The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specifically at issue in this proceeding are the proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009 which restrict, under certain circumstances, compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and which require premium refunds to some purchasers of credit insurance.
Findings Of Fact Credit insurance is a form of group insurance marketed and sold to consumers by creditors or, in the case of motor vehicle financing, by vehicle dealers. The insurance can be purchased by a debtor at the time the debtor enters into a loan agreement. Credit insurance is purchased by debtors as protection against risk of loss caused by unexpected events occurring during the term of the insurance contract. Credit insurance provides for the payment of the balance of the debt upon the death or disability of the insured debtor. Otherwise stated, the benefit of such insurance to the debtor is the assurance that, if the debtor becomes unable, due to death or disability, to make the required periodic payments, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. Sellers of credit insurance products are compensated in the form of commissions paid to sellers by insurers. Additional compensation is periodically paid by some insurers to sellers based upon the profitability of each seller's line of business. Beginning in late 1990, the Department of Insurance ("Department") proposed amendments to administrative rules relating to credit life and credit health and accident insurance products. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of the proposed rule restricting the level of compensation paid to the sellers of credit insurance products and requiring insurers to make "experience refunds". As set forth in the Department's Notice of Change, published in the November 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 17, No. 48), the proposed rule amendment provides in relevant part as follows: 4-7.009 Determination of Reasonableness of Benefits in Relation to Premium Charge General Standard. Under the Credit Insurance Law, benefits provided by credit insurance policies must be reasonable in relation to the premium charged. In determining whether benefits are reasonable in relation to premium, the Department shall consider loss experience, allocation of expenses, risk and contingency margins, and policy acquisition costs. This requirement is satisfied if the premium rate charged develops or may be reasonably expected to develop a loss ratio of not less than 1. (a) 55% for credit life insurance and 2. (b) 50% for credit accident and health insurance, and either the insurer does not pay compensation in excess of 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011, or the insurer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that payment of compensation in excess of said 30% is actuarially sound. "Compensation" means money or anything else of value paid by the insurer and/or by any reinsurer to any agent, producer, creditor, or affiliated body. On the basis of relevant experience, uUse of rates not greater than those contained in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 ("prima facie rates") shall be deemed currently reasonable premium rates reasonably expected to develope the required loss ratio, subject to a later determination of experience refunds, if any, as described herein. An insurer may only file and use rates with such forms which are greater than the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 upon a satisfactory showing to the Department Commissioner that the use of such rates will not result on a statewide basis for that insurer of a ratio of claims incurred to premiums earned of less than the required loss ratio. Furthermore, the extent to which an actual rate is greater than that set forth may not exceed the difference between (a) claims which may be reasonably expected and (b) the product of the required loss ratio and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 for the coverage being provided. (2) The Department Commissioner shall, on a triennial basis, review the loss ratio standards set forth in subsection (1), above, and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 and determine therefrom the rate of expected claims on a statewide basis, compare such rate of expected claims with the rate of claims for the preceding triennium, determined from the incurred claims and earned premiums at prima facie rates reported in the annual statement supplement, and adopt the adjusted actual new statewide prima facie rates for Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 to be used by insurers during the next triennium. The new rates will be set at levels that would have produced the loss ratios set forth in subsection (1), above. To make this comparison and redetermination, insurers shall report in the annual statement supplement format, each year, claims and earned premiums, separately, for business written with premiums based on Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. * * * Insurers will calculate a dollar amount of loading each year based upon the insurer's earned credit life and credit accident and health premium in this state for the same year. Loading will be calculated as 45% of earned premium for life insurance and 50% of earned premium for credit accident and health insurance. For this calculation, earned premium shall be based on the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. Insurers shall calculate an Experience Refund Amount each year for credit life and credit accident and health insurance written in this state after the effective date of this rule. Experience Refunds can be positive or negative. Positive Experience Refunds are to be refunded in the following manner: Experience refunds are to be allocated to accounts which have positive Experience Refund Amounts in proportion to the ratio of each account's refund amount to the total of all positive refund amounts. For the purpose of this allocation, all individual policies are to be treated as one account. The Experience Refund Amount allocated to a particular account is to be refunded to all certificate holders or individual policyholders of such account in proportion to the premiums earned for each certificate holder or individual policyholder to the total of all premiums earned for such account. Earned premiums for Experience Refund purposes are to be equal to paid premiums for the calendar year less unearned premium reserves at the end of the calendar year plus unearned premiums at the beginning of the calendar year. Unearned premium reserves are to be calculated pro rata. Credit policies issued on a non-contributory basis are excluded. Non-contributory means that individual insureds pay no part of the insurance premium. Premiums are paid by the policyholder out of policyholder funds. Individual credit policies issued on a participating basis are to be excluded. All new loans insured after the effective date of this rule are subject to the Experience Refund calculation and distribution, if any. Individual refunds of less than $10 do not have to be made. Experience Refunds are to be determined for each calendar year as follows: Earned Premium, less Loading as determined above, less Incurred claims, less The sum of any carry forwards for the three previous years. An insurer that uses rates which are 10% or more below the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 shall not be required to calculate or make an Experience Refund. The Florida Bankers Association ("FBA") is the trade association of the Florida banking industry, many of whom sell credit insurance to their customers. The Florida Automobile Dealers Association ("FADA") is a trade association of franchised new car and truck dealers, approximately 65% of whom sell credit insurance. The Florida Recreational Vehicle Dealers Trade Association ("FRVDTA") is a trade association of recreational vehicle dealers, approximately 35% of whom sell credit insurance. The FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment at issue in this case. Specifically the FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed regulation of compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and by the proposed requirement that, under some circumstances, refunds be made to credit insurance purchasers. The Consumer Credit Insurance Association ("CCIA") is a trade association of credit insurance companies, at least 50 of whom sell credit insurance in Florida. The CCIA is substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment provision related to premium refunds to some insureds. Credit insurance is priced and sold without regard to sex or age of the debtor. There is little underwriting of credit insurance risks. Due primarily to the age of the population and the effect of mandated coverages, Florida's credit insurance claims are higher than in other states. There are currently in excess of eighty million credit insurance policies in force in the United States. Credit insurance is sold under master policies issued by insurers to producers, such as banks and vehicle dealers. Producers sell the insurance product and maintain records of the credit insurance purchasers, who hold certificates issued under each master policy. Credit insurance premiums are based upon the amount financed by the debtor and are calculated according to rates established on a statewide basis by the Department. Credit insurers may not charge more than the prima facie rates for credit insurance, therefore, there is no benefit to consumers to "shop around" for credit insurance. Although credit insurers are not prohibited from charging less than the prima facie rates, there is no evidence that any insurer charges less than the Department's adopted rates. Since 1982, the Department-approved prima facie credit life premium rate was $.60 for every $100 financed. The rate was based on the Department's determination that a $.60 prima facie rate would result in insurers paying out approximately 60% of premium dollars in claims paid to insureds, and that a 60% "loss ratio" was reasonable. The "loss ratio" is the fraction of premium dollars paid out in claims. The $.60 prima facie rate did not yield a 60% loss ratio. The loss ratios for some insurers was substantially less that 60%. On September 1, 1991, the Department reduced the prima facie credit life and credit health and accident rates. In establishing new prima facie rates, the Department established a 55% loss ratio for credit life insurance and a 50% loss ratio for credit disability. The revised prima facie rates are based upon data from calendar years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Such data includes information related to paid claims, earned premium, and insurer administrative overhead expenses. The setting of such rates is an actuarial exercise intended to provide a reasonable projection of premium rates and loss ratios. There is no evidence that the revised prima facie rates result in premiums which are excessive in relationship to the amount of the loans insured. The revised prima facie rates are reasonably expected to yield the revised loss ratios. The rule provides a triennial review mechanism to ascertain whether the expected loss ratios are being met and to adjust prima facie rates if such is indicated. The review is a reasonable method of assuring that such loss ratios are met. Currently, commissions are paid by insurers to producers (i.e. banks and dealers) as compensation for selling the product. The amount of commission is determined by agreement between the insurer and producer. Commissions for the sale of credit insurance vary widely and, in some cases (generally involving the sale of credit insurance related to automobile purchases) may be as high as 60% of the premium paid by the consumer. In addition to payment of commissions, some insurers retrospectively compensate producers by periodically paying an amount based upon the profitability of each producer's business. Compensation levels largely determine which credit insurer's product a producer chooses to sell. The proposed rule limits total compensation levels, absent specific authorization by the Department, to 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates. Compensation levels have no impact on the premiums charged to consumers purchasing credit insurance. Premiums charged are based on the Department's prima facie rates. The proposed rule permits a credit insurance company to exceed the 30% compensation restriction where the insurer can establish that the payment of compensation in excess of the 30% is "actuarially sound". The determination of whether payment of commission in excess of 30% is "actuarially sound" is left to the discretion of the Department. There is no statutory, rule, or commonly accepted definition of the term, although the Department's actuary stated that a product determined to be "actuarially sound" would be a "self-supporting" product, either profitable or "breaking even". He further opined that he would consider investment income in a determination of actuarial soundness, although the proposed rule does not require such consideration. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed compensation restriction was to protect insurers from insolvency and financial instability. The commission restriction was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The commission restriction was not intended to, and will not, ensure that the loss ratios deemed reasonable by the Department will be met. In adopting a 30% compensation restriction, the Department calculated that, assuming the 55% loss ratio was met, $.55 of each premium dollar would be paid in claims. The Department assumed that $.15 of each premium dollar would cover overhead expenses and profit. According to the Department, the remaining $.30 is the most an insurer could pay as compensation to the producers without affecting the solvency of the insurer. In calculating the commission restriction, the Department did not consider the effect of an insurer's investment income on the ability to pay commission. There is no evidence that payment of commissions in excess of 30% of net direct written premiums has adversely affected the solvency of any credit insurer doing business in Florida. There is, in fact, no history of credit insurer insolvency in Florida. Nationwide, there has been little problem of insolvency in the credit insurer business, with no more than four insurers having become insolvent. In each of those cases, the insolvency resulted from poor management of assets, and was not related to payment of excess commissions to producers. The Department asserts that, absent such restrictions, insurers will pay excessive compensation in order to compete for producers, and that such excess compensation, coupled with administrative expenses and a 55% loss ratio, will threaten the solvency of the companies. The assertion is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. The proposed rule also requires insurers, under some circumstances, to make experience-based refunds to credit insurance purchasers. In determining whether a refund is required, an insurer first calculates whether the insurer has met or exceeded the 55% loss ratio for the prior year. If the loss ratio is met or exceeded, no refunds are required. If an insurer determines that the 55% loss ratio was not met, the insurer calculates the difference between targeted 55% loss ratio and the actual percentage of premium dollars paid out in claims. The insurer then identifies each producer account which had a loss ratio of less than 55%, determines the identity and location of each certificate holder (insured) in each producer's account, and makes a refund to each identified certificate holder. Individual refunds of less than $10 to an individual consumer are not required. The proposed rule permits insurers to carry excess losses forward for a period of three year, to offset years when the targeted loss ratio is not met. However, such excess losses may not be carried forward beyond the three year period. Whether a consumer receives a refund is unrelated to the premium paid by the consumer. An individual consumer ("A") purchasing a car and credit insurance at Dealer "A" may receive a refund, while a Consumer "B" purchasing the same car and credit insurance from Dealer "B" may not receive a refund, if Dealer A's line of business with the insurer meets the target loss ratio and Dealer B's line of business with the same insurer fails to meet the loss ratio. The benefit of the credit insurance is the assurance that, under certain conditions, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. If Consumer A receives a refund and Consumer B does not, Consumer A pays more than Consumer B for the same insurance protection. