effective May 30, 1997. Subsequent to the amendment, the section addressed certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy. This statute, along with Sections 627.6571 and 627.6487, Florida Statutes, implemented the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The basic theory of the HIPAA legislation is that an insurance company cannot simply cancel a health insurance policy without providing other options. On or about September 25, 1998, United, through AMS, notified all Prescription For Good Health Trust certificate holders that the policy forms through which their coverage had been provided were being discontinued, effective as of each certificate holder's 1999 renewal date. Upon discontinuance of the Prescription For Good Health Trust Plans, the only United health insurance plans available in Florida were the MedOne Choice plans offered through TNI. Membership in TNI was available to anyone upon submitting an application form and paying the membership fee. Membership in TNI was a prerequisite to continuance of a persons' health insurance coverage under United's MedOne Choice plan. United guaranteed each certificate holder, upon joining TNI, that upon request, they would be issued coverage under the Classic Benefit Plan (one of the TNI MedOne Choice plans) without regard to their health status. However, there was no guarantee that premiums would not rise. Certificate holders were also advised that if they desired coverage under a MedOne Choice plan other than the guaranteed issue Classic Benefit plan, they could apply for any of the other TNI plans. Only if the applicant met the underwriting guidelines for the plan for which they applied, would they be issued coverage under another MedOne Choice plan. Between October 1998 and early January 1999, United responded to questions and concerns raised by the Department about the decision to discontinue the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, and whether the plan of discontinuance was in compliance with Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. Specifically, discussions were had concerning the movement of insureds from the class in which they were originally assigned to another class at the time of renewal. United entered an agreement with the Department on January 14, 1999, whereby United would offer to certificate holders an additional guaranteed issue TNI plan and would cap the rate for the guaranteed issue plans at no more than twice the premium then currently being paid for the discontinued Prescription For Good Health Trust plan. In accordance with this agreement, United notified certificate holders of the additional guaranteed issue option available to them. Later in 1999, United discontinued the trust plan in accordance with their agreement with the Department. During the process of discontinuance, no certificate holder requested conversion coverage under Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes. Section 627.6675, Florida Statutes, provides that an insured may assert his or her right to a "converted policy," which provides for certain health insurance continuation rights. The Department determined that United's rate for the conversion policy, pursuant to the agreement, was within 200 percent of the standard risk rate and that the notice of the conversion privilege was contained in the certificate of coverage issued to Florida residents. Thus, the Department concluded that United was in compliance with the agreement of January 14, 1999. On May 19, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that the discontinuance of her coverage by United did not mean she was being discriminated against because the policy had been terminated for all members. The letter further recited that the Department did not have the ability to regulate United because it was not domiciled in Florida and her insurance was being provided to a group, referring to TNI, that was not registered in Florida. On July 27, 1999, a Department letter informed a consumer that United had an obligation to offer a replacement policy but that United had the right to underwrite the policy and charge additional premium. This statement also referred to TNI. Section 627.6425(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "except as otherwise provided in this section, an insurer that provides individual health insurance coverage to an individual shall renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the individual." For the purpose of the aforementioned Section, the term "individual health insurance" means health insurance coverage, as described in Section 627.6561(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes, offered to an individual in the state, "including certificates of coverage offered to individuals in the state as part of a group policy issued to an association outside this state. " As noted earlier, Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes enacted in Florida which implemented HIPAA. HIPAA provides for continuation of health insurance of an insureds health policy but does not limit the premiums which an insurer can charge for coverage. Although Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, does not have the words "guaranteed renewable" contained within the statute, the gist of the statute is that if a person has a health policy, the person has the right to continued coverage. The Department contends that the statute also means that there can be no reclassification or movement between classes at the time of renewal. On March 30, 2000, the Department notified United that it believed the discontinuance of Prescription For Good Health Trust plan, in accordance with the January 1999 agreement, may have violated Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes. A Department publication dated January 4, 2001, entitled, "The Florida Health Insurance Market, Issues and Possible Market Reform Measures," noted that there are "an increasing number of carriers attempting to establish HIPAA eligible individuals as a separate rating class with premium charges ranging from 300 to 500 percent of standard rates. While the Department has found such a rating practice to be in violation of the Florida Insurance Code, many carriers have continued to protest this interpretation. Carriers contend the surcharge practice is both actuarially sound and interpreted as a HIPAA permissible practice by other states." In the 2001 legislative session, the Department sought additional regulatory authority concerning out-of-state group insurers, such as United, along with numerous other changes to the Florida Insurance Code which are unrelated to the issues addressed in this Order. The Florida Legislature failed to approve the requested legislation. Tier rating When a group health policy is underwritten, the members of the group may be divided into classes. The classes are based on risk, which is a function of the probability of claims and the cost of claims. Classes may be denominated, for example, as preferred, manual, and substandard. Very healthy persons are put in the preferred class and pay lower premiums relative to other classes. Average persons are put in the manual class because the likelihood and cost of claims may be average. Persons who for actuarial reasons are determined to have an above-average likelihood of claims and whose claims are apt to be costly, are placed in the substandard class. It, perhaps, goes without saying that the individuals in the substandard class must pay higher premiums for the same coverage as others in the group. If the group health policy is guaranteed renewable, certificate holders may continue their coverage. However, premiums within a class can be increased. It is general industry practice to increase the premiums by class when the time for renewal occurs, if the loss experience is such that there is a requirement to increase premiums. As earlier noted, the Department asserts that only by raising premiums for an entire class may premiums be raised. The Department insists that this requirement is part of the definition of "guaranteed renewable." It became United's practice to move insureds between classes. Therefore, for instance, if a person in the group who had been a member of the preferred class experienced the need for costly medical services, then that person might be moved to the manual or substandard class. This would inevitably result in that person paying an increased premium. On the other hand, a person in the substandard class, who was subsequently determined to be a good risk, might be moved to the preferred or manual class and experience reduced premiums as a result. When a substandard class becomes populated with persons who cause the payment of costly claims, premiums increase within that class. Premiums may increase to the point where persons egress the plan, which leaves the class with fewer and sicker members. Eventually, under such a plan, there will be no members, because the premiums will inflate to the point that the benefits, in relation to the amount of the premium, will render the plan uneconomical. This sequence of events is often referred to as the health insurance "death spiral." One of the asserted evils which the Department seeks to combat in the Complaint is the "death spiral." HIPAA eligibles In 1996, when HIPAA became law and Florida enacted