The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, by entering a plea of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit workers' compensation fraud, demonstrated a lack of fitness and trustworthiness to sell insurance in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was eligible for licensure and licensed in the following areas: (a) as a health insurance agent; (b) as a life insurance agent; (c) as a life and health insurance agent; (d) as a life, health, and variable annuity agent; (e) as a surplus lines insurance agent; and (f) as a general lines insurance agent. In June 1992, the insurance agency that Respondent worked for was purchased by another insurance agency. Ronald Palmerton was a client of the owner of Respondent's former employer. Mr. Palmerton held a workers' compensation policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual). After the owner of Respondent's former employer left the new agency, Respondent handled Mr. Palmerton's requests for additional insurance with Liberty Mutual. Respondent was never paid a commission for any work performed on Mr. Palmerton's behalf. Even so, Respondent's testimony that Mr. Palmerton was not up front with information that he provided to Respondent and that Respondent never told Mr. Palmerton that he could avoid his workers' compensation experience modification if he started another company is not persuasive. In a Fourth Amended Information dated April 16, 2001, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton, were charged in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District, in and for Escambia County, Florida, Case No. 99-2081 CF, with several felony and misdemeanor violations. Specifically, Respondent was charged as follows: (a) with racketeering, a first-degree felony in violation of Section 895.03, Florida Statutes; (b) with conspiracy to commit racketeering, a first-degree felony in violation of Sections 895.03(4) and 777.04(3), Florida Statutes; and (c) conspiracy to commit workers' compensation fraud, a misdemeanor in violation of Sections 440.37(4) and 777.04(3), Florida Statutes. The misdemeanor criminal charge was based on allegations that, beginning on April 4, 1993, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton did unlawfully and knowingly conspire to commit workers' compensation fraud by knowingly making false or misleading oral or written statements and representations and/or knowingly omitting or concealing material information required by Section 440.381, Florida Statutes. According to the Fourth Amended Information, the purpose of the conspiracy was to avoid or diminish the amount of payment of any workers' compensation premiums to be paid by Mr. Palmerton and/or his related companies to a carrier or self-insurance fund. The criminal trial was scheduled for April 16, 2001. On April 12, 2001, the State of Florida offered a plea agreement to Respondent. Respondent initially refused the offer but changed his mind after learning that Mr. Palmerton had agreed to plead guilty to felony charges for perjury and racketeering, with a sentence for 18 months' house arrest and 15 years of probation. Respondent understood that Mr. Palmerton would testify against Respondent if he elected to proceed to trial. On April 16, 2001, Respondent entered into a Plea Agreement in which he agreed to plead no contest to one count of conspiracy to commit workers' compensation fraud, a first-degree misdemeanor. The agreement included a provision for a sentence of one year of probation. Under the agreement, a sentence of nine months' incarceration in the Escambia County jail would be suspended pending Respondent's successful completion of all terms and conditions of probation. The agreement also provided that Respondent's probation would include the payment of any restitution ordered by the Court during a subsequent hearing. On April 16, 2001, the Court adjudicated Respondent guilty, withholding imposition of sentence and placing Respondent on one year of probation. The terms of Respondent's probation included, but are not limited to, the following: payment of a fine and court costs in the amount of $1,000; payment of the costs of prosecution in the amount of $5,000; and (c) payment of restitution as determined at a subsequent hearing. A few days after being adjudicated guilty, Respondent contacted Petitioner's staff to determine the effect of his nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor offense on his licensure status. Petitioner's staff subsequently informed Respondent that a misdemeanor offense would not result in an automatic suspension of an insurance license. On April 11, 2002, the Court conducted a restitution hearing. During the hearing, the State of Florida and Respondent agreed and stipulated to the entry of a restitution order and judgment satisfactory to the victim, Liberty Mutual. On June 3, 2002, the Court entered a Restitution Order and Judgment against Respondent. The Order required Respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $225,000. Pursuant to the Order, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton are jointly and severally liable for payment of the restitution, with Respondent receiving credit toward the total obligation for $200,000 previously paid by Mr. Palmerton and $10,000 paid by Respondent on April 11, 2002. As such, the effective amount of the Restitution Order and Judgment was a $15,000 balance due from Respondent. In June 2002, Petitioner issued a renewal notice for Respondent's surplus lines insurance license. The notice requested the appointing insurance company or agency to certify that Respondent had not pled guilty, or nolo contendere to, or had not been found guilty of a felony since originally being appointed by the appointing entity. The notice did not inquire whether Respondent had pled guilty, or nolo contendere to, or found guilty of a misdemeanor. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent and Mr. Palmerton were still jointly and severally obligated to pay $15,000 in unpaid restitution. Respondent had successfully completed his probation in all other respects. During the hearing, Petitioner denied any wrong doing in relation to the misdemeanor offense to which he pled no contest. Specifically, Respondent denied that he ever intended to assist Mr. Palmerton in any type of scheme to defraud or otherwise do harm to Liberty Mutual. Respondent's testimony in this regard in not persuasive. Respondent has been a licensed insurance agent for 32 years. Prior to the instant proceeding, Respondent's insurance licenses have not been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding or lawsuit. Liberty Mutual did not name Respondent as a party in its civil suit against Mr. Palmerton. Instead, Respondent cooperated with and testified on behalf of Liberty Mutual in that proceeding. Until Respondent committed the offense at issue here, his reputation in the insurance community indicates that he was an honest and trustworthy agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order imposing a six-month suspension of Respondent's insurance licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thomas E. Wheeler, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 12564 Pensacola, Florida 32573-2564 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioners were producers of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent GMS was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license no. 936 by the Department and bonded by Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial) in the sum of $50,000.00 - Bond No. CZ 7117346. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Commercial was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). Prior to Petitioners selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Respondent GMS, Petitioners and Respondent GMS entered into a verbal contract whereby: (a) Petitioners would harvest and load their melons on trucks furnished by Respondent GMS at Petitioners' farm; (b) the loading, grading and inspection, if any, was to be supervised by, and the responsibility of Respondent GMS or its agent; (c) the melons were to be U.S. No. 1 grade; (d) the melons were purchased F.O.B. Petitioner's farm subject to acceptance by Respondent GMS, with title and risk of loss passing to Respondent GMS at point of shipment (See Transcript Page 95 lines 5-7); (e) the price was left open subject to Petitioners being paid the market price for the melons at place of shipment on the day of shipment as determined by Respondent GMS less one (1) or two (2) cent sales charge, depending on the price; and requiring Respondent GMS to notify Petitioners on a daily basis of that price and; (f) the settlement was to be made by Respondent GMS within a reasonable time after the sale of the melons by Respondent GMS. Respondent GMS was not acting as Petitioners agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the Petitioners on a net return basis nor was it acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioners and the buyers. Respondent GMS did not make the type of accounting to Petitioners as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes had it been their agent. Although Respondent GMS purchased over twenty (20) loads of melons from the Petitioners, there are only ten (10) loads of melons in dispute and they are represented by track report numbers 536 dated April 29, 1985, 534 dated April 30, 1985, 2363 and 537, dated May 1, 1985, 2379, 2386 and 538 dated May 2, 1985, and 2385, 2412 and 2387 dated May 3, 1985. Jennings W. Starling (Starling) was the agent of Respondent GMS responsible for loading; grading- inspecting and accepting and approving the loads of melons for shipment that Respondent GMS was purchasing from Petitioners during the 1985 melon season. Petitioners and Starling were both aware that some of the melons had hollow hearth a conditions if known, would cause the melons to be rejected. Aware of this condition in the melons, Starling allowed Petitioners to load the melons on the truck furnished by Respondent GMS. Starling rejected from 20 percent to 40 percent of the melons harvested and brought in from Petitioners' fields before accepting and approving a load for shipment. Starling accepted and approved for shipment all ten (10) of the disputed loads of melons. On a daily basis, Robert E. McDaniel, Sr., one of the Petitioners, would contact the office of Respondent GMS in Lakeland Florida to obtain the price being paid that day by Respondent GMS to Petitioners but was not always successful, however, he would within a day or two obtain the price for a particular day. Robert E. McDaniel did obtain the price to be paid by Respondent GMS for the ten (10) disputed loads and informed his son Robert E. McDaniel, Jr. of those prices. The prices quoted to Robert E. McDaniel, Sr. by Respondent GMS on the ten (10) disputed loads were 12 cents, 10 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 7 cents, 7 cents, and 7 cents on tract reports number 536, 534, 2363, 537, 2379, 2386, 538, 2385, 2412 and 2387, respectively. No written record of their prices was produced at the hearing but the testimony of Robert E. McDaniel Sr. concerning these prices was the most credible evidence presented. After the melons were shipped, sometimes as much as one week after, a track report was given to Robert E. McDaniel Jr. by Starling for initialing. Sometimes a price would be indicated on the track report but this price was based on selling price at point of destination and not the market price at point of shipment. Also, the letters "H.H." would also appear on the track report which, according to the testimony of Starling, indicated hollow heart but the evidence was insufficient to prove that Starling had rejected these loads for shipment because of a hollow heart condition in the melons. The loads in question were paid for by Respondent GMS based on a price at point of destination under its drafts no. 831912 and 851311. The amount in dispute is as follows: DATE TRACK NET AMOUNT AMOUNT SHIPPED
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent GMS be ordered to pay to the Petitioners the sum of $11.212.31. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent GMS fails to timely pay the Petitioners as ordered, then Respondent Commercial be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 13th day of June, 1986.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's licenses as an insurance agent in the State of Florida should be subjected to discipline and sanction for alleged violations of certain provisions of the Florida Insurance Code as set forth in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and treated herein.