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed experience refund was to ensure that the 55% loss ratio would be met. However, the experience refund provision, combined with the three year limit for charging off excess losses, will eventually result in loss ratios which will exceed the 55% ratio which the Department has determined to be reasonable. There is no need for experience refunds when the prima facie rates established by the Department are appropriately set. Such rates are designed to produce an acceptable loss ratio. It is reasonable to believe that the Department's revised prima facie rates will result in acceptable loss ratios. The refund proposal was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The proposed rule provides that an insurer charging a premium based on rates at least 10% below the prima facie rates are not required to calculate the experience refund. There is no credible rationale supporting the use of 10% as the threshold under which an insurer escapes the refund calculation, although the resulting loss ratio likely approaches the 60% loss ratio suggested by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Of the actuaries testifying at hearing, one opined that a rate 10% less than the prima facie rate was viable, the other opined that it was not. Because the Department's revised prima facie rates are reasonably calculated to result in a 55% loss ratio, an insurer charging less than the prima facie rate will likely exceed the 55% loss ratio. In connection with the final version of the proposed rule, the Department did not prepare an economic impact statement. The Department did not estimate the costs of insurer compliance with the refund provisions. The expense required of insurers in order to establish experience refund payment systems is significant. Information management systems will require extensive modification to permit such data to be maintained. Substantial amounts of data, which is not currently provided to insurers, must be collected and accurately maintained to permit refunds to be made. Such costs were not included in administrative expenses considered by the Department when the revised prima facie rates were established. Presently, credit insurers maintain limited data related to insureds purchasing credit insurance in connection with installment loans. Although such data may be initially collected by producers, insurers are typically provided only with the name of the debtor and loan number. Data is transmitted to insurers either electronically or through paper files. In either case, data must be converted to usable form by insurers. In approximately seventy percent of credit insurance business, addresses of insureds are not transmitted to insurers. There is no credible evidence that current addresses of insureds are continuously maintained by either insurer or producer in installment debt insurance, since there is little need to question original data as long as periodic payments are being timely made. In a form of credit insurance known as "monthly outstanding balance" insurance, bulk accounts are received by insurers, who generally does not receive either names or addresses of insureds. Consumers whose monthly outstanding balance indebtedness is insured are more likely to provide producer/creditors with current addresses, but such data is not provided to insurers. As to credit insurers, although most insurers currently process refund checks, the additional expense of establishing or modifying systems capable of compliance with the proposed refund requirement could amount to as much as five percent of each premium dollar. One bank official estimated that, as to his bank, the expense of complying with the refund provisions would include an initial cost of $1.1 million and an annual cost of $350,000 to $500,000. A credit insurance information systems and processing executive estimated that the 31 producers writing business for his company would incur costs of $1,860,000 to comply with the rule, and that his own company's costs would be in the range of $4-5 million. The Department suggested that, rather than modify existing mainframe computer systems, such data could be maintained by insurers on personal computers and microcomputer networks. The Department asserted that such systems would be less expensive and require less modification than the process outlined by industry representatives. However, there is credible testimony establishing that significant resources would be involved in determining whether such conversion to microcomputers would be feasible or warranted. In any event, there is no evidence that such conversion could be accomplished in a timely manner permitting the insurers to comply with the proposed rule requirements. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the expenses estimated by the industry representatives are reasonable based upon the existing management information systems maintained by the industry.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The violations charged in the Administrative Complaint relate primarily to alleged mishandling of funds received on behalf of an insurer.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Louis Iannucci, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, and health insurance agent, and was so eligible and so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. At all times pertinent to these proceedings the Respondent was an officer and director of Certified Insurance Associates, Inc., an incorporated insurance agency doing business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, the Respondent was a duly appointed agent in this state under contract with United American Insurance Company. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was the sole authorized signatory on his business bank account with Capital City Bank, now known as Union Planters Bank. On or about February 12, 1997, Respondent received a check from Gretchen Smith of Titusville, Pennsylvania, in the amount of $1,833.00 and made payable to United American Insurance Company. This sum was intended as the renewal premium payment of Mrs. Smith's United American Medicare supplement insurance policy. Respondent endorsed this check and deposited it into his business bank account on February 18, 1997. Even though the premium was due on or before March 1, 1997, the Respondent waited until April 14, 1997, to remit only $486.00 of the money received from Gretchen Smith to United American Insurance Company in payment of a quarterly premium on her policy. Respondent retained the remainder of the funds for his own use and benefit. A short while later it was brought to the attention of United American Insurance Company that Gretchen Smith had paid an annual, not quarterly, premium for the policy. United American Insurance Company wrote to Mrs. Smith and requested a copy of her cancelled check for $1,833.00 that she had given to the Respondent. Upon receiving Gretchen Smith's response and a copy of her premium check, the insurance company credited her account with payment of an annual premium and reversed out the quarterly payment that had been posted to her account. The Respondent was charged for the difference of $1,347.00. On or about September 6, 1996, Respondent received a check from Mr. and Mrs. Lew Kisver of Plantation, Florida, in the amount of $3,666.00 and made payable to United American Insurance Company. This sum was intended as the renewal premium payments of Mr. and Mrs. Kisvers' United American Medicare supplement insurance policies. Respondent endorsed this check and deposited it into his business account. The Respondent, on or about September 25, 1996, remitted only $1,894.00 of the money received from Mr. and Mrs. Kisver to United American Insurance Company in payment of a semi-annual premium on each Kisver policy. Respondent retained the remainder of the funds for his own use and benefit. On or about March 7, 1997, it was brought to the attention of United American Insurance Company by Mr. and Mrs. Kisver that they had paid an annual, not semi-annual, premium for each of their policies. United American requested Mr. and Mrs. Kisver to provide a copy of their cancelled check or receipt for their payment of the premium. In response, the Kisvers mailed to the insurance company a copy of their cancelled check for $3,666.00 that they had given to the Respondent to pay their policy premiums. Upon receiving the Kisvers' response and copy of their premium check, the insurance company credited their account with payment of annual premiums and reversed out the semi-annual payments that had been posted to their accounts. The Respondent was charged the difference of $1,894.00. By coincidence, at this same time in March 1997, Respondent remitted $1,894.00 to the insurance company in payment of the next semi-annual premium due on the Kisver policies. The insurance company subsequently credited the money to Mr. Iannucci's account as he had already been charged for the premiums. The Respondent's agency contract then in effect with United American Insurance Company provided in relevant part: The Agent shall immediately remit to the Company all premiums collected by the Agent or sub-agents in excess of the Agent's initial commission thereon. In addition, the contract limited the agent's authority to collect premiums by specifically providing that the Agent shall not "collect or receipt for premiums other than initial premiums with applications for insurance." At all times material, the United American Insurance Company had on file at the Capital Bank a letter of authorization. The letter of authorization read as follows, in pertinent part: This letter will authorize the captioned General Agent of United American Insurance Company [the Respondent] to endorse and deposit to the General Agent's account with your bank checks made payable to the United American Insurance Company for premiums collected at the time of application for insurance with this Company. The General Agent may also withdraw or disburse any such funds so deposited. Pursuant to both the agency contract and the letter of authorization on file with the bank, the Respondent lacked authority to deposit and cash checks received from customers in payment of their renewal premiums. Similarly, the Respondent lacked authority to hold premium funds in his bank account for lengthy periods of time. The Respondent was aware, or should have been aware, of these limitations on his authority. Between September 1996 and April 1997, the balance of Respondent's business bank account with Capital City Bank at the end of each month was less than the amount of the premium funds that Respondent had received from the Kisvers and Gretchen Smith but had not remitted to the insurance company. At the end of September and October 1996, Respondent's bank account had an ending balance of $1,659.91, and $1,589.82 respectively. At this time he should have been holding $1,894.00 of unremitted funds in trust on behalf of the Kisvers and the insurance company. In February 1997, the end of the month balance of the business account was only $71.19, even though Respondent should have been holding not only the $1,894.00 previously received from the Kisvers but also the $1,347.00 received from Gretchen Smith on February 12, 1997, but not remitted to the insurance company. Respondent had apparently applied the insurance premium payments received from the insureds for his own use and benefit, even though the funds were fiduciary in nature and were held in trust. At all times material to this case, it was the practice of United American Insurance Company to forward monthly statements to the Respondent. If the Respondent had a credit balance, the statement would be accompanied by a check in the amount of the credit balance. If the Respondent had a debit balance, the statement would request that the Respondent make "payment in full by return mail." Although the United American Insurance Company debited the Respondent's account for the portions of the Smith and Kisver funds that were not promptly forwarded to the insurance company, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the United American Insurance Company ever made demand on the Respondent to pay those specific amounts. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had any fraudulent or dishonest intent in connection with his handling of the Smith and Kisver funds discussed above. The Respondent's handling of those funds does, however, demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance as well as a lack of reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent violated Sections 626.611(7), 626.611(8), and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count One and in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the allegations that the Respondent violated Sections 626.611(9) and 626.621(4), Florida Statutes, should be dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence to establish those violations; and Imposing a penalty consisting of a suspension of the Respondent's License for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1998.
The Issue Whether the School Board of Broward County's award of a contract for Excess General and Auto Liability insurance coverage to United National Insurance Company is barred because of illegality?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ranger Insurance Company, Petitioner, is the holder of a Certificate of Authority dated September 9, 1996 and issued by the Department of Insurance and Bill Nelson, Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer. Good through June 1, 1997, the certificate authorizes Ranger to write in a number of lines of insurance business, including, Private Passenger Auto Liability, Commercial Automobile Liability, Private Passenger Automobile Auto Physical Damage, Commercial Auto Physical Damage and Other Liability. As such, Ranger is an "authorized" or "admitted" insurer in the State of Florida. L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., is a joint venture and co- petitioner with Ranger in this proceeding through whom Ranger proposed to procure the Excess General and Auto Liability (“Excess GL/AL”) coverage. A timely proposal under Request for Proposal 97- 072S was submitted to the School Board of Broward County by the petitioners to provide the Excess GL/AL Insurance Coverage sought by the RFP. United National Insurance Company is an "eligible" surplus lines insurer, approved by the Florida Department of Insurance to transact all surplus lines coverages in the State of Florida and licensed as such. The Department has notified insurance agents of United Nation's eligibility as a surplus lines insurer since 1978. It is the insurer of the Excess General and Excess Auto Liability insurance coverage awarded by the School Board under RFP 97-072S. Arthur J. Gallagher & Company ("Gallagher,") is the eighth largest insurance broker in the world. It has four sales offices, nine service offices, and approximately 150 employees in the State of Florida alone. The office from which it conducted business related to this proceeding is in Boca Raton, Florida, an office for which Area President David L. Marcus is responsible. Gallagher submitted a timely proposal (the "Gallagher proposal,") in response to the RFP on behalf of United National. The School Board of Broward County is the authority that operates, controls, and supervises all free public schools in the Broward County School District, "[i]n accordance with the provisions of s. (4)(b) of Article IX of the State Constitution ...". Section 230.03(2), F.S. In accord with its powers, the School Board may contract directly to purchase insurance. It is not required by its purchasing rules to use a competitive bidding or procurement process to purchase insurance. Nonetheless, on Friday, April 26, 1996, it issued a request for proposals, the RFP at issue in this proceeding, for insurance coverages including for Excess GL/AL insurance coverages. Siver Insurance Management Consultants Siver Insurance Management Consultants ("Siver,") are the drafters of RFP 97-072S. The School Board relied on Siver to draft the RFP, particularly its technical sections. Technical review of the proposals made under the RFP was conducted by Siver. And Siver put together for the School Board's use a summary of the policies proposed by both United National and Ranger. The summary was considered by the School Board's Evaluation Committee when it evaluated the competing proposals. The determination of whether the competing proposers were properly licensed was made by Siver. The School Board's Evaluation Committee, indeed the School Board, itself, played no role in determining the licensing credentials of the proposers while the proposals were under consideration. Under the arrangement between Siver and the School Board, however, the School Board retained the primary responsibility for administering the RFP. The RFP Request for Proposal 97-072S was mailed to 324 vendors (prospective proposers) the same day as its issuance, April 26, 1996. None of the vendors knew the contents of the RFP until it was issued. The RFP sought proposals for seven coverages, each of which was severable from the remainder of the coverages and was allowed to be proposed separately. The scope of the request was described in the RFP as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida ... is seeking proposals for various insurance coverages and risk management services. To facilitate distribution of the underwriting data and the requirements for each of the coverages, this consolidated Request for Proposals ... has been prepared. However, each of the coverages is severable and may be proposed separately. The following are included: Boiler & Machinery Excess General and Automobile Liability Excess Workers' Compensation School Leaders Errors & Omissions Crime Including Employee Dishonesty - Faithful Performance, Depositor's Forgery Claim and Risk Management Services (Including Managed Care Services) Statutory Death Benefits Petitioner's Ex. 1, pg. I-1. Since the seven coverages are severable and no proposer had to submit a proposal on all seven coverages, one way of looking at RFP 97-072S is as a consolidated RFP composed of seven, separate proposals, each for a different type of insurance coverage. Of the 324 vendors to whom the RFP was sent, only two, Gallagher, on behalf of United National, and Ranger, through the action of the joint venture, submitted proposals with respect to the Excess GL/AL coverages. Reasons for Using an RFP The School Board, under the auspices of Siver, chose to seek insurance coverage through an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid, or what is colloquially referred to as a "straight bid," for a number of reasons. As one familiar with RFPs and Invitations to Bid might expect, the School Board and Siver were attracted to the RFP by the increased flexibility it offered in the ultimate product procured in comparison to the potentially less flexible product that would be procured through an invitation to bid. More pertinent to this case, however, Siver chose to use an RFP for the School Board in this case because "as explained ... by the Department of Insurance over the ... years, while there may... [be a] prohibition against any surplus lines agents submitting a straight bid, there would not be a prohibition against a ... [surplus lines] agent responding to a request for proposal " (Tr. 149.) The RFP approach was not chosen, however, in order to avoid any legal requirement or to circumvent the Insurance Code. As explained by Mr. Marshall, the approach was born of hard reality: Id. [O]ne of the primary motivations [for using an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid] was to allow us [The School Board and Siver] to consider surplus lines companies because of the fact that very often they were the only insurers that would respond on the number of coverages and clients that we were working for. The Insurance Code and the Surplus Lines Law The Insurance Code in Section 624.401, Florida Statutes, requires generally that an insurer be authorized by the Department of Insurance (the "Department,") to transact business in the State of Florida before it does so: (1) No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to the insurer by the department, except as to such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in this code. One place in the code where transactions are "expressly otherwise provided for ...," is in the Surplus Lines Law, Section 626.913 et seq., Florida Statues. The purposes of the law are described as follows: It is declared that the purposes of the Surplus Lines Law are to provide for orderly access for the insuring public of this state to insurers not authorized to transact insurance in this state, through only qualified, licensed, and supervised surplus lines agents resident in this state, for insurance coverages and to the extent thereof not procurable from authorized insurers, who under the laws of this state must meet certain standards as to policy forms and rates, from unwarranted competition by unauthorized insurers who, in the absence of this law, would not be subject to similar requirements; and for other purposes as set forth in this Surplus Lines Law. Section 626.913(2), F.S. Surplus lines insurance is authorized in the first instance only if coverages cannot be procured from authorized insurers: If certain insurance coverages of subjects resident, located, or to be performed in this state cannot be procured from authorized insurers, such coverages, hereinafter designated "surplus lines," may be procured from unauthorized insurers, subject to the following conditions: The insurance must be eligible for export under s. 626.916 or s. 626.917; The insurer must be an eligible surplus lines insurer under s. 626.917 or s. 626.918; The insurance must be so placed through a licensed Florida surplus lines agent; and The other applicable provisions of this Surplus Lines Law must be met. Section 626.915, Florida Statutes, and then only subject to certain other conditions: No insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets all of the following conditions: The full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state ... . Surplus lines agents must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring a properly documented statement of diligent effort from the retail or producing agent. However, to be in compliance with the diligent effort requirement, the surplus lines agent's reliance must be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the risk. Reasonableness shall be assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by-risk basis. It is not possible to obtain the full amount of insurance required by layering the risk, it is permissible to export the full amount. Section 626.916, F.S. Authorized vs. Unauthorized Insurers Unlike authorized insurers, unauthorized insurers do not have their rates and forms approved by the Department of Insurance, (the "Department.") Similarly, unauthorized insurers are not member of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, which guarantees payment of claims if an insurer becomes insolvent. Unauthorized insurers may qualify to transact Florida insurance business under the Surplus Lines Law and so, for purposes of the Surplus Lines Law, be considered "eligible" to transact surplus lines business in Florida. When a Surplus Lines insurer is eligible, Department of Insurance employees refer to the insurer in Surplus Lines terms as "authorized," a term in everyday English that is synonymous with "eligible." But an eligible surplus lines insurer remains an "unauthorized" insurer when compared to an "authorized" insurer for purposes of the Insurance Code and that part of the code known as the Surplus Lines Law. Submission and Review of Proposals Both L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., (the "Joint Venture") and Gallagher submitted timely proposals with regard to Excess GL/AL coverage in response to the RFP. The Joint Venture's proposal was submitted, of course, on behalf of Ranger, an authorized insurer, and Gallagher's was submitted on behalf of United National, an insurer eligible to transact insurance in the State of Florida as a surplus lines insurer but otherwise an unauthorized insurer. The School Board's Insurance Evaluation Committee met on May 30, 1996, to evaluate proposals received pursuant to the RFP. Although briefly discussed by the Evaluation Committee, the issue of proper licensing was not determined independently by the committee. Instead of making that determination, the committee turned to its insurance consultant, Siver. Siver had determined that both proposers, Ranger and United National, were properly licensed for purposes of responding to the RFP and being considered by the committee. Siver communicated that determination to the committee. The committee relied on Siver's determination. Aside from receiving Siver's determination of proper licensing when "briefly discussed" (Tr. 108,) the Evaluation Committee did not address whether either Ranger or United National were properly licensed. Certainly, no issue of whether Ranger should take precedence over United National by virtue that it was an authorized insurer when United National was an unauthorized insurer and a mere eligible Surplus Lines insurer was ever discussed by the committee. In evaluating the proposals, the Committee awarded 73 points to the Gallagher proposal and 69 points to the Ranger proposal. Points were awarded on the basis of three criteria or in three categories: Qualifications (20 points maximum); Scope of Coverages/Services Offered (30 points maximum); and, Points for Projected Costs (50 points maximum.) The Ranger proposal outscored the Gallagher proposal in the "projected cost" category, 50 to 23, but it scored lower in the "qualifications" category, 14 versus 20 for Gallagher, and significantly lower in the "scope of coverages" category, five points versus 30 for Gallagher. The United National coverage was more than twice as costly as Ranger's, a $491,000 annual premium as opposed to Ranger's $226,799, which explains the points awarded in the "projected cost" category. The Gallagher proposal received more points than the Ranger proposal in the "qualifications" category because United National has provided the School Board with Excess GL/AL coverage for a number of years and Ranger has never provided the School Board with such coverage. The Ranger proposal fell so drastically short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/services offered" category primarily because of an athletic participation exclusion appearing in a rider to the specimen policy appearing in its proposal. Ranger had intended to cover athletic participation and the rider was included with the Ranger proposal in error. Ranger notified the School Board of its intent immediately after the tabulations were released. Nonetheless, the Evaluation Committee was never informed of the error and no attempt was made by the School Board to negotiate with Ranger to improve the coverages offered, despite authority in the RFP for the School Board to negotiate with any of the proposers. (The language used in the RFP is "with one or more" of the proposers.) The Ranger proposal also fell short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/service offered" category because the Gallagher proposal was made in several ways. One way was as to only Excess GL/AL coverage. Another way included School Leaders' Errors and Omissions ("E & O") coverage. The E & O coverage was offered by United National in the Gallagher proposal together with the Excess GL/AL coverage in a "combined lines" package, similar to United National coverages already existing for the School Board. Furthermore, the Ranger proposal expressly excluded coverage for Abuse and Molestation, a needed coverage due to the School Board's prior claims history. On June 5, 1996, the Evaluation Committee submitted its recommendations to the School Board's Purchasing Department. With regard to GL/AL coverage, the Evaluation Committee recommended the purchase of the GL/AL/E & O "combined lines" coverage offered by Gallagher through United National. The School Board posted its Proposal Recommendation/Tabulations adopting the recommendation, two days later, on June 7, 1996. Ranger Seeks Redress from the Department Following the School Board's award, Ranger, thinking that it should have received the award under the RFP as the only authorized insurer to submit a proposal for Excess GL/AL coverage, sought redress from the Department. On June 14, 1996, Ranger personnel met with the head of the Department's Surplus Lines Section, Carolyn Daniels, alleging a violation of the Insurance Code's Surplus Lines Law. On June 18, 1996, Ranger reiterated its complaint in writing and asked Ms. Daniels to find a violation that day. On June 24, 1996, Ranger, now through its attorneys, met with Ms. Daniels and her supervisor. Again, on July 4, 1996, Ranger's attorneys wrote to Ms. Daniels, further pleading for her to find a violation and asking for an administrative hearing if Ms. Daniels did not find in favor of the Ranger position. On a fifth attempt, Ranger wrote Ms. Daniels on July 11, 1996, requesting that she adopt Ranger's position. Ms. Daniels reviewed Ranger's five complaints with her supervisor, the Chief of the Bureau of Property and Casualty Solvency and Market Conduct. In a letter dated August 14, 1996, to the School Board's Purchasing Agent, Ms. Daniels announced her determination: I did not find any evidence to indicate that Mr. David L. Marcus of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company or United National Insurance Company violated the Surplus Lines Law in providing a quote for the School Board. Intervenor's Ex. No. 2. Ms. Daniel's determination was based on a number of factors, including the School Board's position in the transaction as an "informed consumer," (Tr. 422-423,) and that the School Board had possessed a United National policy for 13 years. But, the determination was primarily based on the fact that Gallagher had received three declinations from authorized insurers to provide Excess GL/AL coverage and so had performed that which was required prior to deciding that the coverage was eligible for export and provision by a surplus lines insurer: due diligence. Due Diligence Section 626.916(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, [n]o insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets ... the following condition[]: ... [t]he full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state, and the amount of insurance exported shall be only the excess over the amount so procurable from authorized insurers. (e.s.) The statute goes on to require that the diligent effort, "be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the export of that particular risk." Reasonableness is assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by- risk basis. Section 626.916(1)(a), F.S. "'Diligent effort' means seeking coverage from and having been rejected by at least three authorized insurers currently writing this type of coverage and documenting these rejections." Section 626.914(4), F.S. Under this definition, the "producing agent should contact at least three companies that are actually writing the types of clients and the business in the area [that they are] wanting to write." (Tr. 268.) A specific form to help insurance agents document their three rejections is adopted by Department rule. The rule provides: When placing coverage with an eligible surplus lines insurer, the surplus lines agent must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring from the retail or producing agent a properly documented statement of diligent effort on form DI4-1153 (7/94), "Statement of Diligent Effort", which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. Rule 4J-5.003(1), F.A.C. Fully aware of the requirement for documentation of diligent effort to find authorized insurers, and cognizant that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer could be found based on experience, Gallagher began soliciting proposals for coverage in the middle of April, 1996, several weeks before the School Board had issued the RFP. In fact, at the time that Gallagher started soliciting bids, the School Board had not yet assembled or distributed the underwriting data needed by bidders. Nonetheless, with good reason based on experience, Gallagher expected that the School Board would seek a "combined lines" package of GL/AL/E & O coverages like the School Board then received through United National, and that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer would step forward to propose coverage. Gallagher, therefore, used the policy form current in April of 1996, that is the form providing Excess GL/AL/E & O coverage in a "combined lines" package, "as an example of what the School Board had been looking for this type of program and seeking a program similar to that and similar in coverage." (Tr. 242.) But it also sought Excess GL/AL without combination with E & O coverage. As Mr. Marcus testified, when seeking coverage from authorized insurers beginning in April of 1996, Gallagher "would be looking at a variety of different ways, whether they were package or not." (Tr. 243.) One authorized insurer, Zurich-American, declined to quote because it could not offer a combined line SIR program (a package of excess general liability and excess auto liability coverages) as requested by the RFP. Furthermore, the School Board risk was too large for Zurich-American to handle. A second authorized insurer, American International Group, declined to quote due to the School Board's adverse loss experience. A third authorized insurer, APEX/Great American, declined to provide a quote to Gallagher due to the large size of the School Board account. The responses of these three authorized insurers were listed in a Statement of Diligent Effort provided to Ms. Daniels, which she considered in determining that Gallagher and Mr. Marcus had committed no violation of the Surplus Lines Law. Gallagher also provided Ms. Daniels with a second Statement of Diligent Effort. The statement documented the attempt to attract quotes by adding a school leaders errors and omission component to the Excess GL/AL coverage. It, too, was used by Ms. Daniels in making her determination of no violation of the Surplus Lines Law by Gallagher. The same three insurers refused to quote for the "combined lines" program. Attempts by other Authorized Insurers Gallagher requested that any responses to its requests for quotes be submitted by May 10, 1996, so that it could prepare and submit its proposal by the RFP's deadline for submission of original proposals by all vendors, 2:00 p.m. May 16, 