laws to implement it, a practice sometimes referred to as "rating up" occurred among some carriers in the industry. As noted earlier, HIPAA and the state statutes implementing it, guarantee that an individual, who through no fault of his own, loses his or her group health insurance coverage has the opportunity to obtain substitute health insurance. A person in this category is referred to as HIPAA eligible. Companies providing insurance under these laws are cognizant of the fact that persons in good health generally decline to purchase this type of insurance but that persons who are in bad health, and who will, therefore, likely have costly claims, will purchase it if they can afford it. This results in a desire on the part of insurers, to charge higher premiums for HIPAA eligible persons than they might charge persons in a comparable, non-HIPAA plan. It is a permissible underwriting practice to take into consideration age, health, and a myriad of other actuarial considerations when developing premium rates for HIPAA eligibles. If an insurer factors in the knowledge that unhealthy persons are more likely than healthy persons to obtain a policy based on HIPAA and charge higher premiums as a result, then "rating up" occurs. The Department contends in its Complaint that "rating up" is discriminatory and, therefore, forbidden by the Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (UITPA), Section 626.951, et seq., Florida Statutes. United allegedly arrives at rates for HIPAA eligibles solely based on the fact that the individuals are HIPAA eligible which if true, would be "rating up." Immediately prior to April 30, 1998, the Department received a memorandum from the federal Health Care Financing Administration addressing three general problems with insurance practices regarding HIPAA eligibles. One of the three problems addressed in the memorandum was the practice of "rating up." In response, the Department issued Informational Memorandum 98-103M on April 30, 1998, addressing the three problems. The Department announced that it had concerns similar to that of the Health Care Financing Administration, and would address them in administrative rules implementing HIPAA and Chapter 97-179, Laws of Florida. However, no rules addressing these concerns have been adopted. Insurance carriers disagree with the Department as to whether "rating up" is unfairly discriminatory and therefore a violation of the UITPA. The Department is addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations. The evidence adduced at the hearing did not elucidate exactly what "addressing these differences on a case-by-case basis in the course of market conduct examinations" means. Count Three in the Complaint represents the first time an administrative action has been brought against an insurer addressing this practice. The definition of guaranteed renewable Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled "Filing of Forms and Rates for Life and Health Insurance." Rule 4-149.006(4)(o)3, Florida Administrative Code, provides for a definition of "guaranteed renewable." However, Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, does not address out-of-state group health insurers, such as United, because the Department has no authority to require the filing of forms and rates in the case of out-of-state health insurers like United. A life and health insurance treatise written by Black and Skipper states that the definitions of the categories of renewable health insurance policies are not uniform among the states. It is the Department's position that Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, applies to out-of-state trusts, such as United's Prescription For Good Health Trust, even though the word "trust" is not used in the statute. It is apparent that if there is no limit on the amount of premium a health insurer can charge at the time of renewal, a guarantee of renewal can be meaningless. This fact is ameliorated by rate-setting in the case of highly regulated health insurers such as domestic insurers. In the context of this case, it is not the renewability of a policy that is the gist of the problem. Rather, it is whether rates can be increased on persons through the movement of insureds from one class to another. The allegations of the Complaint In order to determine which statements are alleged to be unadopted rules, it is necessary to refer to Counts Two through Seven of the Complaint. These counts will be summarized, in seriatim. Count Two alleges that persons who continued their participation in TNI were unlawfully and unfairly discriminated against because some members were reclassified based on their health status present at that time (1999), rather than being retained in the class in which they resided when the policy was initially issued. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that this practice violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, which is a section in the UITPA. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Three alleges that all of those individuals formerly covered through the Prescription For Good Health Trust who were at the time of their discontinuance HIPAA eligible, were, arbitrarily and without regard to health status, assigned a premium rate of either three or five times the base rate for TNI as a whole. Count Three alleges that this assignment unfairly discriminated against the HIPAA eligible individuals who were of the same actuarially supportable class and essentially the same hazard. Count Three further alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Four alleges that the enactment of Section 627.6425, Florida Statutes, in 1996, as amended in 1997, statutorily determined that the Prescription For Good Health Trust plan was "guaranteed renewable" as that term is used and understood in the insurance industry. It further alleged that the term "guaranteed renewable” means that once an insurer classifies an individual as a member of an actuarially supportable class for rate and premium applicable to the specified coverage, that individual may not thereafter be charged a premium which is different from any other member of the same class and cannot be moved to another class. The complaint states that United unlawfully moved insureds from one class to another. Count Four additionally alleged that when United discontinued the Prescription For Good Health Trust, the prerequisite for individuals to obtain renewed health insurance coverage was reclassification of some of those individuals to different actuarially supportable classes based on their health status then pertinent to those individuals. It was further alleged that higher premiums were charged to approximately 70 percent of those who renewed or continued, and that premium increases of 200 percent to 300 percent were experienced. Count Four asserted that Section 627.6425(3), Florida Statutes, prohibits such reclassification. Count Four also alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because such reclassification was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Five alleges that on the one year anniversary of renewal with TNI, United unlawfully reclassified additional individuals which resulted in a premium increases of up to 60 percent. Count Five alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Six alleges that within the tier blocks described in Count Two, United unlawfully established numerous sub- classifications based on health related factors pertinent to each individual within that class. It is alleged in the Complaint that these sub-classifications resulted in individuals within the same class being charged a different premium than are other members of the class. Count Six alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes, because this action was discriminatory. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. Count Seven alleges that United used a point debit system where an arithmetic number of points are assigned to a corresponding health hazard. The higher the cumulative debit score, the higher the premium. United will decline to insure at all if the cumulative debit score gets sufficiently high. Count Seven alleges that the assignment of points with no criteria for decision-making results in arbitrary and discriminatory point scores. Count Seven alleges, inter alia, that this violated Section 626.9541(1)(g)2., Florida Statutes. This statement is alleged in the Petition to be a statement of general applicability. In summary, the three statements alleged to be rules are: Practicing tier rating is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. Placing HIPAA-eligible individuals in a premium classification solely on the basis of their HIPAA eligible status is discriminatory and violates the UITPA. The term "guaranteed renewable" prohibits the classification of individuals in a health insurance group at a time other than at the inception of coverage.