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed by the Department at all times material hereto as a as a life, health and variable annuity agent. Sometime in 1993 the Respondent met future client Margaret Buchholz, at a financial services seminar conducted in part by the Respondent. Upon the conclusion of that seminar, Ms. Buchholz told the Respondent that she would like to make an appointment with him to discuss her financial situation and financial services she might need. She had recently lost her husband and had moved to Florida from Minnesota. She was retired at the time and remains so. She had certain investments she had undertaken while living in Minnesota apparently consisting of mutual funds. She was dissatisfied with the services of her broker in that state concerning management of that investment. She desired to liquidate that investment and re-invest her funds in an appropriate investment through a Florida broker or agent. She also wished assistance in settling medical bills from her husband's last illness, particularly in determining the amount of her liability for those bills versus that which should be paid by medicare. She requested the Respondent's assistance in this regard as well. Sometime in 1993 or 1994, the company the Respondent was affiliated with performed an estate plan for Ms. Buchholz. Additionally, because she desired a safe investment for the proceeds of the investments she had liquidated after ending her relationship with the Minnesota broker, the Respondent and his wife Thelma Franzoni, who is also an agent, sold Ms. Buchholz a total of six annuities. The total money invested in the six annuities was $167,256.15. The commission for the sale of these annuities totaled $15,191.44. That amount was paid to the agency involved, Ameri-Life and Health Services, the broker with which the Franzonis were employed at the time. The total commissions paid to the Respondent from that broker, Ameri-Life, was $7,227.52. Through the course of their dealings and contacts a friendly relationship developed between the Franzonis and Ms. Buchholz. After Ms. Buchholz purchased the annuities the Franzonis visited her on a number of occasions. During one of those occasions a home health care product was sold to Ms. Buchholz by Ms. Franzoni. Sometime after that sale a new product which included long-term care or "nursing home care" was introduced to the market and Ms. Franzoni felt that this would be a more comprehensive plan and would be more cost effective and suitable to Ms. Buchholz. Ms. Franzoni contacted Ms. Buchholz and arranged an appointment. During that appointment an application was taken for that new insurance product and during the meeting Ms. Buchholz complained to the Respondent concerning the low interest rate she was earning on her annuities. She asked if he had anything that would pay her better than that. (This meeting was sometime in 1999, 4-5 years after she purchased the annuities.) The Respondent told Ms. Buchholz that indeed he had a new product called a viaticated insurance benefit. Ms. Buchholz asked that he explain it to her and he explained the product and left a viaticated insurance benefits participation disclosure statement or booklet with Ms. Buchholz, asking her to read it. He asked her after reading it to list any questions that she might have. He reviewed the complete disclosure package with her, explaining it to her. At a subsequent meeting the questions Ms. Buchholz had were presented to the Respondent and he explained the viaticated insurance benefit type of investment to her again. In response to Ms. Buchholz's concern about the low income or low interest rate of return, the Respondent recommended that she could liquidate some of her annuities and use the proceeds to fund the viaticated insurance benefit investment he recommended to her. Consequently, at his recommendation she liquidated three of her annuities to use the proceeds for that purpose. Pursuant to the annuity contracts entered into in approximately 1994, the surrender charges, at the stage of the life of the annuities when Ms. Buchholz surrendered or cashed them, totaled $12,103.38. Ms. Buchholz maintains that the Respondent failed to disclose those surrender charges to her and that those surrender penalties would have prevented her from deciding to liquidate those annuities and re-investing the proceeds had she been aware of them. The Respondent maintains that he did disclose the surrender penalties and that moreover, Ms. Buchholz knew of them because on three separate occasions she either signed or received official letters, documents or notices indicating to her the fact of and the amounts of the surrender charges involved in her "cashing in" of the subject annuities, starting with the original annuity contracts entered into in approximately 1994. She signed for and received the checks for the cashing of the annuities, which were accompanied by a disclosure of the surrender penalty amounts and details, by which she could again learn before she elected to receive and negotiate the checks. Ms. Buchholz received the annuity checks some three weeks before the viaticated insurance benefit investment was made. The Respondent contends that during those three weeks she could have still returned the money to the annuity company and cancelled her surrender of those annuities. In fact, she was advised in writing by companies that she actually had 60 days to return the funds and reinstate her annuities without penalties. This was after she had been informed in writing of the surrender charges. The Respondent explained the viaticated insurance benefits participation disclosure booklet or statement to Ms. Buchholz. He advised her also to read it after he left their meeting concerning the investment issue and to write down any questions he might have to present to him at a later meeting. He reviewed the complete "due diligence packet" with her, explaining it as well. The questions that she had were then presented to the Respondent and he answered them at a subsequent meeting. The viaticated insurance benefits were discussed between Mr. and Mrs. Franzoni and Ms. Buchholz on at least two meetings or occasions. At one of those meetings, the later one, she decided to purchase the viaticated insurance benefits. At a third meeting the application was completed. In the course of discussion of the prospect of investing in the viaticated insurance benefits investments or contracts, the Respondent did represent to Ms. Buchholz that she could earn or would have an opportunity to earn a rate of return of approximately 14 percent per year or 42 percent over the three-year maturity period or life of the viaticated benefit investment contracts. The record is not clear, however, that the Respondent represented the 14 percent return as an absolute guarantee to Ms. Buchholz. Indeed, the subject participation agreements or contracts, in evidence, provided to her by the Respondent, show that 14 percent was not an actual guarantee because, although it would be so if the investment contract matured in the projected three-year period (i.e. the viator died), if the maturity date extended longer than that, because the viator had not yet expired, the annualized return rate or