1996. One insurer, Discover Re/USF&G attempted to submit a quote on May 15, 1996, one day before the RFP deadline but five days after May 10. By then, Gallagher had already started printing its 625 page proposal. Furthermore, the company failed to provide the required policy forms until the day after the School Board's deadline for filing proposals. Coregis Insurance Company offered coverage of up to $700,000 for each claim and for each occurrence, but like Discover Re/USF&G, failed to provide the required policy forms until after the RFP deadline. Furthermore, definitive coverage under the Coregis policy would only be provided on the condition that the Florida Legislature pass a Legislative Claims bill, a limiting condition not authorized in the RFP or requested by Gallagher. American Home Assurance Company never responded to Gallagher with the School Board's required quote or policy forms. Rather, the company merely provided an "indication" that the company declined to provide a quote. An "indication" consists of an approximate premium rate, without any terms or conditions. A "quote," on the other hand, includes the terms and conditions of a policy. The Department places with the producing agent the responsibility of determining whether an insurer's communication constitutes and "indication" or a "quote." An agent, according to Ms. Daniels, can only violate the Surplus Lines Law if the agent receives a reliable quote. Gallagher even requested a quote from Ranger, despite never having been appointed to transact insurance on its behalf. But Ranger declined. In response to a request by Gallagher's minority business partner, McKinley Financial Services, Ranger, through E. Michael Hoke on American E & S letterhead, wrote in a letter dated May 6, 1996, "[w]e have received a prior submission on this account so we are returning the attached." Intervenor's Ex. No. 7. The Petition Ranger's petition for formal administrative hearing is the letter dated June 19, 1996, to the Director of Purchasing for the School Board under the signature of E. Michael Hoke, CPCU, Assistant Vice President of AES/Ranger Insurance Company. The letter asks its readers to "bear[] in mind we are not attorneys," p. 1 of the letter, before it outlines three protest issues. The third protest issue is the one about which Ms. Daniels made her determination that no violation of the statute had been committed by Gallagher or its employees: "3) Florida Statute 626.901 (Representing or aiding unauthorized insurer prohibited)." The other two issues deal not with the propriety of Gallagher's actions but the legality of the School Board's award to an unauthorized insurer, United National, when coverage was available from an authorized insurer, Ranger: Florida Statute 626.913 (Surplus Lines Law). . . Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer ... Its proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested coverage was procurable. United National Insurance Company is an unauthorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida ... . The United National Insurance Company proposal and/or its offer to extend it's current policies appear to us as "unwarranted competition." Ranger Insurance Company is protected from unwarranted competition from United National Insurance Company in accordance with the Florida Statute 626.913. Florida Statute 626.913 (Eligibility for Export) ... Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida. ... It's proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested amounts were available. The proposal and/or contract extensions offered by United National are for the full amount of coverage sought and not excess over the amount procurable from Ranger, an authorized insurer. The petition, therefore, set in issue not just whether Gallagher acted illegally but whether the School Board acted illegally when it made the award to United National, an unauthorized insurer when Ranger, an authorized insurer, had also submitted a proposal. Extension As soon as the School Board was made aware of the Ranger protest, it extended the existing insurance contracts procured under RFP 92-080S, awarded approximately five years earlier. The extension was on a month-to-month basis until resolution of the protest. The extension was necessary to avoid a lapse in the School Board's coverage during this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the award to United National under the Gallagher proposal in response to RFP 97-072S be rescinded. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the School Board Attorney K.C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue - 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 A. Kenneth Levine, Esquire Blank, Risby and Meenan, P.A. Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Dr. Frank Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as an Ordinary Life, Disability and a General Lines agent should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for reasons set forth hereinafter by the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner on September 24, 1982. EXHIBITS The following exhibits were made part of the record: An Insurance Binder dated October 7, 1980, issued to Colon Aveiga by Center Insurance Agency, Inc., and signed by Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $554 for an auto insurance policy issued by Dixie Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 53). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated October 10, 1980, signed by Colon Aveiga and Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $514 (Petitioner's Exhibit 44). An Insurance Binder dated April 20, 1981, issued to Colon Aveiga and signed by Jon Scott Robbins evidencing payment of $767 credit for premiums paid and $299 for premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 56). A copy of a cancelled personal check (numbered 128) written by Colon Aveiga, dated April 20, 1981, made payable to Metro Insurance Agency in the amount of $299 for payment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 57). A Notice of Cancellation of a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy dated March 25, 1981, and issued to Colon Aveiga for nonpayment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 52). An Amended Fireman's Fund Auto Insurance Policy dated February 6, 1981, issued to Colon Aveiga and showing a premium adjustment of $271 due (Petitioner's Exhibit 49). A Fireman's Fund Interoffice Memo dated March 23, 1981, written by Albert Sons, FJUA Underwriting Manager for Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, discussing Colon Aveiga's insurance policy application (Petitioner's Exhibit 42). A Fireman's Fund FJUA Underwriters Request for Information from Metro Insurance Agency regarding Colon Aveiga, dated December 1, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 46) A Fireman's Fund Underwriting memo dated January 14, 1981, requesting information about Colon Aveiga from Metro Insurance Agency and containing a new address for Colon Aveiga (Petitioner's Exhibit 47). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Gaston Aveiga's certified driving record, dated September 16, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 43). An Insurance Binder dated October 2, 1980, issued to Marc Gavidia by Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins, evidencing a payment of $140 for an auto insurance policy issued by Fireman's Fund (Petitioner's Exhibit 97). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement dated October 23, 1980, issued to Marc Gavidia by the Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 98). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Marc Gavidia's certified driving record, dated September 16, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 99). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated October 9, 1980, signed by Marc Gavidia and Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 101). A Policy Change Request for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated February 10, 1981, issued by Metro Insurance Agency, signed by Jon Scott Robbins, concerning Marc Gavidia's policy and listing his address as 5361 S.E. 11th Street, Tallahassee, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 111). A Notice of Cancellation of Marc Gavidia's auto insurance policy, dated February 27, 1981, issued by Fireman's Fund and citing material misrepresentation as the grounds for the cancellation (Petitioner's Exhibit 112). A copy of a cancelled personal check (No. 1726) written by Juana Perez, dated March 12, 1981, made payable to Metro Insurance Agency in the amount of $299 for payment of premiums due (Petitioner's Exhibit 62). An Insurance Binder dated March 12, 1981, issued to Rogelio Perez by Metro Insurance Agency and signed by Jon Scott Robbins, evidencing auto insurance coverage by Utah Home Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 63). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement dated March 12, 1981, issued to Rogelio Perez by Metro Insurance Agency, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 78). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated March 12, 1981, signed by Rogelio Perez and Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 65). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage by Rogelio Perez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $978 (Petitioner's Exhibit 75). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage by Rogelio Perez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $881 (Petitioner's Exhibit 66). A receipt from Luby's Chevrolet of Miami, Florida, showing $1,084 received from Luis G. Capon (Petitioner's Exhibit 80). An Insurance Binder dated January 26, 1981, issued to Luis Capon by Metro Insurance Agency, signed by Jon Scott Robbins and evidencing auto insurance coverage provided by Utah Home Insurance Company (Petitioner's Exhibit 81). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy dated January 28, 1981, signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 84). A Policy Change Request for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy stating that Luis Capon's address had been changed to 2560 S.W. 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 86). A Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' transcript of Luis Capon's certified driving record, dated September 12, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 79). A cancelled policy advisal dated July 8, 1981, regarding Luis Capon's Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy (Petitioner's Exhibit 90). A letter from Albert M. Sons, dated September 22, 1981, in his capacity as FJUA Manager stating that an inspection by Fireman's Fund established that Luis Capon had not moved to Gainesville, Florida, and that in fact he lived in Miami and was therefore in a higher rating zone (Petitioner's Exhibit 89). An Interoffice Memo from the file of Fireman's Fund dated March 23, 1981, in reference to Luis Capon questioning certain inconsistencies in that individual's application for insurance (Petitioner's Exhibit 83). An application for a Fireman's Fund auto insurance policy, dated September 10, 1980, issued to Javier Alvarez, showing a signature of "Javier Alvarez" and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). A Declarations Form for auto insurance coverage of Javier Alvarez by Fireman's Fund showing a premium due of $737 (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). A Return to Sender letter from Fireman's Fund to Javier Alvarez bearing the address of 4902 S.W. 84th Street, Plantation, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). A Fireman's Fund FJUA Underwriters request for Javier Alvarez' correct address, issued to Metro Insurance Agency, dated November 14, 1980 (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). An Insurance Premium Finance Agreement allegedly signed by Javier Alvarez, issued by Metro Insurance Agency, and signed by Jon Scott Robbins (Petitioner's Exhibit 19). A letter from the National Insurance Finance Company to Javier Alvarez, 251 Crandon Boulevard, Miami, Florida, informing Alvarez of dates and terms of due payments (Petitioner's Exhibit 20). Deposition of A. M. Beverly, taken February 22, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). FJUA Rating Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Fireman's Fund FJUA Rating Examination (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). The following witnesses testified on behalf of the Petitioner: Gaston Aveiga, Albert M. Sons, Peter Gavidia, Marc Gavidia, Juana Perez, Luis Capon, and Javier Alvarez. The Respondent testified on his own behalf. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, post-hearing memoranda, documentary evidence received, pre-hearing stipulations and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jon Scott Robbins, was, during times material herein, licensed as an Ordinary Life, Disability and General Lines agent. By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated September 24, 1982, Petitioner, Department of Insurance, charged that the Respondent engaged in the following acts and/or conduct (in summary fashion) which amounts to conduct violative of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, to wit: Respondent failed to account for or pay to the insurer, insured, or other persons entitled to premiums or other funds received belonging to insurers or others in transactions under his license in a fiduciary capacity, in violation of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent diverted or appropriated such funds or portions thereof for his own use, in violation of Section 626.561(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent collected a sum as premium or charge for insurance in excess of or less than the premium or charge applicable to such insurance, in violation of Section 626.9541(15)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent misappropriated, converted, or unlawfully withheld monies belonging to insurers, insureds, beneficiaries, or others received in the conduct of business under his license, in violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly filed with a supervisor or other public official, or made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, or caused directly or indirectly to be filed with a supervisor, or other public official, or made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, any false material statement, in violation of Section 626.9541(d), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false material statement, in violation of Section 626.9541(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false entry of material fact in a book, report, or statement of any person, or knowingly omitted to make a true entry of a material fact pertaining to the business of such person in a book, report, or statement of such person, in violation of Section 626.9541(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent made false or fraudulent statements or representation on, or relative to, an application for an insurance policy for the purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money, or other benefit from an insurer, agent, broker or individual, in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent knowingly made a false or fraudulent statement or representation in or with reference to an application or negotiation for insurance, in violation of Section 626.9541(11)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent willfully violated a provision or provisions of the Insurance Code, in violation of Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Respondent demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices, in violation of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. Respondent engaged in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts as prohibited under Part VII of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. Respondent violated a provision of the Insurance Code, in violation of Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent has shown himself to be a source of injury or loss to the public, or detrimental to the public interest, in violation of Section 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. During times material herein, Respondent served as a General Lines agent and represented Fireman's Fund Insurance (Fireman's Fund). The complaint allegations, in summary fashion, may be grouped in two classifications; (1) that Respondent knowingly filed false statements of material facts concerning insureds in an attempt to attract more insureds by offering lower rates and (2) Respondent received premiums from insureds in excess of the actual premiums he submitted to Fireman's Fund and thereby unlawfully appropriated the excess monies to his own use. Albert Sons is the underwriting manager for the Florida Joint Underwriters Association (FJUA) in his capacity for Fireman's Fund and is a direct contact for Fireman's Fund with the Respondent. All FJUA premium rates are identical given the same variables such as age, type of vehicle, use and territory. Any variation of these factors changes the rate in a uniform manner and that change is uniform throughout the industry. As an example, Miami is a substantially higher rated territory than Gainesville (TR 31-32). An insured who cancels his insurance coverage is charged the amount of premium based on the amount of time that the coverage remained in effect plus a service charge exacted by the company for processing the application. Pursuant to negotiations for the purchase of auto insurance, Gaston Aveiga, speaking on behalf of his father Colon Aveiga, informed Respondent of his Florida driver's license number and date of birth. The same information was provided to the Respondent on behalf of Colon Aveiga. Gaston advised the Respondent that he would be the principal driver of the car to be insured. Colon Aveiga purchased an auto insurance policy from the Respondent on October 7, 1980 and was quoted a premium of $544. Colon received an insurance binder from Respondent reflecting his correct address: 1215 NE 110th Street, Miami, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 53). Approximately three days later, an application was made to Fireman's Fund on October 10, 1980, reflecting that Colon Aveiga's address is 1534 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida. The Aveigas have never lived in Gainesville nor have they indicated any intention of moving to Gainesville (TR 15). The insurance application further provides that Colon Aveiga is the only driver of the car and that he had an international drivers license whereas the Aveigas only have Florida driver's licenses; they specifically informed the Respondent of the same and that Gaston would be the principal driver of the insured car. The application submitted to Fireman's Fund on behalf of the Aveigas reflects a total premium of $514 which is, of course, $30 less than the premium quoted and collected from Colon Aveiga. On October 2, 1980, Marc Gavidia, and his father, Peter, purchased an auto insurance policy from the Respondent, doing business as Metro Insurance Agency. 