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure as a life agent, a life and health agent, a general lines agent, a health agent and a dental health care contract salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and regulation of the insurance industry in this state. Respondent, Michael Charles Peppe was and is currently licensed and eligible for licensure in Florida as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, a general lines agent and a health insurance agent. He was an officer and director of M. Peppe Agency, Inc., a Florida corporation. During the period in issue herein, Respondent's agency had a brokerage agreement with William Sanner and Mary Lou Sanner who were employed as sub- agents. Constance Abraham, an 85 year old widow first met William Sanner when she moved to Ft. Lauderdale, some 20 or so year ago. They were neighbors in the same apartment building. At that time she was insured with Mutual of Omaha and her policy was transferred to him, an agent for that company, for service. Over the years she purchased quite a bit of other insurance from him. They were all different kinds of health insurance policies and over time, she estimates, she purchased somewhere around 50 policies. During the period between 1985 and 1991, Mrs. Abraham purchased numerous health policies for both herself and her son through Mr. and Mrs. Sanner, though she does not recall ever having dealt with Mrs. Sanner. Records disclose that her coverage was placed with nine different companies and provided coverage in such areas as Medicare Supplement, nursing home insurance, cancer insurance, and hospital expense - indemnity insurance. Over the years approximately 60 policies were issued through Respondent's agency to either Mrs. Abraham or her son. The applications were taken by Sanner who would collect the initial premiums and forward both to Respondent's agency for processing to the various insurers. Some policies were signed by Sanner as agent of record and some were signed by Respondent in that capacity. Only a few were signed by Mrs. Sanner. Mrs. Abraham claims she didn't realize how much health insurance she had. Mr. Sanner would come to her apartment and talk to her about a new policy and she would abide by his advice. Her purchases amounted to approximately $20,000.00 per year in premiums which she would pay by check to Mr. Sanner. At no time did she ever deal with or meet the Respondent, Mr. Peppe. She did not question Sanner deeply about why he was selling her so much insurance. Whenever she asked about a new policy, he would usually have what appeared to he to be a good reason for it such as something was lacking in her coverage. Even when she recognized he was selling her duplicate coverage, he told her it was a good idea to have more. At no time did he or anyone else tell her she had too much insurance. Mrs. Abraham claims to know nothing about insurance herself. However, she was cognizant of the nature of the policies she had, utilizing without prompting the terms, "indemnity", "supplemental", and "accident." Mr. Sanner would come to her home at least once a month She trusted him to help her with her health insurance and would talk with him whenever a policy came up for renewal. On some occasions he would recommend she renew and on others would recommend she drop that policy in favor of another. At no time was she aware, however, of the fact that she was duplicating policies. She also claims she never had to tell Mr. Sanner what she wanted from her coverage. He always seemed to know and would handle not only the purchase of her policies but also the filing of her claims. She can recall no instance where she asked for any coverage and he tried to talk her out of it. Mrs. Abraham denies she was the person who complained to the Department. It was her daughter who noticed what was going on and took matters into her own hands. At no time did either Sanner or the Respondent attempt to contact her after the complaint was filed. Mrs. Abraham and her husband had four children. Her son, Lewis, who is somewhat retarded, lives with her and she also purchased some policies for him. Over the years she has had many occasions to file claims under her policies. It is important to her that she have protection to provide full time care if necessary because she has no family locally to provide that care for her. She had coverage that provided nursing care, a private room in the hospital, and some policies which provided for extended or nursing home care. She recognizes that such care is expensive and wanted enough policies to give her total coverage without out of pocket expense if the care was needed. She keeps track of the policies she has on her personal computer and has been doing so for some six or seven years. She apparently is sufficiently computer literate that she knows what she has and what she is doing. Mrs. Abraham owns a condominium at the Galt Ocean Mile apartment in Ft. Lauderdale. The $20,000.00 figure in policy premiums she mentioned were for her policies only. Those for her son were extra. She has sufficient income from stocks and bonds to pay her premiums, pay her mortgage, and still live comfortably. Her son has his own income from a trust fund and his own investments. At one point in time, when Mrs. Abraham had some recurring health problems and was in and out of hospitals regularly, she received in benefits far more than her actual expenses and made a tidy profit. Nonetheless, she adamantly disclaims she purchased the policies she had for that purpose claiming instead that she wanted merely that both she and her son be able to pay for the best medical care possible in the event it is needed. To that end, Lewis Abraham has filed very few claims against his carriers. Most, if not all, of the companies which provided the coverage for Mrs. Abraham and her son have limits on the amount of total coverage any one policy holder can have in any line of insurance. The limit is cumulative and not limited to policies with a specific company. Taken together, the policies in force for Mrs. Abraham in some cases exceeded that limit and had the insurers been made aware of the totality of her coverage, their policies would not have been issued. This information was not furnished to the companies, however, by either Sanner or Respondent. In addition, on many of the policies the mental condition of a policy holder must be disclosed if that person is retarded or not fully competent. Respondent did not know of Lewis' condition though Mr. Sanner was fully aware of it both as it related to his retardation and his drop foot. On none of the policy applications relating to him, however, was either ever mentioned. Some companies indicated that if Lewis's mental and physical condition had been properly disclosed on the application, they either would not have issued the coverage or, at least, would have referred the matter to the underwriter for further evaluation and a determination as to whether to issue the policy and if so, at what premium. Even more, Lewis' physical and mental condition may have caused the company to decline payment of a claim within two years of issuance of any policy actually written. Respondent received monthly statements from the various insurers with whom his agency did business detailing the transactions for that month. Commissions on each sale were paid by the insurers to Respondent's agency and thereafter, pursuant to an agreement between Respondent and Sanner, the commissions were divided. The commissions paid to Respondent's company by the insurers on all these policies amount to in excess of $18,000.00. Respondent asserts that Mrs. Abraham knew exactly what she was doing and was, in effect, conducting if not a scam, at least an improper business activity through the knowing purchase of duplicative policies and redundant coverage. This well may be true, but even if it is, Mr. Sanner was a knowing accomplice and participant. In addition, while it is accepted that Respondent might not know the status of every policy purchased through his agency or the total activity with any particular client, when his name appears as signatory on policy applications forwarded to a company for whom he accepts or solicits business, as here, it is hard to find he did not have at least a working familiarity with the business written by his sub-agents . This finding is supported by the analysis done of Respondent's pertinent activities here by Milton O. Bedingfield, a 39 year insurance agent and broker for 10 companies, a Certified Life Underwriter, and an expert in life and health insurance. Mr. Bedingfield concluded, after a review of all the policies written for the Abrahams through Respondent's agency, there was a gross oversale of policies and repeated omissions of pertinent information on policy applications. He found a duplication of benefits and overlapping coverage, all without legitimate purpose, especially for an 85 year old woman. Since the average hospital stay is less than 2 weeks, she would not likely benefit from her insurance for the stay. He could not see where Mrs. Abraham would get back in benefits what she has paid in premiums. In Mr. Bedingfield's opinion, this is the worst case of oversale he has seen in his 39 years in the insurance business. He contends the agent stands in almost a fiduciary capacity to his clients - especially the aged who rely on their agent to properly advise them on adequate coverage. There is often an element of fear involved that the unscrupulous agent can profit from. Here, he feels, Respondent's practice falls far short of the state's standard of acceptability on the sale of Medicare Supplemental insurance. On balance, however, Mr. Bedingfield does not know if all the policies he saw stayed in force throughout the period of the policy. Many could have lapsed or been cancelled. In all fairness, as well, where insurance is brokered, as here, the ultimate placing agent normally does not meet the client but must rely on what he is told by the offering agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this case, Michael C. Peppe, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 11th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2708 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 22. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by evidence or record except for the fact that Respondent sign and processed applications and premium payments and received a financial benefit from the sales. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted so far as it relates Ms. Abraham was well informed and aware of her coverage. Not established, but insufficient evidence of actionable misconduct. Accepted. - 6. Not proper Findings of Fact but more Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Not a proper Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdrey 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents Richard Elliott Templin, Jr., was qualified for licensure as a general lines agent and as a life and health insurance agent in Florida and represented the Okeechobee Insurance Agency, (OIA), located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is currently eligible for licensure as a general lines agent and as a health and life insurance agent in Florida. RAVEN MILLER In March, 1984, Raven Miller applied for and was issued automobile insurance by OIA. She contacted that agency among others and found that it quoted her the cheapest price for the coverage she wanted, coverage sufficient to protect her and the finance company from loss. During the application process, she signed several forms provided to her by the agent who briefly discussed her coverage with her but did not advise her it would include life insurance or accidental death insurance. When she initially went into the office to renew the policy, she asked for coverage on the vehicle but did not desire anything else. The employee with whom she talked indicated understanding of her desires and filled out the required paperwork for her without asking any other questions of her. When the paperwork was completed, Ms. Miller was told that the premium cost would be $347.00 for which she gave a check and received a receipt, plus $110.00 for a term life insurance policy. She was not told that that this latter coverage was separate from the automobile coverage. Ms. Miller filled out nothing during the application process. All the documents were filled out by the clerk. The application form was completely filled out except for her signature when she signed it. It reflected that uninsured motorist coverage was rejected but Ms. Miller was not asked by anyone at the agency if she desired that coverage. When she inquired about deductibles, she was advised there was a mandatory $250.00 deductible and though she is reflected to have rejected bodily injury coverage, this was not discussed with her, either. The only form that Ms. Miller filled out personally was the pink application to Fortune Insurance Company, (Fortune), on which she identified her "beneficiary." This form was not explained to her, however, nor was there any discussion with her of life insurance coverage. Ms. Miller, who works with the Post Office, has $140,000 in life insurance coverage through her job and had she known she was being offered additional life insurance coverage, would have rejected it. When Ms. Miller signed the summary of coverage form, it was completely filled out. The lady with whom she was dealing briefly went over the various items on it but did not discuss them with her or explained anything to her. The confirmation form which she signed was filled out prior to being given to her for signature. The explanation regarding it was brief and she was not advised that life insurance coverage was optional. The life insurance premium was not forwarded by OIA to the company. She did not receive a policy from either Fortune Life or ATA. At no time during her dealings with OIA did she meet or deal with Respondent and she does not know him nor would she recognize him. When she sold her car in March, 1985, Ms. Miller cancelled the policy in person at the agency at which time she was advised that her refund would come in the mail. Even after numerous contacts with the agency to inquire where the refund was, it was not given to her. At no time during her dealings with OIA was she aware of the fact that she was applying for an accidental death policy. All she asked for, all she wanted, and all she thought she was getting was auto insurance sufficient to cover her, her bank, and others with whom she might have an accident in the event of loss. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Miller signed an acknowledgment of explanation both at the time of the original policy and and the time of renewal, the explanation in both cases was extremely brief. She asked no questions to speak of and no information was volunteered. In short, at the time of renewal the agency merely renewed the prior coverage. They did not show her what they were comparing with. She assumes that the figures were the same as for the original policy and she assumed that whatever she got was a standard coverage and charge to every applicant. Ms. Miller was satisfied with the coverage she received and the package she purchased. Her complaint to the Department of Insurance related to the failure to receive her refund not to the sale of the insurance to her. In fact, at the time she filed her complaint, she did not even know that she had a life insurance policy. DENNIS AND ALETA NELSON Dennis Nelson, who has worked for the Post Office for approximately 10 years, on or about March 21, 1985 went to the OIA because, having spoken with Respondent over the phone, and having gotten a quote for "full coverage" on his automobiles from him, he liked the price. Mr. Nelson dealt with Respondent who took down the particulars on the cars to be covered, then went to his rate books, and quoted a price to Mr. Nelson which was satisfactory. In doing so, he laid out the explanation of coverage form and indicated what coverage the Nelsons would have. In the course of the application process, there was no discussion of the limits of liability insurance, uninsured motorist Coverage, deductibles, or life insurance. When the paperwork was completed, Mr. Nelson signed the applications for insurance given to him and a premium finance agreement. Respondent explained to Mr. Nelson the application for life insurance and gave him the impression that it was mandatory. It was made mandatory by the company that a customer buy the whole package, but it was not mandatory under the state requirements. The failure to make this distinction is misleading and deceptive. Mr. Nelson never received any policies from any of the companies from whom he was supposed to have received coverage, though he made his premium payments. By the same token, the company did not receive Nelson's premiums from the agency and, therefore, did not issue a policy. Approximately three months after the coverage went into effect, OIA notified the Nelsons that the cost of coverage on their Blazer would be raised by more than $200 for the year. Mr. Nelson made the initial inquiry call to the company writing this coverage but he was poorly treated by company representatives and got no information. Thereafter, Mrs. Nelson went to OIA's Okeechobee Boulevard office and spoke with Respondent who indicated he could not understand it either. Nonetheless, she paid a part of the increase, ($110.00), at the time in cash. The Nelsons checked with other companies and were quoted lower prices. Because OIA could not explain the raise, they went to the Petitioner's local office where they were told that the life insurance coverage they had purchased was not mandatory. As a result, they decided to cancel their coverage with OIA which Mrs. Nelson did in person. When she attempted to fill out the cancellation form, she was told by an agency employee that she could not cancel the life insurance portion only her husband could do that. Mr. Nelson thereafter attempted to reach the Respondent to discuss this situation with him but could never seem to get in touch with him. Mr. Nelson felt he got repeated run arounds from the employees at OIA and was repeatedly referred to the Lake Worth office. When they ultimately received the refund from OIA, it was dishonored and thereafter, the Nelsons were reimbursed for it in cash. ROBERT M. ANDERSON Mr. Anderson, an employee of Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Corporation in West Palm Beach, purchased automobile insurance from OIA in July, 1985. He selected that agency because they offered him the best price for the coverage which he had told them he wanted, which was "the minimum necessary to satisfy state and bank requirements." During the course of his negotiations with the agency, he dealt with an individual known to him as "Rich" but though Respondent looks familiar to him, he cannot identify Respondent as that individual. He advised the individual with