percentage would be correspondingly lower. Conversely, if the viator expired sooner than the three-year period referenced in the agreements, the corresponding annual rate of return percentage would be higher. In any event, she had the opportunity to earn a higher return than the four and one-half percent she was receiving on the previous annuity investments. In the event, the viaticated insurance benefit did not mature in the three-year period, a "bailout provision" was provided in the contract whereby she would be paid if she "cashed out" of the contracts at the rate of 15 percent for the three-year period or a guaranteed five percent per year (simple interest) on the bailout provision. Ms. Buchholz used the proceeds from the liquidation of the annuities to purchase four viatical benefit contracts through the Respondent as sales agent, through Jeffery Paine, the escrow agent for American Benefits Services (ABS) and Financial Federation Title and Trust Company (FinFed). Additionally, she used "qualified," tax deferred proceeds from the surrender of the annuities to purchase viatical benefit contracts through the Respondent as sales agent, through Pensco, Inc., an administrator of self-directed IRA's and pension funds. The total amount for the viaticals purchased through Pensco was $61,788.12. An additional $26,764.00 was held by Pensco in a cash account to fund mandatory monthly IRA disbursements. Ms. Buchholz gave the Respondents two checks, one in the amount of $88,582.12 payable to Jeffery Paine, and one in the amount of $42,344.02 payable to Pensco pension services. These checks were in payment for the purchase of the viatical insurance benefit contracts at issue. Ultimately, it was revealed that the principals of ABS and FinFed. the viatical settlement brokers, were engaging in a "Ponzi scheme" whereby more viaticated investment contracts were sold to investors, such as Ms. Buchholz, than the companies ABS and FinFed had policies or funds with which to pay off investors. Consequently, through federal criminal proceedings, several of these principals were convicted and incarcerated. Ms. Buchholz ultimately lost approximately $100,000.00. The ABS/FinFed companies are in bankruptcy and the trustee in bankruptcy has paid investors including Ms. Buchholz, at the present time, approximately 23 percent of the investment principal. More reimbursements may be in the offing as the bankruptcy administration progresses. The escrow agent for the companies and the investors was Jeffery Paine, an attorney licensed by the Florida Bar Association. It was his duty and responsibility, as stated in the viaticated insurance benefits participation agreement disclosures, to ensure that the policies actually existed and were paid up in full force and effect. He was responsible to ascertain that they had survived the typical two-year contestable period, and that the life expectancies of the terminal viators had been investigated and documented by a state certified medical professional or physician. This was not the responsibility of the Respondent or other agents like him. Indeed agents such as the Respondent do not have access to medical records of viators. The duty to examine them is performed by the viatical settlement provider or escrow agent. The Respondent was not responsible for payment of premiums on any policies because the viatical settlement provider or escrow agent had a premium reserve account to provide payment of any necessary premiums. Indeed most of the policies involved in the subject case were covered under "waiver of premium" provisions, whereby, as is typically the case with life insurance policies, when the insured person becomes terminally ill or disabled, the premium is waived by the insurance company, It is probably true that Ms. Buchholz did not totally understand the nature of viatical investments and did not understand all risks associated with the investment; she rather relied on the Respondent based upon his representation. She admitted to not remembering everything about the details of the transactions and the documents she signed and admitted that she did not read much, if any, of the documents related to the viatical investments or to the annuities which she had owned previously. For his part, the Respondent made a fairly detailed due diligence investigation, as did his wife (who reported to him), to ascertain that the policies and the companies with whom he would be dealing in selling viatial benefit contracts were bona fide, duly-licensed and reputable companies, operating in good faith. This evidence by the Respondent tends to be borne out as to its creditability because the Respondent's wife, after this due diligence investigation, invested $51,000.00 of her own money and the Franzonis also sold viatical benefit contracts to several of their own family members. The Respondent's showing that he was unaware of the "Ponzi scheme" and illegal and criminal acts of the principals of the company he represented is deemed credible and is accepted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the subject Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Santurri, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Augustus Peter Franzoni 43 Cimmaron Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32313 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent's Licensure and Work History Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed by Petitioner as a general lines (property and casualty) insurance agent. At no time material to the instant case has he been licensed as a surplus lines agent. In the 30 plus years that he has been in the insurance business, no licensing agency has taken any disciplinary action against him. From January of 1997 until July of 1997 (which includes the entire period during which the events described in the Administrative Complaint took place), Respondent worked as an insurance agent for Braishfield of Florida, Inc. (Braishfield), an insurance agency/brokerage firm. (In July of 1997, he started his own insurance agency/brokerage firm, Bandel and Associates, which he still operates.) The Saxony Condominium Association The Saxony Condominium Association (Association) consists of the owners of the 672 units (located in 14 buildings) in the "Saxony" section of the Kings Point condominium development in Delray Beach. The development is approximately seven to ten miles from the Atlantic Ocean. For the past six years, Elinor Lichten has been the president of the Association. The Association's Insurance Committee In August of 1992, before Ms. Lichten became president of the Association, Hurricane Andrew made landfall in the South