2/ Respondent provided the Gavidias an insurance binder containing their correct address: 10441 SW 50th Street, Miami, Florida and evidencing a payment of $140 towards the balance due (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 97). The insurance was purchased to insure Marc Gavidia's Dodge van of which he was the principal driver. Marc Gavidia purchased the auto insurance from Respondent because of the cheaper rate (TR pp. 41-45). On October 4, 1980, an auto insurance application was tendered to Fireman's Fund on behalf of Marc Gavidia reflecting that he was self-employed (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 101). Marc Gavidia did not list himself as self- employed on the application (TR 49). Marc Gavidia gave Respondent his Florida driver's license which reflected a birth date of February 7, 1960 whereas the application submitted by Respondent on behalf of Marc Gavidia reflects a birth date of February 14, 1950 with a different driver's license number (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 101). On February 14, 1981 Respondent sent a policy change request for Florida auto insurance stating that the insured, Marc Gavidia, transferred schools to Tallahassee and now lives at 5361 SE 11th Street, Tallahassee, Florida (petitioner's Exhibit No. 111). Marc Gavidia has never lived in Tallahassee nor has he communicated to the Respondent any intent of moving to Tallahassee. (TR pp. 49-50). Juana Perez and her husband, Rogelio Perez purchased auto insurance from the Respondent based on the low rate quoted by Respondent. Ms. Perez wrote a check in the amount of $275 payable to Metro Insurance and received an insurance binder (TR pp. 53-54). Ms. Perez gave David Einhorn (a salesman of a local automobile dealership who was representing Respondent) Mr. Perez's Florida driver's license and Mr. Einhorn made a copy of the license (TR p. 56). An application for insurance was submitted to Fireman's Fund on behalf of the Perezes and reflects a total premium of $893. The application states further that the applicant has an international drivers license whereas Mr. Perez has never had an international drivers license (TR p. 59). The application reflects further that Mr. Perez was unemployed whereas he was employed at the time of his application for insurance (TR pp. 59, 63 and 65). An insurance premium finance agreement dated December 30, 1981, entered into by Mr. Perez shows $978 as a total amount of premiums minus the $275 downpayment leaving $704.20 as the amount to be financed (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 78). This represents approximately eighty-five ($85.00) dollars more than the premium sent to Fireman's Fund. On January 28, 1981, Luis Capon, purchased auto insurance from the Respondent and an application was submitted to Fireman's Fund reflecting a total premium of $789. At that time, Luis Capon paid $1,084 in cash to the Metro Insurance Company (TR p. 68). The application submitted by Respondent reflected further that Luis Capon had an international drivers license No. 1581934 and was born on January 15, 1944. At the time Luis Capon made application with the Respondent for auto insurance, he provided his Florida Drivers license which reflected his correct address: 419 NW 15th Avenue, Miami, Florida and his birth date, November 28, 1956 (TR p. 71). A policy change request for Fireman's Fund issued to Luis Capon states that Capon changed his address to 2560 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida. The policy change request form was signed by Respondent. Luis Capon has never lived in Gainesville nor has he evidenced to Respondent any intent of living in Gainesville. Further, Luis Capon has never received any refund from Respondent and in fact had to pay additional premiums (TR p. 73). The additional premium seems to have stemmed from additional violations as reflected by a DMV Driving Report. Javier Alvarez purchased an auto insurance policy from Respondent and was advised that the total cash premium for the policy was $830. Javier Alvarez paid $250 and financed the remaining $580 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19). An application submitted on behalf of Mr. Alvarez reflects a total premium of $730 which was submitted with the application. Mr. Alvarez has not received a refund of the difference in the amount quoted i.e. $830 and the amount $730 actually paid to Fireman's Fund by Respondent. When negotiating for the purchase of the auto insurance policy from the Respondent, Javier Alvarez gave the Respondent his Florida driver's license which contained his license number, birth date and address. The application submitted on behalf of Mr. Alvarez shows a Plantation, Florida address and reflects that Javier Alvarez has a Massachusetts driver's license and a birth date of August 16, 1940 whereas his correct birth date is February 22, 1961 and his address is 251 Crandon Boulevard, Apartment 342, Key Biscayne, Florida (TR p. 106). Mr. Alvarez has never had any address other than the Key Biscayne, Florida address and has never possessed a Massachusetts driver's license. On April 2, 1981, Respondent sent an endorsement request to Fireman's Fund advising that Javier Alvarez had transferred schools and was living in Gainesville, Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2). Javier Alvarez has never attended any school in Gainesville, Florida nor has he indicated to Respondent any intent to do so (TR p. 110). THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION The Respondent testified on his own behalf and has been licensed since 1978. Respondent was first employed as a managing agent and as an underwriter for several years with another agency. During that employment, Respondent did not have the guidance and/or the assistance of a tutor. Respondent acknowledged that there were indeed numerous errors in addresses but he attributes same to the fact that he was a new agent without proper checks and balances in his office at the time, and that he, more than anyone else, was the victim of such mistakes. Respondent points to the fact that he earns commissions based on the amount of premiums and that the lower premiums quoted result in lower commissions to him. Finally, Respondent points to the fact that other agencies such as the chief complaining party in this case, Fireman's Fund, had a greater error ratio than the Respondent in the conduct of its insurance agency and that these errors were the result of sloppy clerical work and language barriers more than any intentional act on Respondent's part. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's insurance license as referred to herein be suspended for a period of two (2) years. It is further RECOMMENDED that eighteen (18) months of the subject suspension be suspended during which time the Respondent's license shall be placed on probation. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of September, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1983
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record filed herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: During times material, Respondent was licensed and/or qualified for licensure as a General lines (2-20), Ordinary Life, and Health Insurance (2-18) Agent in Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material to the allegations herein, 1/ Respondent was an officer and director of White Insurance Agency, Inc. (White Insurance). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On June 20, representatives of Great Wall Chinese Restaurant (Great Wall) entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown Premium Finance, Inc., (Crown), through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage for Great Wall would be provided and issued through Service Insurance Company and Corporate Group Services. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub. "a"). On June 20, Respondent signed the premium finance agreement as broker- agent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub "a"). On June 22, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of eight hundred ninety-four dollars ($894.00) which was subsequently deposited into Respondent's bank account. (Petitioner's 3, sub B). On July 13, a representative of Service Insurance Company notified Crown that they had not received the full annual premium for Great Wall and a binder charge of $81.00 was sent to White Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 sub C). On July 13, representatives of Service Insurance Company notified Respondent that coverage was bound for Great Wall's risk for only 33 days and a charge of $81.00 was sent to White Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub D). On July 13, representatives of Service Insurance Company mailed a cancellation notice to Great Wall and Crown indicating an $81.00 charge as due and owing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub) On September 14, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Corporate Group Services and Service Insurance Company. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub H & I). On November 8, representatives of Corporate Group Services notified Crown that an application for insurance was received but was rejected and returned to the agent's (Respondent) office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub F). Neither Service Insurance Company nor Corporate Group Services issued a policy for the consumer, Great Wall. Respondent refuses to return the premium monies received for the Great Wall coverage to Crown. Respondent owes Crown for the premium monies submitted by Crown. COUNT II On July 8, representatives of Chateau Madrid, Inc., a restaurant, entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through Respondent, which indicated the insurance coverage would be issued through Casualty Indemnity Exchange. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub A). On July 8, Respondent signed the premium finance agreement as broker/agent. On July 25, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to Respondent in the amount of three thousand five hundred eight dollars (3,508.00). The check was deposited into White Insurance's bank account. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub b). On August 30, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Chateau Madrid and Casualty Indemnity Exchange and their managing general agents, Program Underwriters. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub D). As a result of the standard cancellation notice, the policy was reduced to a short-term policy which was effective July 15 and expired September 13, 1983. On March 13, 1984, Program Underwriters notified Crown that they had not received a premium payment concerning this particular policy and that neither Respondent nor White Insurance was an authorized agent for Casualty Indemnity Exchange. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub e). Respondent never returned the premium monies he received to Crown. Respondent owes Crown for the premium monies he received from Crown. COUNT III On September 16, a representative of Tennis Trainer, Inc. requested that Respondent secure a multi-peril insurance policy for Tennis Trainer. Respondent secured a binder for Tennis Trainer indicating the insurance would be issued through Service Insurance Company. On September 16, Respondent signed the binder as an authorized representative. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, sub b). On September 16, Respondent was not authorized to represent Service Insurance Company. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13, sub a and b). On September 15, Jeffrey Rider, Vice President of Tennis Trainer issued a check in the amount of three hundred five dollars ($305.00) to White Insurance representing the downpayment necessary to secure the agreed business insurance coverage. Thereafter, Respondent, took no measures to secure insurance for Tennis Trainer other than issuing the binder. Respondent has failed to submit the premium to secure the agreed upon insurance coverage on behalf of Tennis Trainer. Additionally, Respondent refused to return the premium payments to Tennis Trainer despite its demand (from Respondent) to do so. Tennis Trainer has directly forwarded the remainder of the premium to Service Insurance to secure the multi-peril coverage. Service Insurance Company is owed a balance due of approximately $305.00 from Respondent. COUNT VI On May 5, Donald Powers entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance. Pursuant to the agreement, the insurance coverage would be provided through Progressive American Insurance (Progressive). On May 9, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of two hundred ninety-nine dollars ($299.00) which was subsequently deposited into Respondent's bank account. On October 1, the consumer, Donald Powers, requested that the policy be cancelled. On October 25, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Progressive. On October 19, Progressive notified both Crown and White Insurance that the gross unearned premium of two hundred twenty-six dollars ($226.00) was applied to the Agent's (White Insurance) monthly statement and Crown must therefore collect this amount from the Agent. Progressive American never received any premium payments from Respondent concerning the subject policy. On November 25, 1986, Progressive notified Petitioner that the policy was originally accepted on May 7, 1983 at an annual premium of four hundred sixty dollars ($460.00) and was cancelled on October 1, 1983, with Two Hundred twenty-six Dollars ($226.00) credited to Respondent's statement. Progressive never received any premium payment for this policy. Respondent has failed to return to Crown the returned premium credit received on behalf of the Donald Powers' policy. COUNT VII On November 28, Russell Lung entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown through White Insurance. The insurance coverage for Lung was to be provided and issued through Interstate Underwriters. On November 29, pursuant to the premium finance agreement with Russell Lung, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one hundred sixty-seven dollars (167.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On February 14, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Interstate Underwriters. The policy for Russell Lung was cancelled before its normal expiration date and the unearned premium was credited to Respondent's account. Respondent has not returned to Crown the unearned premium credit received for Lung's policy. COUNT VIII On December 6, representatives of Thomson's Lawn Care (Thomson) entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Northeast Insurance and Southern Underwriters as managing general agents. On December 8, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one hundred fifty-one dollars ($151.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On January 25, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Northeast Insurance Company/Southern Underwriters. On February 8, 1984, Southern Underwriters notified Crown that they were never paid by White Insurance for Thomson's insurance. On October 16, 1984, Crown was notified by representatives of Thomson's that immediately after making the down payment to White Insurance, Thomson notified White Insurance that the policy should be cancelled immediately since Thomson never operated as a business. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, sub e). Crown received the returned premium payment from Southern Underwriters even though the original payment to White Insurance by Crown was never forwarded to Southern Underwriters. Respondent refuses to return the unearned premium payment to Crown. COUNT IX On October 15, representatives of Comfort Inn entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Protective National Insurance Company and Interstate Fire and Casualty Company. On November 4, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one thousand six hundred sixty dollars ($1,660.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On March 1, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Comfort Inn and the Insurance Companies involved. On February 6, 1984, Comfort Inn's counsel, James W. Martin, forwarded a letter to the insurance companies involved and simultaneously notified Crown that White failed to remit funds to the insurance companies involved and as a result, the policy was cancelled and subsequently reinstated only after his client, Comfort Inn paid the premium directly to the respective insurers. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8, sub e). On February 23, 1984, Irwin Lonschien of Crown responded to attorney Martin's letter and advised that the one thousand six hundred sixty dollars premium payment was forwarded to White Insurance pursuant to the premium finance agreement on November 4, 1983. On July 23, 1984, William Edwards, a representative of Comfort Inn, wrote a letter to Dan Martinez of Eagle Underwriters advising that Comfort Inn had paid a premium to White Insurance and Comfort Inn no longer desired White Insurance to represent them in insurance matters. Respondent, has not returned premiums received from Crown and is therefore indebted to Crown in the amount of one thousand six hundred sixty dollars. COUNT X On April 14, representatives of Royal Palm Motel entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance which indicated insurance coverage would be provided through Casualty Indemnity- Exchange. On April 18, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of nine hundred seventy- seven dollars ($977.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. COUNT XI On March 16, 1982, representatives of Flip's of West Broward entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Service Insurance Company. On March 19, 1982, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White in the amount of six hundred forty-eight dollars ($648.00) which was subsequently deposited in a bank account controlled by Respondent. Sometime between March 1982 and June 20, 1982, White Insurance forwarded a premium payment for this coverage to Service Insurance Company. On June 20, 1982, Crown sent a standard cancellation to the consumer and Service Insurance indicating the policy was to be cancelled. By letter dated January 7, Service Insurance notified White Insurance that the policy had been cancelled and the returned premium for the policy was credited to the account of White Insurance. Respondent, as agent/director of White Insurance has failed and refused to return to Crown the returned premiums received for Flip's of West Broward. COUNT XII On November 7, Paula Wilcoxon entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, indicating the insurance coverage would be issued through Universal Casualty. On November 8, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of two hundred ninety-five dollars ($295.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On December 15, Crown notified the consumer and Universal Casualty, by standard cancellation notice, that the policy was being cancelled. Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to return the unearned premium to Crown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a Final Order revoking all licenses and qualifications for licensure of Respondent, Kenneth Everett White, as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1987.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Maria Amelia Pou (Respondent) was licensed as a general lines insurance agent. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance (Petitioner) has jurisdiction over Respondent’s insurance license and appointments. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of General Insurance Group, Inc. (GIG), located in Hialeah, Florida. GIG is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of Victoria Insurance Agency, later changed to General Insurance Group II, both hereinafter referred to as GIG II, located at 4583 NW 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. GIG II is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for the wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she knew or should have known were committed by any person, over whom she had direct supervision and control, acting on behalf of GIG II. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she committed. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained an escrow account, with account no. 008-1027286, at Republic National Bank of Miami in Miami, Florida. Respondent had joint signatory authority over the escrow account. Premiums, returned premiums, and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under Respondent's license are trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. On November 22, 1994, Carlos Vidal and his wife, Teresa Vidal, purchased a new vehicle from Ocean Mazda, a Mazda dealership located on Lejeune Road, Miami, Florida. Before leaving the dealership with his new vehicle, Mr. Vidal attempted to obtain insurance coverage for the vehicle from his insurance company, State Farm. However, when he went to State Farm's office, no one was present and it appeared to be closed. Mr. Vidal returned to the dealership and informed the dealer's salesperson, Mr. Munoz, of his problem. The salesperson called several insurance companies without success before reaching GIG II. Mr. Munoz engaged in all communication over the telephone with GIG II. Neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal spoke with GIG II. Mr. Munoz obtained a quote of $997 from GIG II for the annual premium for the insurance coverage on the vehicle and informed Mr. Vidal of the cost. Mr. Vidal requested his wife to complete a check to GIG in the quoted amount. She complied. The check was given to and accepted by Mr. Munoz. GIG II faxed an insurance binder to Mr. Munoz. He gave the binder to Mr. Vidal. The binder indicated that the insurance was to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. Having obtained the insurance binder, Mr. and Mrs. Vidal left the dealership with their new vehicle. Although the premium was paid in full, GIG II completed an insurance premium finance contract (finance contract) to finance the premium with World Premium Finance Company (WPF), dated November 22, 1994, for Mr. Vidal. Ninety-five percent of Respondent's premiums are premium financed. The finance contract reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the finance contract. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed the names of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the finance contract. Respondent signed the finance contract as the broker or agent. Also, the finance contract reflects GIG II as the agent and the insured as both GIG II and Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, with only GIG II's address as the address for both GIG II and the Vidals. Further, the finance contract reflects a premium of $907, cash down payment of $273, and three monthly payments of $225.18. The monies totaled $948.54 for the finance contract price. The $997 check was deposited into GIG II's escrow account. At all times material hereto, the money remained in the escrow account. GIG II completed an application for the insurance coverage, dated November 22, 1994, with Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. The application reflected a total policy premium of $907. Respondent signed the application as brokering agent. Also, the application reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the application. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed Mr. and Mrs. Vidal's names to the application. Approximately, two to three days after November 22, 1994, Mr. Vidal brought the vehicle to GIG II for pictures to be taken of it for insurance purposes. A Florida Motor Vehicle Preinsurance Inspection Report, dated November 22, 1994, reflects the alleged signature of Mr. Vidal. To the contrary, Mr. Vidal did not sign the Report. Regarding the premium for the insurance, Respondent utilized computer software to compute the premium. The software requires a vehicle's VIN number. Respondent's software was not current due to her not having received, at the time of the transaction, the updated software which would reflect a recent rate increase. The total premium by the software was lower than the premium should have been. It is customary in the insurance industry to use the computer software used by Respondent for the insurance premiums. Also, it is not unusual for a delay to occur for the updated software to be received by an insurance company after a rate increase is approved and effective. In the insurance industry, it is not unusual for a miscalculation of a premium to occur. No gross miscalculation occurred in this instance which would cause the miscalculation to be unusual and suspect. Due to the miscalculation of the premium, by letter dated January 12, 1995, AIB notified Mr. Vidal that an additional $120 was due on the premium. Further, the letter provided that he had three options: (1) pay the $120 by February 10, 1995; or (2) cancel the insurance policy by February 26, 1995, and demand return of unearned premiums; or (3) take no action and the insurance policy would be cancelled by February 26, 1995. Mr. Vidal decided to cancel the insurance policy. On January 30, 1995, Mr. Vidal went to GIG II and executed a Cancellation Request Form cancelling his insurance. Respondent's signature appears on the Form as the agent. At some point in time, the cancellation form was forwarded by GIG II to AIB. By notice dated February 6, 1995, WPF notified Mr. Vidal, among other things, that he had ten days to pay his monthly installment ($225.18) due on February 1, 1995, 1 plus a late charge of $10, totaling $235.18 and that, if he failed to pay, his insurance would be cancelled. The address for Mr. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By notice dated February 16, 1995, WPF notified Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, among other things, that their insurance policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of the monthly installment. The address for Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By letter dated February 14, 1995, to AIB, Mr. Vidal notified AIB that he had chosen to cancel his insurance policy and had executed a cancellation form on January 27, 1995, 2 and demanded a refund of the unearned premiums. Further, Mr. Vidal indicated in the letter that he had neither heard from AIB or received a refund and that he was notifying it of his cancellation and demand for a refund. As a result of the cancellation by Mr. Vidal, AIB issued WPF a check dated February 22, 1995, in the amount of $549.67. Subsequently, on or about March 1, 1995, WPF issued GIG II a check in the amount of $79.31 Even after Mr. Vidal cancelled the insurance coverage and Respondent had received a refund from WPF, Respondent failed to adjust her conduct to conform with the Vidals' situation which was that the insureds, the Vidals, had paid the quoted premium in full. Not having received a refund, on April 17, 1995, approximately two and one-half months after signing the cancellation form, Mr. Vidal filed a request for assistance with Petitioner. By check dated July 10, 1995, more than five months after Mr. Vidal signed the cancellation form, Respondent issued Mr. Vidal a refund in the amount of $239.33 for insurance coverage that he had in effect for a little over two months. The refund check was issued from GIG II's escrow account. The refund monies included $49 which represented the difference between what the Vidals paid for the coverage ($997) and the finance contract price ($948.54). Consequently, Mr. Vidal was assessed the interest charged on a finance contract which never should have existed in his situation as the quoted premium was paid in full. In a premium finance situation in which a refund is due an insured, it is customary in the insurance industry for a three-step process to take place: (1) the insurance company issues a check to the premium finance company for the refund and forwards the check to the premium finance company which may take at least 30 days; (2) the premium finance company issues a check to the agent for the refund and forwards the check to the agent which may take at least another 30 days; and (3) the agent issues a check to the insured for the refund and sends the check to the insured. The same refund procedure was followed in this situation but with less time involved for steps (1) and (2). Moreover, in this instance, an important factor which makes this situation different is that Respondent had in her escrow account the full premium paid by the insureds, the Vidals. After receiving Mr. Vidal's request for assistance, Petitioner conducted an investigation. At first, Petitioner determined that no violation of the Insurance Code had occurred and Petitioner closed its file. However, subsequently, Petitioner re-opened its investigation which led to the filing of the administrative complaint against Respondent. After filing of the administrative complaint and more than one year after Respondent refunded the $239.33 to Mr. Vidal, Respondent acknowledged that more monies were due Mr. Vidal. Having reviewed the computations with Petitioner, Respondent refunded the additional monies to Mr. Vidal. An individual who is not licensed by Petitioner may qualify for a license by experience. Petitioner prescribes the activities in which an unlicensed person may engage. Over the years, Respondent has had unlicensed employees who were attempting to qualify for licensure by experience. Respondent identified two unlicensed employees, Maria Cancio and Maritza Inclant, who provided premium quotes to customers. Approximately ten percent of Ms. Cancio's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. However, more than ten percent of Ms. Martiza's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. Petitioner presented no evidence as to the time periods, i.e., six months or twelve months to which the percentages were applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order Finding in Count I that Maria Amelia Pou violated Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(4), (5), (7), (10) and (13), 626.621(2) and (12), and 626.9541(1)(k)1 and (o) 1 and 2; Dismissing Count II; and Suspending the license of Maria Amelia Pou for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April 1997.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kathryn Genevieve Saviak, did business as J & J Insurance Agency at all times pertinent to these proceedings. As a general lines insurance agent, she maintained five offices at one time or another in Dade, Broward and Hillsborough counties, for the sale of automobile insurance. Respondent did not deal with customers directly herself. She visited her offices occasionally, perhaps once a month, and spoke to the office managers more frequently by telephone. Some of her employees travelled among offices. Respondent authorized her employees to write insurance policies on behalf of the FJUA under an arrangement with the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G), a servicing carrier for the FJUA. Prior to December, 1978, respondent was the only licensed agent with the J & J Insurance Agency assigned to USF&G. Agents like respondent who represented the FJUA were required to forward to the servicing carrier money thee received in payment of premiums on the date received or, at the latest, on the following day. An agent need not require payment of the entire premium in order to write an insurance policy, so long as the agent collected a specified minimum deposit. Any money actually collected above the amount of the minimum deposit, however, was to be forwarded to the servicing carrier daily. E.R. Milbourne, Jr., the USF&G employee with direct charge of FJUA operations, personally apprised respondent at various times, including prior to 1978, of the requirement that monies be forwarded upon receipt. Agents were first advised of this requirement in writing on or about September 17, 1973. Respondent is one of approximately 250 agents for whom USF&G has been designated the servicing carrier by FJUA. Respondent's offices wrote 60 to 70 policies a month as compared to USF&G's 25,000 FJUA policies a year. The FJUA policies respondent's offices wrote became effective on the date they were written. USF&G then had thirty days in which to issue the policy. In its last audit before the final hearing began, USF&G determined that two percent of its private passenger vehicle policies and four percent of its commercial vehicle policies had not been issued within the thirty-day period. Routinely, USF&G issued a notice of termination if the premium for a policy had not been paid in full within thirty days, but, in some cases, as many as sixty days might have elapsed from the date of application before USF&G issued a notice of termination. On March 30, 1978, Carlene Grigg made application for automobile insurance at respondent's Ft. Lauderdale Office. She made payment of $309.00 at that time. USF&G received the application on May 15, 1978, accompanied by only $200.00. In late July, Carlene's husband, Marvin, received a notice of termination from USF&G dated July 26, 1978, stating that USF&G was owed $188.