whom he dealt what kind of car he had, (a Porche 911), his age, and that he wanted the best deal he could get. In response, the individual gave him a quotation for a 12 month policy which was too high for his budget. He asked for a quote on the rate for 6 months which was quoted to him as $1,816.00, for which he wrote a check. Mr. Anderson thereafter filled out an application package for coverage. The summary of coverage form was not discussed with him in detail. For example, the $2,000 deductible of PIP coverage was not discussed nor were any details or deductibles on other coverages. Accidental death coverage was not discussed with him nor did he request it. He recognizes his signature on certain documents and does not dispute having signed them. However, he does not recall any discussion about them nor does he recall signing a power of attorney form or even discussing the need to have one signed. There was no discussion with Mr. Anderson regarding life insurance coverage and in fact, he would have declined it had it been discussed because he was fully covered through his company's group policy. Mr. Anderson was not prevented from asking questions but did not do so because he did not know what questions to ask. He was given the opportunity to read the forms but did not review them in detail because he did not understand them then and does not understand them now. He did not, however, indicate that he did not understand. Because he had 9 points on his driver's record, he did not ask many questions. He was grateful to get any coverage and did not feel it was appropriate to take the time, as busy as Respondent appeared to be, to ask questions. It was his understanding that everything he got was a part of the "total package" that he requested. Mr. Anderson had no complaint about the coverage that he received. His complaint to the Petitioner was based on his failure to secure a prompt refund from the agency at the time he desired to cancel the coverage, and it was at this time, in discussing the matter with the Commissioner's office, that he first learned he had life and other undesired coverages as a part of his auto insurance package. He has, however, subsequently received the refund requested. All of the individuals referenced above received and paid for as a part of their insurance coverage, membership in an automobile motor club. On policies of this nature, the selling agency retains 90 percent of the premium and remits only 10 percent to the insurer. The motor club membership included a life insurance policy issued by Fortune Life. None of the persons involved with Respondent here knew they were buying either life insurance, accidental death insurance, or motor club membership. All had asked for "total" coverage, desiring thereby only that coverage necessary to operator a motor vehicle legally in this state. Neither life insurance, accidental death insurance, nor motor club coverage is a requirement of the state for the operation of a motor vehicle. It is not unlawful for an insurance agency to make those coverages a necessary part of a package and condition the issuance of liability, property damage, and PIP coverage upon the purchase of a total package including the other. What is improper, however, is a failure on the part of the agency to disclose that the life, accidental death, and motor club coverages are not a part of the insurance requirements of the state and the failure to disclose this is the nexus of the offense alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For Petitioner 1-4 Accepted and incorporated herein. 5-7 Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-16 Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-18 Accepted and incorporated herein. 19 Accepted and incorporated herein. 20 Accepted but irrelevant. 21 Accepted and incorporated herein. 22 Accepted. 23-26 Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. 28 Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 Accepted but irrelevant. 30 Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32 Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 Rejected as unproven. Witness never identified Respondent as the individual with whom he dealt. In the remaining paragraph rulings, it is assumed only that Respondent was involved. 35&36 Accepted and incorporated herein. 37-39 Accepted and incorporated herein. 40&41 Accepted and incorporated herein. 42&43 Accepted. For Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted not as a Finding of Fact but as a recitation of the evidence, Accepted in substance. Paragraph is long and involved. See 3 above. See 3 above. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Office of Legal Services Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 David W. Spicer, Esquire Tammy J. Kissell, Esquire NCNB Tower, Suite 910 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2363 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent is licensed as a life insurance agent and as a life and health insurance agent. Respondent operated through his agency listed as Tax Saving Concepts, Inc., 1003 10th Lane, Lake Worth, Florida 33463-4354. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626. This case was initiated by an anonymous complaint submitted by fax on August 23, 1999, to a Department office. The anonymous complainer faxed a copy of a newspaper ad from that day's edition of The Palm Beach Post. The ad reads as follows: “85% OFF TERM LIFE INSUANCE COMMISSIONS! LEGAL SAVINGS per Florida Statute 626.572 PERSAVE (sic) $1,000’s. Call 800-2-save-75. www.lifeinsurancediscounts .com Tax Saving Concepts Since 1986” The web page advertisement reads: 90% OFF 2ND-TO-DIE LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONS LEGALLY! YOU CAN SAVE $100,000+ IN YOUR POCKET! Save 90% off your 2nd-to-die life insurance commission costs legally when you sign your application in Florida with Tax Saving Concepts, Inc., a registered legal rebating broker since 1986. Our tax-free rebates can save you $100,000+. References from our happy clients will prove to you that you too will save thousands of dollars on your 2nd-to-die life insurance commission costs. We also offer deep discounts on term life insurance. Tax Saving Concepts, Inc. Of Florida America’s Oldest & Deepest Discount Life Insurance Broker Since 1986™ Registered Legal Rebating Broker Since 1986 We have never had a consumer complaint Email us: since 86@gate.net 561-439-6974 “Palm Beach agent Barry H. Small offers a 90% commission rebate. ” The Wall Street Journal March 25, 1993 By letter dated August 31, 1999, the Department, through an authorized representative, requested that Respondent get in touch to discuss the newspaper ad and website. Respondent answered by letter dated September 9, 1999, wherein he stated, “ABSOLUTELY NO life insurance companies are mentioned at my seminar.” He further stated, “I have not and do not intend to run this Palm Beach Post listing again.” After receiving this non-response, the case was referred to William Darryl May (May) of the Department’s Bureau of Agent and Agency Investigations for follow-up. May initiated the Department's investigation with a call to Small on January 26, 2000. May was successful in making telephone contact, but the conversation was unproductive due to Small's distrust of the Department's staff and unwillingness to provide information. Small believes himself to be the victim of a conspiracy between the Commissioner of Insurance and insurance agents who do not rebate commissions; he therefore felt justified in refusing to cooperate with May in answering questions concerning whether and to whom he had rebated commissions to customers, saying only, “You know the companies I am licensed with.” More specifically, Small would not provide the names of any customers he had rebated commissions to. Small feared adverse impacts upon his relationship with any customers state investigators might choose to contact. Small elaborated on his fears in a letter to May dated October 15, 1999 which states in part: I am writing the following facts from a consciousness that I can be killed at any moment. There is a contract on my life to have me killed, taken out by business competitors. On 6 occasions in the last 3 years, mafia hitmen, paid for by these business competitors have tried to kill me. Taking Small up on his implicit suggestion that the state deal directly with companies with whom Small had contractual relationships, May sent identical letters to the insurance companies for which Small was then authorized, or appointed, to sell insurance. May later received responses from companies, as follows: Banner Life Insurance Company, responded on January 26, 2000, through its legal department, with a letter to Small, which stated in pertinent part: We are in receipt of the enclosed newspaper advertisement and Internet website advertisement from the Florida Department of Insurance. Since these advertisements could potentially result in the sale of Banner Life Insurance Company products, they should have been submitted to our company for prior approval. We have thoroughly reviewed our records and advertising logs, and have determined that you never received permission from us to use the enclosed advertisements. Furthermore, if these advertisements had been submitted, they would not have been approved for use. First Colony Life Insurance Company, through its law department, wrote to May on December 15, 1999, and stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements; did not authorize Small to rebate commissions; and had no record of a rebate schedule filed by Small. Unum Life Insurance company, through its customer relations manager, wrote to May on December 14, 1999, and stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements; did not authorize Small to rebate commissions, and had no record of a rebate schedule filed by Small. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, through its Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, by letter to May dated December 14, 1999, stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements and did not authorize Small to rebate commissions. The letter also stated that Lincoln Benefit's file research revealed a letter from Small to a general agent for Lincoln Benefit detailing his rebating schedule, but did not supply any details regarding that document. Transamerica Life Companies, through a compliance officer, wrote to the Insurance Commissioner on December 7, 1999, stating that it had not approved the newspaper or web site advertisements, and further noting that ". . . when Mr. Small was recontracted as a producer in June 1999, the company had him sign a document acknowledging [its strict anti- rebating policy].” Midland National Life Insurance Company, through its Consumer Affairs Associate, wrote to May on February 2, 2000. The letter stated that Small had produced little business for the company and that the company was in the process of terminating Small's appointment. It further stated that the company had not approved either of the advertisements. Finally, the letter made reference to its cooperation in a prior investigation of Small arising out a 1993 advertisement, and noted that it had been informed by the Department in August 1996 that that investigation was being closed. Sun Life of Canada, through its markets [sic] compliance office, wrote to May on November 2, 1999, stating that the company affirmatively requires that ads "used to promote Sun Life products" are subject to review and approval, and that the company does not permit rebating. Hartford Life, through its legal office, addressed a December 17, 1999, letter to May which stated that neither Respondent individually, nor through the Tax Savings Concepts entity, ever sought permission to rebate commissions with that company and no such authorization was ever granted. At a minimum, the language of the advertisements published by Small to readers of The Palm Beach Post and to the entire world via the Internet, demonstrates that Small promotes his business by advertising to the public his willingness to grant rebates. Yet, he feels well justified in his unwillingness to cooperate with regulatory authorities by providing information which would facilitate a determination as to the bona fides of his advertisements, and the details of his rebating practices. Rather, Small insists that the regulators find out what they can from the companies with whom he is authorized. In this case, that procedure compels the conclusion that with the possible exception of Lincoln Benefit, Small has not filed rebate schedules at any time material to this case. AS TO THE COUNT I ALLEGATIONS Respondent’s newspaper advertisement is, when viewed in the light most generous to Small, unclear, ambiguous, and misleading. "85% off commissions" in the context of the entire advertisement doesn't tell the prospective purchasers what he is saving, if anything. Small's representation that the prospective customer will enjoy “Legal Savings per Florida Statute 626.572” is false with respect to at least eight of the companies he represented at all times material to this case. As to these companies, clear and convincing evidence establishes that he was not authorized to rebate pursuant to that statute. In his untimely and unauthorized Motion to Quash, Small asserts that the baffling expression “PERSAVE $1,000’s” is there due to an error by The Palm Beach Post. It should have read, he contends, "You Save $1,000's." Thus, by Small's own admission, the suggestion to readers was intended to be that they stood to realize thousands of dollars in savings by doing business with Small. AS TO THE COUNT II ALLEGATIONS The web site advertisement is similarly unclear to the point of being intentionally misleading. Small is not a "Palm Beach agent." His office is located within his home in Lake Worth, a municipality within the greater Palm Beaches area. Palm Beach is one of the best known playgrounds of some of the world's wealthiest people, and carries a cachet which the truth--that Small never leaves his home in Lake Worth--does not. It suggests to readers that Small's clientele includes the rich residents of Palm Beach, whom he makes richer. The "85% off insurance commissions" advertised in the newspaper is upped to 90% off for Internet readers, and again begs the question, “90% off of what?” In this advertisement, the phrase “$100,000+” of savings “in your pocket,” made without any factual predicate, convincingly suggests an intent to mislead. Beyond self-serving and often incoherent testimony, Respondent's only effort to rebut the Department's case was through testimony that he had once “discussed” with Richard Scalesse (Scalesse), a Hartford Life account executive, “a large insurance case of about $120,000 of annual premium.” Scalesse could not remember details of the case. Assuming the accuracy of Small's testimony, in particular the claim that this case was “a very, very large case,” it does not rebut any element of the administrative charges nor does it support any element of an affirmative defense. The last statement in the web page ad reads: “We also offer deep discounts on term life insurance.” What other type of insurance is being offered? Did the other discounts apply only to whole life? Annuities? Universal life? The advertisement offers no concrete information upon which a consumer could make a rational decision to consider doing business with the advertising agent. Respondent's claims that the newspaper advertisement was placed by mistake and will never be repeated is too little, too late. The advertisement is not benign in that it simply advertises a "seminar," as Small contends. The advertisement says nothing about a seminar, and even if it did, Small, when attempting to attract customers to his insurance business, is at all times bound by the statutes and rules governing the conduct and business practices of state- licensed insurance agents, no matter what he thinks of their constitutionality, or the people whose jobs it is to enforce those statutes and rules. Each of the false and misleading statements contained in The Palm Beach Post ad, as well as on Small's website, was, at all times material to this case, authorized by Small.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding the Respondent, Barry Howard Small, guilty of violating Subsections 626.572(1), 626.611(7); 626.611(9); 626.611(13); 626.621(2); 626.621(3); 626.621(6); 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., and Rules 4-150.101; 4-150.105(1)-(4); 4-150.107(1)(a); and 4-150.114(10), and suspending his license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 9th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Barry Howard Small 3200 South Ocean Boulevard Apartment 103D Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in conduct proscribed by the Insurance Code as is particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed December 7, 1993.
Findings Of Fact During times material, Respondent, Nelson Speer Benzing, was licensed with Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, as a life insurance and as a life and health insurance agent. During times material, Respondent was an employee of U.S. Savings Trust Management (herein USSTM). During times material, Respondent was never appointed with Petitioner to represent Wisconsin National Life Insurance Company (herein Wisconsin). However, Respondent did attend a workshop sponsored by Wisconsin. At some time prior to March 5, 1992, Respondent met with George Cantonis, President of Mega Manufacturing, Inc. (herein Mega) in order to obtain Cantonis' permission to make a sales presentation to Mega's employees. Cantonis granted Respondent permission to make a sales presentation to Mega's employees. On March 5, 1992, Respondent made a sales presentation to Mega's employees. The purpose of said presentation was to enroll the employees of Mega in a "savings plan" offered by USSTM. The presentation lasted approximately 15- 30 minutes. Employees were told that the plan, as presented, incorporated an insurance savings plan which had a "liquid" component as well as a long term savings component. At no time during this sales presentation did Respondent explain to employees of Mega that he was a licensed life insurance agent. During the course of his presentation, Respondent described USSTM's product variously as an "insurance saving plan", as an "investment in insurance companies" and as a "retirement savings plan". At no time during the presentation did Respondent specifically state that he was selling life insurance. At the conclusion of the