Florida area and caused extensive property damage. In the years that followed, the premiums that the Association paid for insurance increased dramatically. In February of 1996, in an effort to contain these escalating insurance costs, the Association formed an insurance committee. Ms. Lichten named Dan Miller to serve as the chairman of the committee. Mr. Miller appointed the remaining members on the committee. Ed Greenbaum was among those Mr. Miller appointed to the committee. Ms. Lichten was not a voting member of the committee, although she did attend some (but not all) of the committee's meetings. The Association's Fireman's Fund Policies At the time the insurance committee was formed, the Association was insured by Fireman's Fund. It obtained this insurance coverage through Sedgwick James of Florida, Inc. (Sedgwick). The insurance agent who represented Sedgwick in its dealings with the Association was J. Simione. In October of 1996, the Association received a notice that the Fireman's Fund policies would not be renewed. Upon receiving the notice, Ms. Lichten telephoned Mr. Simione, who advised her that he was "negotiating to reinstate that policy and that in all probability it would be reinstated." Mr. Simione subsequently contacted Ms. Lichten and advised her that the negotiations had been successful. The Fireman's Fund policies were thereafter renewed. The renewed policies had an effective date of December 1, 1996, and an expiration date of December 1, 1997. The Association agreed to the renewal notwithstanding the renewed policies' high premiums and deductibles. Members of the insurance committee, who had met with Mr. Simione "between three to five times" prior to the renewal of the policies, had advised the committee members that there were no better options available and that they should "be absolutely delighted [to] have the coverage [they] had since insurance companies were not renewing policies." When they asked Mr. Simione to "find [a] layered program [for the Association, like those other condominium associations in the area had] where the [risk] is divided so that the premiums are reduced," Mr. Simione told them that it "wasn't possible," explaining that "all of the layering programs [they] had referred to had since fallen apart." The Insurance Committee's Discussions with Respondent Following the renewal of the Fireman's Fund policies, members of insurance committee, at the direction Mr. Miller, "start[ed] to interview" other insurance agents "to see whether or not Mr. Simione's comment to [them concerning the unavailability of a layered program for the Association] had any validity." Respondent was the second agent to be "interview[ed]." He was initially contacted by Ed Greenbaum, who told him that the insurance committee "was very upset by the current coverage package they had" and wanted to see if "there was something better." Respondent spoke subsequently with both Mr. Greenbaum and Mr. Miller. Following this conversation, he sent Mr. Greenbaum the following letter, dated February 23, 1997: It was pleasure talking to you and Dan Miller and I appreciate your candor. Based on the information you provided on the phone, it appears the premiums and deductibles that are currently in force are excessive. My comment is based on what is available in the marketplace today. It appears that the earliest I can sit down and discuss this with the board is in May. My recommendation is that we move our meeting up to March or April. This will enable us to obtain the best possible terms and conditions as we will have ample time prior to the beginning of the hurricane season. The association has nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain. My evaluation requires a minimum amount of time. After our meeting and a review of the current program and losses, I will be in a position to confirm in writing what improvements can be made. I look forward to hearing from you. Respondent provided the "marketing person" at Braishfield with the information he had been provided by Mr. Greenbaum and Mr. Miller concerning the Association's insurance needs and loss history. The "marketing person" thereupon canvassed the market to determine if there were any alternatives to the Fireman's Fund policies. Such canvassing revealed that there did exist an alternative to the Fireman's Fund policies, in the form of a layered program in which three of the participating insurers were not "authorized insurers," as that term is used in Florida's "Surplus Lines Law." The "marketing person" prepared the following "Statement of Diligent Effort" for Respondent's signature as the "producing agent": Pursuant to [sic] Section 626.914(4), Florida Statutes, requires producing agents to document that a diligent effort has been made to place a risk with at least three (3) authorized insurers prior to contacting a surplus lines agent to export the risk in the surplus lines market. The following form, prescribed by the Department, must be completed IN FULL for each risk. Name of person contacted and telephone number are MANDATORY. COUNTY OF RISK: Palm Beach County NAME OF INSURED: Saxony A-N Condominium Association TYPE OF COVERAGE: Property AUTHORIZED INSURER #1 NAME- Hartford Insurance TELEPHONE NUMBER- 800-824-1732 PERSON CONTACTED- Ben Wilson DATE OF CONTACT- March 21, 1997 REASON FOR DECLINATION- Type of Risk/Property Location AUTHORIZED INSURER #2 NAME- General Accident Ins. TELEPHONE NUMBER- 407-660-1985 PERSON CONTACTED- Bob Rayser DATE OF CONTACT- March 21, 1997 REASON FOR DECLINATION- Type of Risk/Property Location AUTHORIZED INSURER #2 NAME- RISCORP TELEPHONE NUMBER- 800-226-7472 PERSON CONTACTED- Bryan Flowers DATE OF CONTACT- March 21, 1997 REASON FOR DECLINATION- Risk does not qualify for program Respondent signed this "Statement of Diligent Effort" on the line provided for the "[s]ignature of [p]roducing [a]gent." He did so in good faith based upon the representations made to him by the "marketing person." In April of 1997, Respondent met with members of the insurance committee and Ms. Lichten at Mr. Miller's residence to discuss the possibility of the Association obtaining, through Braishfield, the layered program of insurance described above to replace the Fireman's Fund policies that were then in effect. Respondent, on behalf of Braishfield, made a "conceptual" proposal at the meeting. After the meeting, Respondent sent the following letter, dated April 16, 1997, to Dan Miller: It was a pleasure meeting with you and the committee and again I want to apologize for arriving late. Per our discussions, we will provide our final proposal after receiving written confirmation regarding the three