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 5. In September, Mr. and Mrs. Grigg paid an additional $73.00 to respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. On or about November 6, 1978, USF&G received an additional $139.00 from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. Together with the initial $200.00, this constituted full payment of the premium for the policy Ms. Grigg applied for on March 30, 1978 (which has subsequently been revised to eliminate physical damage coverage, resulting in a decrease in premium.) (Count I) On August 14, 1978, Constantine A. Ronca made application for an automobile insurance policy at respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office and paid $257.00. USF&G received Mr. Ronca's application later in August, accompanied by $100.00. USF&G sent a notice of termination dated October 26, 1973, to be effective November 9, 1978, for the stated reason of unpaid premium. (Count II) On June 27, 1978, Antonio Vettorazzi purchased automobile insurance at respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. Against a total premium of $437.00, Mr. Vettorazzi made a down payment of $153.00. The balance of the premium, $284.00, was financed. USF&G received Mr. Vettorazzi's application from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office accompanied by a check for $284.00. Thereafter Mr. Vettorazzi received a notice of termination from USF&G dated November 15, 1978, threatening to terminate the policy effective November 29, 1978, for alleged nonpayment of a premium balance of $153.00. In late November or early December of 1978, USF&G received a check for $153.00 from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. Although Mr. Vettorazzi made his payments to the premium finance company, he made no additional payments directly to respondent after June 27, 1978. (Count III) Also on June 27, 1978, Linda Diane Moray Blair purchased automobile insurance from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. Against a total premium of $308.00 she made a cash down payment of $112.00, for which she received a receipt. Petitioner's exhibit No. 2 attached to petitioner's exhibit No. 3. The balance of the premium was financed by Capitol Premium Plan, Inc. Ms. Blair made monthly payments of $29.20 to Capitol Premium Finance in a timely fashion. Subsequently she received a notice from J & J Insurance that another $10.00 was due. In September of 1978, Ms. Blair sent a $10.00 money order to respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. Thereafter, Ms. Blair received from USF&G a notice of termination dated October 12, 1978, stating that a balance was owed the company of $122.00. On October 27, 1978, USF&G received from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office a check in the amount of $122.00. (Count IV) On October 18, 1978, David G. Fuerst purchased automobile insurance at respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. He wrote a check for $210.00, half the annual premium. On November 21, 1978, Mr. Fuerst wrote another check in favor of J & J Insurance for the remainder of the premium in the amount of $210.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 8. When USF&G received Mr. Fuerst's application, respondent's check in the amount of $150.00 accompanied the application. Eventually USF&G issued a notice of termination dated December 18, 1978, advising Mr. Fuerst that his policy would be terminated on account of an unpaid balance of $270.00. Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. Shortly after receiving the notice of termination, Mr. Fuerst received from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office a form "Special Notice" stating that the cancellation of the policy "was due to a computer error. Petitioner's exhibit No. 10. On January 9, 1979, USF&G received the $270.00 balance from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. (Count XXVIII) On October 30, 1978, William Patrick Pete went into respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. He purchased an automobile insurance policy for which he paid the entire premium of $170.00. Additionally, he purchased membership in an automobile club for which he paid $30.00. USF&G received Mr. Pete's application on November 8, 1978, accompanied by respondent's check for $50.00. On December 26, 1978, USF&G sent Mr. Pete a notice of termination for the stated reason that he owed $120.00 toward his premium. On January 9, 1979, USF&G received $120.00 from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. (Count XXIX) On October 3, 1978, Linda J. Brown purchased insurance from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. On that date she made a do payment of $96.00 against a total premium of $275.00. She financed the remainder of the premium, $179.00, under an agreement with Time Premium Company. Petitioner's exhibit No. 15. USF&G received Ms. Brown's application on October 18, 1978, accompanied by a check for $179.00. On December 11, 1978, USF&G directed a notice of termination to Ms. Brown for the stated reason that she owed $96.00 on her premium. Petitioner's exhibit No. 16. On January 2, 1979, USF&G received from respondent a check in the amount of $96.00. (Count xxx) 12. In July, 1978, Robert Charles Oberheim purchased insurance from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. He made a down payment of $249.00 against a quoted premium of $711.00. He financed the balance of $462.00, and made regular monthly payments of $63.00. When USF&G issued Mr. Oberheim's policy, it adjusted the premium downward by $40.00 so that the total premium was in fact $671.00. On October 2, 1978, USF&G issued a notice of termination for the stated reason of a balance owing by Mr. Oberheim of $209.00. Thereafter, some time before October 16, 1978, USF&G received respondent's check in the amount of $209.00. Not until August 1, 1979, did J & J Insurance draw a check in favor of Mr. Oberheim in the amount of $40.00, representing the refund he was owed. Petitioner's exhibit No. (Count XXXI) On November 4, 1977, Jean L. Snyder, wife of Paul Snyder, purchased automobile insurance from respondent's Miami office. She was quoted a premium of $1,153.00 and wrote a check for the full amount on November 16, 1977. Petitioner's exhibit No. 20. USF&G received this application on February 13, 1978, accompanied by a check in the amount of $400.00. (Count XXXII) On February 9, 1978, Joseph J. Guido purchased automobile insurance from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. He made a down payment of $221.00 against a total premium of $631.00, and financed the balance of $410.00 under an agreement with Time Premium Company. Petitioner's exhibit No. 25. He subsequently sold the vehicle he had insured and, on August 8, 1978, cancelled the policy. On August 28, 1978, Time Premium Company received a $490.00 refund check from USF&G. Brooksie Peeples, Time Premium Company's manager, deposited this check against Mr. Guido's account. The check was enough to pay off Mr. Guide's indebtedness to Time Premium Company in its entirety, with $207.73 remaining. This balance was forwarded to respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office on September 13, 1978. Petitioner's exhibit No. 26. The check was deposited on September 19, 1978. Beginning in November of 1978, Mr. Guido and his wife made repeated demands for the refund. Finally, when Mr. Guide refused to leave the premises until the check was written, on March 29, 1979, the manager of respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office wrote Mr. Guide a check for $207.73. (Count XXXIV) On December 7, 1978, Shirley Payne purchased automobile insurance from respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. On that date she made a down payment in the amount of $300.32 against a quoted premium of $682.32. She was told she would receive her policy within thirty days, along with a bill for the balance due. In fact, she received her policy in March of 1979. She paid respondent another $100.00 on March 20, 1979, petitioner's exhibit No. 28, and the final $282.00 on March 28, 1979. Petitioner's exhibit No. 29. USF&G received Ms. Payne's application on February 28, 1979, accompanied by a check in the amount of $214.00. (Count XXXVI) Lena Sabel accompanied her daughter, Sylvia Robbins, to purchase automobile insurance at respondent's Hollywood office on July 25, 1978. On that date Ms. Sabel wrote a check in the amount of $556.23 in favor of J & J Insurance Agency. Petitioner's exhibit No. 22. The total premium for the policy she purchased was $406.00. When USF&G received the Robbins' application from respondent it was accompanied by a check in the amount of $150.00. On October 23, USF&G issued a notice of termination for the stated reason that $256.00 was owed for the premium. On receipt of this notice, Ms. Robbins' son sent USF&G a check for $256.00. It arrived shortly after a check in the same amount that respondent's office sent. Having received duplicate checks, USF&G wrote a refund check to the order of Sylvia Robbins in the amount of $256.00 and forwarded the check to respondent. Sylvia Robbins' endorsement was forged and the check was deposited to the J & J Insurance Premium account at the Commercial Bank and Trust Company in Miami. About two weeks before the final hearing began, Ms. Sabel received a refund check in the amount of $256.00. (Count XXXVIII) USF&G drew Check No. 111558 in favor of Robert K. Kaganac in the amount of $44.00 on December 11, 1978, and forwarded the check in care of respondent's Hollywood office. Mr. Kaganac's endorsement was forged and the check was deposited to J & J Insurance Premium account at Commercial Bank and Trust Company in Miami. (Count XXXIX) On December 1, 1978, USF&G drew a check to the order of J. Bruce Garland in the amount of $54.00 and forwarded it to respondent's Ft. Lauderdale office. There Mr. Garland's endorsement was forged and the check was deposited to the J & J Insurance Premium account at the Commercial Bank & Trust Company in Miami. On August 1, 1979, respondent mailed Mr. Garland a check in the amount of $24.00. (Count XLI) Guillermo Citelli purchased automobile insurance at respondent's Hollywood office. On November 22, 1978, USF&G drew its check No. F110271 in favor of Mr. Citelli in the amount of $91.00 and forwarded it to respondent's Hollywood office. Mr. Citelli's endorsement was forged and the check was deposited to the J & J Insurance Premium account at the Commercial Bank & Trust Company in Miami. (Count XLIII) On October 11, 1978, Kevin B. McGuire purchased automobile insurance at respondent's Hollywood office. On that day he paid a premium of $108.00. He later requested that the policy be cancelled. On December 5, 1975, USF&G drew its check No. F110568 in favor of Kevin B. McGuire in the amount of $53.00 and forwarded the check to respondent's Hollywood office. Mr. McGuire's endorsement was forged and the check was deposited to the J & J insurance Premium account at the Commercial Bank & Trust Company in Miami. In January, 1979, Mr. McGuire received a refund from respondent in the amount of $53.00. (Count XLIV) In each instance in which it was shown that USF&G had cancelled a policy for which respondent had failed to forward the entire premium, USF&G later reinstated the policy, effective retroactively to the date of cancellation. Paula Davis, who managed respondent's Hollywood office from March of 1978, until January of 1979, was instructed by respondent to forge endorsements on refund checks and did so. This practice antedated Ms. Davis' employment at the Hollywood office. Marie Vernon, also employed by respondent at her Hollywood office, forged endorsements on refund checks, believing respondent had directed that this be done. Before each forgery, a photostat of the refund check was made and attached to the pertinent file against the possibility that the payee might make demand for the refund. Deborah Goldberg's testimony on this and other points has not boon credited. With respect to certain classes of insurance, respondent instructed Ms. Davis to forward to USF&G only a specified minimum deposit even when the office received more than the minimum deposit toward payment of the premium. With respect to these policies, respondent gave Ms. Davis standing instructions to forward the premium balances only upon receipt of notices of termination from USF&G. These instructions were followed, and monies belonging to USF&G were diverted to a separate account. Respondent also represented an Alabama insurance company to whom she forwarded premiums as promptly as that company required. Many of her employees engaged in no improper conduct of any kind and were completely unaware of what was going on. Both parties have furnished proposed findings of fact which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact inconsistent with the foregoing are hereby expressly rejected.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's license and her eligibility for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick F. Maroney, Esquire S. Strom Maxwell, Esquire Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward S. Jaffry, Esquire. S. Jack Carrouth, Esquire Suite 300, Barnett Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a property and casualty insurance license, life and health insurance license, and life insurance license for the State of Florida. She has held her property and casualty license for about 20 years. In 1976, she was employed as an agent for the Orlando office of Commonwealth insurance agency, which she purchased in 1977 or 1978. She continues to own the Commonwealth agency, which is the agency involved in this case. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. In 1979 or 1980, Respondent was appointed to the board of directors of the Local Independent Agents Association, Central Florida chapter. She has continuously served on the board of directors of the organization ever since. She served as president of the association until September, 1991, when her term expired. During her tenure as president, the local association won the Walter H. Bennett award as the best local association in the country. Since May, 1986, Commonwealth had carried the insurance for the owner of the subject premises, which is a 12,000 square foot commercial block building located at 923 West Church Street in Orlando. In July, 1987, the insurer refused to renew the policy on the grounds of the age of the building. Ruth Blint of Commonwealth assured the owner that she would place the insurance with another insurer. Mrs. Blint is a longtime employee of the agency and is in charge of commercial accounts of this type. Mrs. Blint was a dependable, competent employee on whom Respondent reasonably relied. Mrs. Blint contacted Dana Roehrig and Associates Inc. (Dana Roehrig), which is an insurance wholesaler. Commonwealth had done considerable business with Dana Roehrig in the past. Dealing with a number of property and casualty agents, Dana Roehrig secures insurers for the business solicited by the agents. Dana Roehrig itself is not an insurance agent. In this case, Dana Roehrig served as the issuing agent and agreed to issue the policy on behalf of American Empire Surplus Lines. The annual premium would be $5027, excluding taxes and fees. This premium was for the above- described premises, as well as another building located next door. The policy was issued effective July 21, 1987. It shows that the producing agency is Commonwealth and the producer is Dana Roehrig. The policy was countersigned on August 12, 1987, by a representative of the insurer. On July 21, 1987, the insured gave Mrs. Blint a check in the amount of $1000 payable to Commonwealth. This represented a downpayment on the premium for the American Empire policy. The check was deposited in Commonwealth's checking account and evidently forwarded to Dana Roehrig. On July 31, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued its monthly statement to Commonwealth. The statement, which involves only the subject policy, reflects a balance due of $3700.86. The gross premium is $5027. The commission amount of $502.70 is shown beside the gross commission. Below the gross premium is a $25 policy fee, $151.56 in state tax, and a deduction entered