presentation, Respondent enrolled all interested employees in USSTM's plan. During the enrollment procedure, Respondent told the employees to complete portions of at least three documents which included a form entitled "Employee History", a Wisconsin's life insurance application, and an employee payroll deduction authorization. Cantonis enrolled through the above procedure and signed a blank Wisconsin National Life Insurance application. Subsequent to the group sales presentation, Respondent made a similar presentation to Tina Netherton, Mega's office manager, who was working in the office and answering the telephone. At the conclusion of the presentation to Netherton, she enrolled in the plan and also signed a blank Wisconsin National Life Insurance application pursuant to instructions from Respondent. Both Netherton and Cantonis believed that the "savings plan" consisted of both a short term "liquid cash element and a long term investment". Neither were aware that they had purchased life insurance. Both Netherton and Cantonis had, in their opinion, adequate life insurance at the time of Respondent's sales presentation, and would not have purchased additional life insurance if they had been told (by Respondent) that they were purchasing life insurance. Both Netherton and Cantonis executed beneficiary designations on their belief that such was needed so that disbursements, if any, could be made to their designee in the event of their death. Approximately three weeks after enrollment, Netherton and Cantonis received brochures from USSTM which acknowledged their enrollment and detailed the benefits of the "savings plan". The brochure advised that Netherton and Cantonis had enrolled in an insurance "savings plan" and failed to state that they had purchased life insurance. Cantonis and Netherton attempted to withdraw funds from the liquid portion of the plan and were unable to do so. Four to five months after their enrollment, Cantonis and Netherton received life insurance policies from Wisconsin. Pursuant to the insurance applications, Cantonis and Netherton were issued Wisconsin life insurance policy numbers L00566485 and L00566483, respectively. Cantonis and Netherton maintained their Wisconsin policies in order to realize some gain from their overall loss in dealing with Respondent and USSTM. At the time that Respondent made his presentation to Mega's employees and officials, he had never before made sales presentations in order to enroll employees in plans offered by USSTM. Respondent's general manager, Vincent Radcliff, was the agent of record of Wisconsin. The insurance application and policies issued to Cantonis and Netherton were signed by an agent other than Respondent. Respondent's supervisor, Vincent A. Radcliff, III, was disciplined by Petitioner and Respondent cooperated with the Petitioner in investigating the complaint allegations filed against his supervisor, Radcliff. Respondent was first licensed by Petitioner on November 15, 1989. Respondent has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary actions by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's life and health insurance licenses for a period of three (3) months. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order that Respondent engage in continuing education respecting the manner and means of soliciting on behalf of insurance companies, and to the extent that he completes the required courses within an acceptable time frame, that the suspension be suspended pending the outcome of Respondent's satisfactory completion of such continuing education courses. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1994, 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 1st day of July, 1994.
Findings Of Fact James Edward Snapp is licensed by the Department of Insurance as an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, Dental Agent and Disability Agent and was so licensed at all times in 1981 and 1982 in his dealings with Mrs. Mabel McCarthy and Mr. George Guertin. In July 1981 Respondent went to the apartment of Mabel McCarthy, a 79- year-old widow, and talked to her about insurance. His visit was unsolicited and Mrs. McCarthy initially told him she had adequate coverage with her Medicare, Medicaid and Blue Cross. Respondent discussed the issuance of a "gold" card which provided better coverage than she was presently receiving. They also discussed her $1,000 life insurance policy for which she had designated the Haven School in Miami as beneficiary. When she indicated she would also like to leave something to another school in Palm Beach County, Respondent suggested she cancel the $1,000 policy and take out two $5,000 policies and make each school beneficiary of one policy. Following Respondent's assertions to Mrs. McCarthy regarding her taking out different insurance policies, Mrs. McCarthy gave Respondent her check on 26 July 1981 in the amount of $1,100 made payable to Accident & Health Agency, the agent for whom Respondent worked. Mrs. McCarthy understood this to be the premium payment for the life insurance and hospitalization insurance policies. Respondent told Mrs. McCarthy the cash surrender value of her life insurance policy should be about $900. When she wrote Mutual of Omaha about the cash surrender value, she was advised it was nearer $700 and the company questioned her reasons for cancelling the policy. This aroused Mrs. McCarthy's suspicions and she called the Insurance Commissioner's branch office to inquire about Respondent. Up until this time she had full confidence in Respondent. In the application for health insurance for Mrs. McCarthy which Respondent subsequently submitted 12 July 1981 to American Sun Life Insurance Company, he checked the "no" square to the question "Is the insurance applied for intended to replace any insurance presently in force?" knowing he had suggested to Mrs. McCarthy this policy would replace her Blue Cross insurance policy. The total premium on these policies, one providing for medical expenses and the other providing for nursing home care, is $530. American Sun Life Insurance Company does not sell life insurance. On 28 July 1981 Respondent again visited Mrs. McCarthy, obtained her check in the amount of $380 made payable to Accident & Health Agency, and submitted an application to American Sun Life Insurance Company on behalf of Mrs. McCarthy which provides hospital and medical benefits. On this application he also checked the "no" square to the question about replacing existing insurance. The annual premium for this policy was $370. Mrs. McCarthy also gave Respondent a check in the amount of $500 payable to Accident & Health Agency for additional policies. Before this check had been cleared, Mrs. McCarthy received the first policies Respondent had sold her and realized they were no different from her prior coverage, no "gold" card was included and neither was a life insurance policy. Upon receipt of these policies on 11 August 1981 Mrs. McCarthy stopped payment on the $500 check and again called the Insurance Commissioner's office. When the Insurance Commissioner contacted American Sun Life Insurance Company with Mrs. McCarthy's complaint, they refunded $900 to Mrs. McCarthy for the policies they had issued. Those policies were for the maximum coverage Sun Life provides. The three policies issued by Orange State Life Insurance for various health care benefits were those applied for when the $500 check was written by Mrs. McCarthy and these policies were cancelled when payment was stopped on that check. The total premium for these policies was $449.99 plus a $26 policy fee. Respondent obtained the name of George Guertin as a potential client and called him for an appointment to discuss insurance. Upon arrival 18 January 1982 shortly after the phone call, Respondent looked at two policies Guertin showed him covering Medicare Supplemental payments on Guertin and his wife. These policies were issued by Tara Life Insurance Company. Respondent told Guertin that the agent who sold him these policies had charged top price and he could get these policies for him at a lower premium. The premium paid on the policy issued to George Guertin was $482 and the premium on the policy issued to Alma Guertin was $445. Respondent was not authorized to solicit policies for Tara. Guertin gave Respondent his check payable to J. Snapp in the amount of $540 to renew the two policies with Tara Life Insurance Company. Guertin also gave Respondent his life insurance policy issued on John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company to inquire about the cash surrender value. This policy was later returned to Guertin without change. Respondent's testimony that the $540 was for services he was to provide the Guertins in preparing Medicare claims and that the Guertins understood this at the time the check was signed, is not credible. George Guertin was born in Canada in 1903 but has lived in the United States for 65 years. Although he went to school in Canada through the eighth grade, he does not read English. George's brother Eme apparently lived with the Guertins and was disabled. Respondent offered to take Eme to the Veteran's Administration to get his disability pension increased. He was paid $250 for this service and for taking Eme to the VA on other occasions. Guertin testified that