year loss history for property and liability. Our proposal will be effective June 1, however we will use whatever date is acceptable to the committee. We anticipate, it will take us approximately two weeks from the time we go into the marketplace until everything is finalized. It appears, there is minimal exposure for equipment, such as heating, cooling and electrical systems. Consequently, we will not include machinery and equipment breakdown in our final proposal. I strongly recommend that you obtain an updated appraisal on your buildings as it is extremely important that your replacement cost reflect today's cost. This will eliminate any potential coinsurance or under insurance problem in the event of a loss. I look forward to working with you and the committee and being appointed as your broker to assist you in all your insurance needs. In May of 1997, Respondent, on behalf of Braishfield, presented a detailed formal written proposal (Braishfield's Written Proposal) to the Association. Braishfield's Written Proposal contained an "Executive Summary" which read as follows: Executive Summary Per our conceptual proposal and correspondence of April 16, we are pleased to present our final program including terms and conditions. Our proposal is based on information provided by the Insurance Committee on policies that are currently in force. Our comparison of coverages incorporates this information. The differences are what we believe to be the key or salient features of each program. The bottom line is, we are offering a substantial premium savings, significantly lower deductibles with comparable coverage. Our recommendation is to appoint Braishfield of Florida as your broker to place all coverage in effect as soon as possible. The "final program" referenced in the "Executive Summary" was a layered program. The "[p]articipating [c]arriers" in the program and their "Best's Ratings" were listed as follows in Braishfield's Written Proposal: PARTICIPATING CARRIERS Property Insurance Carriers Best's Rating Lexington Insurance A++15 General Star Insurance A++7 Royal Surplus Lines A-7 General Liability/Crime New Hampshire Insurance A++15 Directors & Officers Liability Chubb Insurance Group A++15 Umbrella Liability Great American Insurance A+11 The three "carriers" providing "property insurance" coverage were not "authorized insurers," within the meaning of the "Surplus Lines Law." The "[b]enefits of the Braishfield [p]roposed [p]rogram [o]ver [c]urrent [p]rogram" were described in Braishfield's Written Proposal as follows: A Premium Savings of $42,529 Annually.* No Coinsurance Penalty. A 2% Deductible per building as respect to the perils of wind and hail. A $5,000,000 limit for Excess Liability A $5,000 AOP Deductible * Our premium savings is based on the following: Company Coverage Premiums Fireman's Fund Package $144,071 Fireman's Fund Umbrella $2,168 TOTAL $146,239 $ 12,966 (Agent's Fee) TOTAL $159,205 Proposal Cancellation Date June 1, 1997 Pro Rata Return Premium- $79,761 Short Rate Return Premium- $71,801 NOTE: A $1,000,000 Umbrella would produce a further savings of $3,395 Braishfield's Written Proposal also contained a "Program Comparison," which provided as follows: Coverage Current Proposed Program Program $20,454,000 Blanket As Per Limit on Schedule Real and Personal Property Coinsurance Yes No Demolition $250,000 Cost Law & $5,000,000 $500,000 Ordinance Deductible -Wind 3% of $20,454,00 2% Per Building -AOP $10,000 $5,000 Valuation Replacement Cost Re- Placement Cost Unnamed Yes See Note Storm Deductible Umbrella $1,000,00 $5,000,000 Limit NOTE: Our comparison does not include unnamed storm wind coverage. This will be discussed during the presentation. Respondent met with the committee members and Ms. Lichten for about eight hours on or about May 6, 1997. At the meeting, he explained Braishfield's Written Proposal in detail and answered questions. On or about May 9, 1997, Respondent sent the following letter to Mr. Miller for the insurance committee's consideration: The benefits to the association under Braishfield's proposal are: A $5,000 AOP deductible Significantly lower premium No co-insurance penalty A superior wind deductible in the event of a catastrophe such a hurricane. The elimination of any rate increase in 1997 even if this is a bad year for the insurance industry. Outstanding insurance service will include a renewal strategy meeting 120 days prior to expiration. This meeting will disclose options, market conditions and pricing projections. This will allow the committee to act proactively instead of reactively in the best interest of the association. -$5,000,000 Umbrella. One other point to consider involves the payment of premium. If you cancel the Fireman's Fund Package policy on June 1, the earned premium is estimated to be $72,035. If you include a short rate penalty this increases to $79,239. Including the May installment the association has paid $96,165. The difference or the return premium due the association is $24,130 which should be refunded within 60 days. Since you have paid more premium than is earned no payment should be made for June. This enables the association to apply June's payment of $12,015 toward the down payment under Braishfield's program of $26,557.16. The net amount the association has to come up with is $14,542.16. I trust this will be helpful to the committee. It has not been shown that that Respondent at any time knowingly provided the Association (through its officers and representatives) with any false or misleading information or that he knowingly, with the intent to deceive, hid any information from the Association. He disclosed, among other things, that Braishfield's proposed layered program, unlike the Fireman's Fund policies, included "unauthorized insurers" and explained the differences between "unauthorized" and "authorized" insurers. In explaining these differences, he talked about the Florida Insurance Guaranty Act, which protects those insured by "authorized insurers" in the event of insurer insolvency, but does not offer similar protection to those insured by "unauthorized insurers." Respondent also advised that the mid- term cancellation of the Fireman's Fund policies would result in a "short rate" penalty and, in addition, he discussed how Braishfield's proposed layered program would be financed and the interest rates that would be charged. The Association's Acceptance of Braishfield's Written Proposal The insurance committee brought Braishfield's Written Proposal before the Association's board of directors, which voted 15 to 14 in favor of accepting the proposal and replacing the Fireman's Fund policies with the