July 31, 1987, for $1000, which represents the premium downpayment. When the commission is deducted from the other entries, the balance is, as indicated, $3700.86. The bottom of the statement reads: "Payment is due in our office by August 14, 1987." No further payments were made by the insured or Commonwealth in August. The August 31, 1987, statement is identical to the July statement except that the bottom reads: "Payment is due in our office by September 14, 1987." On September 2, 1987, the insured gave Commonwealth a check for $2885.16. This payment appears to have been in connection with the insured's decision to delete the coverage on the adjoining building, which is not otherwise related to this case. An endorsement to the policy reflects that, in consideration of a returned premium of $1126 and sales tax of $33.78, all coverages are deleted for the adjoining building. The September 30 statement shows the $3700.86 balance brought forward from the preceding statement and deductions for the returned premium and sales tax totalling $1159.78. After reducing the credit to adjust for the unearned commission of $112.60 (which was part of the original commission of $502.70 for which Commonwealth had already received credit), the net deduction arising from the deleted coverage was $1047.18. Thus, the remaining balance for the subject property was $2653.68. In addition to showing the net sum due of $944.59 on an unrelated policy, the September 30 statement contained the usual notation that payment was due by the 12th of the following month. However, the statement contained a new line showing the aging of the receivable and showing, incorrectly, that $3700.86 was due for more than 90 days. As noted above, the remaining balance was $2653.68, which was first invoiced 90 days previously. Because it has not been paid the remaining balance on the subject policy, Dana Roehrig issued a notice of cancellation sometime during the period of October 16-19, 1987. The notice, which was sent to the insured and Commonwealth, advised that the policy "is hereby cancelled" effective 12:01 a.m. October 29, 1987. It was the policy of Dana Roehrig to send such notices about ten days in advance with two or three days added for mailing. One purpose of the notice is to allow the insured and agency to make the payment before the deadline and avoid cancellation of the policy. However, the policy of Dana Roehrig is not to reinstate policies if payments are received after the effective date of cancellation. Upon receiving the notice of cancellation, the insured immediately contacted Mrs. Blint. She assured him not to be concerned and that all would be taken care of. She told him that the property was still insured. The insured reasonably relied upon this information. The next time that the insured became involved was when the building's ceiling collapsed in June, 1988. He called Mrs. Blint to report the loss. After an adjuster investigated the claim, the insured heard nothing for months. He tried to reach Respondent, but she did not return his calls. Only after hiring an attorney did the insured learn that the cancellation in October, 1987, had taken effect and the property was uninsured. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the policy, the October 31 statement was identical to the September 30 statement except that payment was due by November 12, rather than October 12, and the aging information had been deleted. By check dated November 12, 1987, Commonwealth remitted to Dana Roehrig $3598.27, which was the total amount due on the October 30 statement. Dana Roehrig deposited the check and it cleared. The November 30 statement reflected zero balances due on the subject policy, as well as on the unrelated policy. However, the last entry shows the name of the subject insured and a credit to Commonwealth of $2717 plus sales tax of $81.51 minus a commission readjustment of $271.70 for a net credit of $2526.81. The record does not explain why the net credit does not equal $2653.68, which was the net amount due. It would appear that Dana Roehrig retained the difference of $125.87 plus the downpayment of $1000 for a total of $1125.87. It is possible that this amount is intended to represent the earned premium. Endorsement #1 on the policy states that the minimum earned premium, in the event of cancellation, was $1257. By check dated December 23, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued Commonwealth a check in the amount of $2526.81. The December 31 statement reflected the payment and showed a zero balance due. The record is otherwise silent as to what transpired following the issuance of the notice of cancellation. Neither Mrs. Blint nor Dana Roehrig representatives from Orlando testified. The only direct evidence pertaining to the period between December 31, 1987, and the claim the following summer is a memorandum from a Dana Roehrig representative to Mrs. Blint dated March 24, 1988. The memorandum references the insured and states in its entirety: Per our conversation of today, attached please find the copy of the cancellation notice & also a copy of the cancellation endorsement on the above captioned, which was cancelled effective 10/29/87. If you should have any questions, please call. Regardless of the ambiguity created by the monthly statements, which were not well coordinated with the cancellation procedure, Mrs. Blint was aware in late March, 1988, that there was a problem with the policy. She should have advised the insured, who presumably could have procured other insurance. Regardless whether the June, 1988, claim would have been covered, the ensuing litigation would not have involved coverage questions arising out of the cancellation of the policy if Mrs. Blint had communicated the problem to the insured when she received the March memorandum. Following the discovery that the policy had in fact been cancelled, the insured demanded that Respondent return the previously paid premiums. Based on advice of counsel, Respondent refused to do so until a representative of Petitioner demanded that she return the premiums. At that time, she obtained a cashiers check payable to the insured, dated June 1, 1990, and in the amount of $2526.81. Although this equals the check that Dana Roehrig returned to Commonwealth in December, 1987, the insured actually paid Commonwealth $1000 down and $2885.16 for a total of $3885.16. This discrepancy appears not to have been noticed as neither Petitioner nor the insured has evidently made further demands upon Respondent for return of premiums paid. The insured ultimately commenced a legal action against Commonwealth, Dana Roehrig, and American Empire. At the time of the hearing, the litigation remains pending.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.561(1) and, thus, 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and, pursuant to Sections 626.681(1) and 626.691, Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $1002.70, and placing her insurance licenses on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order. If Respondent fails to pay the entire fine within 30 days of the date of the final order, the final order should provide, pursuant to Section 626.681(3), Florida Statutes, that the probation is automatically replaced by a one-year suspension. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart Division of Legal Affairs Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods Gatlin, Woods, et al. 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent. The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida. The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency. After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts. The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal. In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before. With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately $150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500 to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900. At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage. As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all. Judy Nelson (Count V). Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated. Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage. Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her. On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990. Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security. Fred J. Miller (Count VI). On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage. A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt. It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account. Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card. On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed. Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990. Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy. Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV). Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.) On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security. Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III). Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security. In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly. On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing. One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle. At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/ Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs. John Stuiso (Count I). On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250. It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied. In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing. In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate. When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund. The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250. Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check. The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa. After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.). Wanda Mae Riley (Count II). In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business. Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did. Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing. In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was licensed as an Ordinary Life and General Lines Agent (Exhibit 1) and was the agent for Dixie Insurance Company at the Bartow office. As such, he had the authority to write policies binding the insurer. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was president and principal stockholder of Friendly Insurance Companies of Bartow, Winter Haven, Lake Wales and Haines City. The corporate records (Exhibit 3 for Polk County) show this to be the same as Friendly Auto Insurance of Lake Wales, Inc. Respondent was the agent for Dixie Insurance Company only at the Bartow office. Dixie Insurance Company qualifies agents, not offices, to sell their policies. Respondent had no authority to act as agent for Dixie Insurance at any of these offices other than the Bartow office as the insurance company has but one agent per office. To support the allegations in count 34 of the Administrative Complaint, Edward Bland testified, and Exhibits 21 through 23 were admitted. Bland applied for automobile insurance at Friendly Auto Insurance at the Winter Haven office, which he paid for by check in the amount of $728 (Exhibit 23) as full payment for the one year premium. Subsequent thereto, a Premium Finance Agreement was prepared on which Bland's signature was forged showing $546 of the premium to be financed. This finance agreement was signed by T. R. Shaw as agent. Upon learning that the finance agreement had been issued on his coverage, Bland contacted the Winter Haven office manager, and after a few weeks of "run around" contacted the Department of Insurance and "got his money back." Bland never saw Shaw or Respondent. Rafael Gomez, M.D. purchased automobile insurance on his three cars from Friendly Auto Insurance of Winter Haven in December 1985 for which he paid $3452.71 for the annual premium. Subsequently thereto, he received a call from the Barnett Bank, which had financed one of the cars, to tell him that the bank needed evidence of insurance on the financed auto. Dr. Gomez contacted Ruth Kent, the office manager at the Winter Haven office, who assured him she would supply the bank with the necessary documentation. When the bank contacted Dr. Gomez later to again demand proof of insurance, Gomez went to the Winter Haven office and demanded to see his file. He made copies of certain documents which he took to the bank. Dr. Gomez subsequently learned that a finance agreement had been entered into on his behalf, but without his knowledge or consent, and that the address shown on the agreement under his name was that of Ruth Kent. Although when accosted by Dr. Gomez with this information, Ms. Kent denied such an intentional act, this would have allowed her to hold the finance coupons and get all information supplied by the finance company to the borrower without Dr. Gomez learning that the policy for which he had paid in full was subsequently financed. After learning of the subterfuge, Dr. Gomez contacted the Department of Insurance. Ruth Judd was office manager at the Friendly Insurance Agency of Haines City for a period of time ending in 1987 when she was terminated by Respondent. Ms. Judd contends she was only the office manager, and Respondent was the boss of the office and hired all employees. During the time she worked in the office, Ms. Judd testified several different people served as the licensed agent for the office, but they spent little time in the office with Donald Leroy Flentke, towards the end of his tenure, coming in only for his weekly paychecks. No evidence was presented from which a determination could be made that for a specific period of time any of the four offices were not being supervised by a licensed agent. Ms. Judd testified she was aware of one policy for which the insured had paid the premium in full being submitted for a premium finance agreement with forged documents. She also was aware that monthly financing payments were made by the Haines City office on some three or four other premium finance agreements. Ms. Judd testified on March 2, 1988, that she was presently unemployed. Respondent called one witness that testified and produced documentary evidence (Exhibits 24 through 26) that on March 2, 1988, this witness purchased insurance from Ms. Judd at New Horizons and was required to buy an accidental death policy in order to obtain PIP coverage. Exhibit 7 shows that an automobile insurance policy was issued to Jackie Bryan, the policy was sold through Friendly Insurance of Winter Haven, Inc., that the premium was financed, the borrower owed an additional $142.66 on the finance agreement, and the policy expired 2-26-86. Respondent acknowledged that his signature appears on the premium finance application. Some 5000 policies are sold by Respondent's agencies per year, and Respondent has no independent recollection of that finance agreement. Dixie Insurance Company issued a policy to Johnny Davis which was also financed through Envoy, but this application was signed by Shaw. Although Dixie Insurance Company had their own premium finance organization and, if the premium is financed, preferred to do the financing, Respondent testified that occasionally, if a client did not want to finance their premium through Dixie, the agency would go through another premium finance company such as Envoy. Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 12 show premium finance agreements were contracted for on behalf of Raymond Scott, Mark Turner, Kathy Smith and Cathy Phillips, but no auto insurance policies were issued by Dixie Insurance Company to these individuals. Only one of these finance agreements (Exhibit 12) purports to be prepared at the Bartow office, and two of the drafts (Exhibits 9 and 12) purport to be signed by Respondent. Respondent testified he neither signed those drafts nor authorized someone else to sign for him. The forgery on both Exhibits 9 and 12 appear to have been perpetrated by the same person. Cathy Phillips, a friend of Ruth Kent, testified without contradiction that the signature purporting to be hers on Exhibit 12 was forged, that she never entered into a premium finance agreement with Envoy Finance Corporation, and that she had never seen Exhibit 14 until presented to her by the Petitioner's attorney. Ms. Phillips did receive a past-due notice on one occasion and called Ruth Kent who told her not to worry about it, that everything was taken care of. Subsequently, Ms. Phillips' husband wrote a letter to Envoy Finance Corporation denying any knowledge of any insurance policy written by Friendly Insurance of Bartow. Considerable testimony was submitted regarding the activities of Chuck Evans who was, at one time, employed by Respondent at the Winter Haven agency as a non-licensed employee with authority to write checks on the Trust Account. While the statements made by Evans to Department of Insurance officials contributed to the initiation of the investigation of Respondent's agencies, none of this testimony was relevant to the charges here at issue.