the signature on Exhibit 12 was not his signature and that on Exhibit 13 was not his wife's signature. Respondent testified that these "contracts" were signed by George Guertin and Alma Guertin in his presence. Regardless of the validity of the signatures, these "contracts" provide that compensation [of Respondent] shall be determined by mutual agreement. There was no mutuality of agreement that the $540 paid by Guertin to Respondent was for services to be rendered by Respondent in completing Medicare forms. When Guertin was advised by Tara Life Insurance Company that his policies were about to lapse for nonpayment of premiums, he realized Respondent had not renewed these policies as he was told Respondent would do, he complained to the Insurance Commissioner's office, and he sent premium payments to Tara. Respondent suffered injuries while serving in the Marine Corps in Korea. He was discharged with a 35 percent disability rating in 1955 and since that time he has been treated from time to time in VA facilities. He has had several heart attacks, five according to Respondent's testimony, and takes a wide variety of medication. In his testimony Respondent admitted that he only sold insurance and left the doing of the paperwork associated with these policies to the agency for whom he works. He does not keep records of his insurance transactions because he has a "real tough time" doing so. He leaves those chores to the agency.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ralph Todd Schlosser, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a life and health insurance agent, 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 life and health insurance agent for American Sun Life Insurance Company (ASLIC) and Pioneer Life Insurance Company of Illinois (PLICI). On March 2, 1987, respondent met with one Mildred H. Camp, then a resident of Clearwater, Florida, for the purpose of selling her an ASLIC long term care health insurance policy. After discussing the matter with respondent, Camp agreed to purchase a policy. She completed an application and gave respondent a check in the amount of $511.88. The check was deposited into respondent's business account at First Florida Bank in Clearwater the same day. Camp did not testify at hearing. Therefore, the only first hand version of what was discussed by Schlosser and Camp and the nature of any further communications between the two was offered by respondent. That version was not contradicted, and it is accepted as being credible. Within a week after executing the application, Camp contacted respondent by telephone concerning the policy. Pursuant to that telephone conversation, respondent did not process the application or remit the check to the company, but attempted instead to arrange another meeting with Camp to answer further questions about the policy. Although he telephoned Camp "every single Monday", respondent was unable to arrange an appointment with her until April 30, 1987. On April 30 Camp and respondent met for the purpose of him explaining in greater detail the benefits and coverage under the policy. Because two months had gone by since the application was first executed, it was necessary for respondent to update Camp's health information. Accordingly, Camp executed a new application the same date and Schlosser forwarded the check and application to ASLIC shortly thereafter. On May 5, 1987 ASLIC received the April 30 application and premium check, less respondent's commission. The application was eventually denied by ASLIC on the ground of "excessive insurance" and a refund check was forwarded by ASLIC to Camp on June 11, 1987. There is no record of any complaint made by Camp against Schlosser in ASLIC's files nor did ASLIC contact respondent regarding this matter. When Schlosser began representing ASLIC, he executed a general agent contract which contained the terms and conditions pertaining to his appointment as a general agent for the company. As is pertinent here, the contract provided that Schlosser had a responsibility "to promptly remit such funds" received by him to the company. According to a former second vice-president of ASLIC, Joyce Lynch, who worked for ASLIC when the Camp transaction occurred, the company expected in the regular course of business to have checks and applications remitted by agents to the home office within fifteen days after the application was written, and that the above provision in the general agent contract was interpreted in this manner. Lynch added that she knew of no reason why an agent would hold an application and check for sixty days before submitting it to the company, particularly since once an application is completed and signed, it is the "property" of the company and not the agent. She concluded that if a customer desired more information about a policy after an application had been signed, which is not unusual, the agent still had a responsibility to promptly forward the application and check to the company within fifteen days. At that point, the company, and not the agent, would cancel a policy and refund the premium if so requested by a customer. Therefore, Schlosser breached the general agent contract by failing to promptly remit such funds. On July 28, 1987 Schlosser visited one Maxine Brucker, an elderly resident of Sarasota, for the purpose of selling her a PLICI health insurance policy. He had telephoned Brucker the same date to set up an appointment with her. After discussing the matter with respondent, Brucker agreed to purchase a policy, executed an application and gave respondent a check for $680.00. The check was deposited into respondent's bank account the following day. After Schlosser departed, Brucker noted that Scholosser did not leave a business card and she immediately became "worried" about her money and the possibility of not getting the insurance she had paid for. She telephoned the Department the same day to check on his "reputation" and to verify that Schlosser was an insurance agent. On August 4, 1987 she wrote a letter to the PLICI home office in Rockford, Illinois to ascertain if her check and application had been received but she did not receive a reply. She wrote a second letter to PLICI on August 14, 1987 but again received no reply to her inquiry. After telephoning the home office a few days later, Brucker contacted the Department a second time in late August and requested that it assist her in obtaining a refund of her money. At no time, however, did Brucker attempt to contact respondent. In early September, Brucker received by mail a money order from respondent which represented a full refund of moneys previously paid. Brucker acknowledged that she was happy with her policy when it was initially purchased. She also acknowledged that she had never contacted respondent personally to request a refund of her money. It was only after she received no reply from the home office that she made a request for a refund. According to the agency agreement executed by Schlosser when he became a general agent for PLICI, respondent had the responsibility to "immediately remit to (PLICI) all premiums (collected)". Testimony by Ronald F. Bonner, a vice- president of PLICI, established that in the regular course of business an agent was required to forward the check and application to PLICI no more than twenty-five days after receiving them from the customer. Any application held more than twenty-five days was considered "stale", was presumably invalid and had to be returned to the customer. Even so, Bonner did not contradict respondent's assertion noted in finding of fact 11 that his failure to remit the application and check was based on instructions from the home office, and under those circumstances, was not improper. Respondent readily admitted he did not remit the Brucker application and check because of instructions from the home office received after Brucker had telephoned the home office. After unsucessfully attempting to speak with Brucker by telephone daily for about two weeks, Schlosser voluntarily sent Brucker a money order via mail in early September. A review of respondent's business bank account for the months of March and August 1987 revealed that after the checks from Camp and Brucker had been deposited, the balances in the account thereafter dropped below $511.88 and $680 during those respective months. This raises an inference that those moneys were used for other undisclosed purposes during that time. According to respondent, he submitted applications and premiums checks to the home office approximately two or three times per month. It was also his practice to wait ten days or so after receiving a check from a customer to allow it sufficient time to clear. Schlosser denied having converted insurance moneys to his own personal use. There was no evidence that Schlosser lacked reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in insurance transactions authorized by his licenses, a matter requiring conventional factual proof. Similarly, there was no evidence to establish that Schlosser intended to willfully violate the law or that his conduct demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the insurance business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of January, 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 18th day of January, 1990.