layered program proposed by Braishfield. Post-Acceptance Activities After learning of the results of the vote, Respondent sent the following letter, dated May 27, 1997, to Mr. Miller: I was delighted to hear that the board has made their decision in favor of Braishfield. If we are looking at a May 31, 1997, effective date it is essential that the following matters be addressed immediately: The original finance agreement signed in the appropriate places indicated by "x." A check in the amount of $26,557.67 should be made payable to Braishfield of Florida for the down payment. Both the finance agreement and the check must be available to be picked up by me prior to May 31, 1997. A broker of record letter naming Braishfield on the Director's and Officer's liability policy must be executed and signed. The specific policy number should be included in the caption. A sample letter was included in our final proposal. We will be sending you a completed statement of values form which will require signature of a board or insurance committee member. I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter advising the agent to cancel all coverages effective May 31, 1997. Included is a request to confirm the return premium due the association as well as any unearned fee that will be returned. This letter should be written on Saxony letterhead and signed by you or the President of the association. In accordance with Respondent's suggestion, Ms. Lichten sent the following letter, dated May 28, 1997, to Mr. Simione: Re: Fireman's Commercial Insurance Pkg. Policy #S15MZX80662013 Fireman's Umbrella Insurance Policy #XSC 00074217738 Dear Mr. Simione: Effective May 31, 1997, please cancel above captioned policies. The Saxony Board of Directors at a Special Meeting held on May 27, 1997 voted to appoint a new agent. Please acknowledge the above cancellation in writing and also confirm the return premium due under each policy, including any penalty. Confirmation of any unearned brokerage fee should also be included. All calculations should be based on a May 31, 1997 cancellation date. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration you have given Saxony over the past few years. The following day, May 29, 1997, Ms. Lichten sent the following letter, with the described enclosures, to Respondent: Enclosed herewith please find the following: Duly signed Finance Agreement for our Insurance as agreed upon. Check #001 payable to Braishfield of Florida date May 28, 1997 drawn on Sun Trust in the amount of $26,557.67, which represents our down payment. Please send us [a] letter acknowledging receipt of the above together with [a] letter indicating that we will indeed have insurance as we agreed to commencing May 31, 1997. Looking forward to working with you. That same day, May 29, 1997, Respondent sent Ms. Lichten "copies of binders confirming coverage effective May 31, 1997 as per [Braishfield's] May 6th proposal." On June 5, 1997, Ms. Lichten sent Mr. Simione a signed (by Ms. Lichten) and dated (May 29, 1997) "Cancellation Request/Policy Release" form formally requesting cancellation of the Fireman's Fund policies, effective May 31, 1997. On or about June 20, 1997, Ms. Lichten was sent a Certificate of Insurance "certify[ing] that the policies listed [which had been described in Braishfield's Written Proposal] ha[d] been issued to the [Association] for the policy period indicated [May 31, 1997, to May 31, 1998]." On or about June 30, 1997, the appraiser that the Association had hired (Allied Appraisal Service) completed the "updated appraisal on [the Association's] buildings" that Respondent had recommended. Respondent reviewed the appraisal report and prepared a written analysis of the report, which he subsequently discussed with the members of the insurance committee and Ms. Lichten. In his written analysis, Respondent stated, among other things, the following: This proposal analyzes the appraisal made by Allied Appraisal Service on June 30, covering the building and surrounding improvements at Saxony "E," Delray Beach, Florida 33446. The purpose is two fold. To ascertain if the values being reported to the insurance companies reflect as closely as possible the exposure at risk. This includes the impact on coverages such as limits and deductibles. The other area is the premium which includes various options. The property coverage is underwritten in a layered program using three companies. The total limit of coverage is $20,454,000, which is subject to a sublimit per building of $1,461,000. Based on the updated appraisal, the 100% replacement cost on buildings and improvements is $24,561,978 which breaks down to $1,754,427 per building. These amounts were arrived at by eliminating and or reducing those items that were not the responsibility of the association. Other adjustments were made regarding contingencies and contractor's profit which should be discussed. The breakdown is provided on Exhibit I attached. The difference or the amount of increase required to comply with the appraisal is $4,107,978. The change in values increases the wind deductible from $29,220 to $35,088 per building. On or about July 18, 1997, Respondent (who, by this time, had left the employ of Braishfield and had started his own insurance agency/brokerage firm) sent Ms. Lichten a letter, which read as follows: Per our meeting with the insurance committee on Wednesday, July 16, it was recommended the building values be amended based on the property appraisal made by Allied Appraisal Service[] on June 30, 1997. The 100% replacement value including improvements is $24,561,978. The total amount of insurance in force is $20,454,000. The net result is a[n] increase of $4,107,978. Also included in the appraisal is the cost to change certain items revised by current building codes. This is known as law or ordinance coverage. We recommend an increase in the limit by $850,000 to $1,350,000 to cover the additional exposure. Both of the above increases place the property insurance in compliance with the appraisal. The underwriter has agreed to provide blanket coverage using 90% coinsurance. The blanket amount excluding law or ordinance coverage is $22,105,760. This is an improvement over the existing program as the blanket amount would apply to any one loss and the basis for determining the premium would be significantly less. Using an effective date of July 31, the additional premium including taxes and fees is $8,446.20. In addition to the improvement in coverage and key deductibles, our program provides a net savings in excess of $34,000 a year over the Fireman's Fund policy. The changes that Respondent had recommended based upon the "updated Appraisal" were "bound," as Respondent advised Ms. Lichten by the following letter dated August 12, 1997: This will confirm that effective July 31, the following changes have been bound: The total insurable value increased to $22,105,780. The Law or Ordinance coverage increased to $1,350,000. Coverage is on a blanket basis. The coinsurance clause has been amended to 90%. The 2% wind deductible per building is increased to $31,580. All of these changes were based on the property appraisal made by Allied Appraisal Service on June 30, with some exceptions, such as Misc. & Contingencies and Overhead/Profits. It was agreed by the insurance committee not to include these items. Attached is our invoice amount of $8,446.20 representing the additional premium due hereunder. Please make your check payable to Braishfield of Florida and send it to me. In October of 1997, Respondent submitted a renewal proposal to the Association. The proposal was accepted and renewed coverage was bound, effective December 1, 1997, for a period of three years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing insurance agents of all types, regulating licensure status, and enforcing the practice standards of licensed agents within the powers granted by the Legislature in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the disciplinary action, Respondent Mahle was licensed as an insurance agent in the following areas: Life and Health Insurance and Health Insurance. During the last quarter of the year 1988, New Concept Insurance, Inc. mailed brochures to residents of Naples, Florida, which stated that representatives of the company were willing to provide information about long- term care insurance, including nursing facility benefits, to interested parties. Those who wanted to learn more about the insurance were asked to return their name, address and telephone number to the company on an enclosed card. Eleanor Drown responded to the advertisement, and an appointment was arranged for Thomas DiBello and Respondent Mahle to meet with her regarding the insurance program. On November 10, 1988, Thomas DiBello and Respondent Mahle met with Ms. Drown and discussed the benefits of a long-term care policy with a nursing facility daily benefit of one hundred dollars ($100.00). After the discussion, Ms. Drown completed an application for the insurance and gave it to Respondent Mahle, along with a check for five thousand one hundred and eighty-three dollars and forty-nine cents ($5,183.49). During the insurance transaction on November 10, 1988, Ms. Drown was given a receipt which states: This receipt is given and accepted with the express understanding that the insurance you applied for will not be in force until the policy is issued and the first premium is paid in full. If your application cannot be approved, we will promptly refund your money. Application is made to the company checked (/) on this receipt. On another area of the receipt, it is clearly written, as follows: If Acknowledgement of Application does not reach you within 20 days, write to: Mutual Protective Insurance Company, 151 South 75th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124. The Respondent Mahle did not forward the application and the check completed by Ms. Drown to Mutual Protective Insurance Company. The check issued by Ms. Drown to Mutual Protective Insurance Company was deposited into the account of New Concept Insurance, Inc. A cashier's check for the same amount of money was issued by New Concept Insurance, Inc. to Ms. Drown on March 7, 1989. The letter from New Concept that was mailed with the check represented that the check was the refund of the money paid to Mutual Protective Insurance Company by Ms. Drown. Mitigation An application for long-term care insurance from a different insurance company was sent to Ms. Drown by Respondent Mahle on March 2, 1989. Although this course of conduct was not directly responsive to the duties owed by the Respondent to Mutual Protective Insurance Company or his customer, Ms. Drown, it does demonstrate a concern about the insurance needs requested by the customer. This conduct also reveals that there was no intention to convert the funds received to the Respondent's own use, and it explains some of the delay in the return of the premium funds to the customer. The Respondent has been an insurance agent for twenty years. This was the only complaint against the Respondent the Hearing Officer was made aware of during the proceedings. The allegations in the Complaint involve a single insurance transaction.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of one violation of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, and one violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, during a single insurance transaction. That the Respondent pay an administrative penalty of $500.00 for the two violations of the Insurance Code within thirty days of the imposition of the penalty. That the Respondent be placed upon six month's probation. During this probation period, he should file a report with the Department demonstrating the manner in which he intends to keep accurate business records which assure him, the insurance company, and the customer that he is continuously accounting for premium funds and promptly carrying out his fiduciary responsibilities. That the Respondent's requests for licensure dated October 10, 1989 and May 18, 1990, be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-6040 The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Rejected. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accept that Ms. Drown's funds remained in the insurance agency's financial accounts for four months. Reject that the interest bearing ability of these funds is relevant in any manner to this case. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Rejected. This testimony was rejected by the hearing officer as self serving. It was not found to be credible. Rejected for the same reasons given immediately above. Accepted, but not particularly probative. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer. Accept that an application for Penn Treaty Insurance was sent to Ms. Drown on this date. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer. Rejected. Self serving. Not believed or found to be credible by the hearing officer. Accepted. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Christopher Anderson III, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark P. Smith, Esquire GOLDBERG, GOLDSTEIN & BUCKLEY, P.A. 1515 Broadway Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2366 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
