The Issue Did Respondent Williams fail to make an accounting for and payment to Petitioner for the proceeds of agricultural products purchased by Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Six L's grows watermelons in Collier County, Florida. It is therefore a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Respondent Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company is a dealer in agricultural products who engages in business in Florida. Respondent Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company is the surety for a bond posted by Respondent Williams to insure compliance with Section 604.20, Florida Statutes (1979). On May 26, 1980, Six L's sold 46,700 pounds of field run, crimson sweet, watermelons to Respondent Williams at a price of 5 1/2 cents per pound for a total cost of $2,568.50. The sale was negotiated between Mr. Charles Weisinger, a salesman for Six L's, and Mr. Larry DiMaria. Mr. DiMaria at that time was a purchasing agent for Respondent Williams. They agreed that the sale would be F.O.B. at Immokalee, Florida. On May 26, 1980 a truck under contract to Respondent Williams was loaded with 46,700 pounds of crimson sweet field run watermelons from the farm of Petitioner Six L's. The weight was verified by the Immokalee State Farmer's Market at 6:59 p.m., May 26, 1980. At that time Mr. DiMaria inspected the watermelons and accepted them on behalf of Respondent Williams. On the following day, May 27, 1980, Mr. DiMaria made payment for the watermelons by issuing check #465 drawn on the account of Williams Farms in the amount of $2,568.50, payable to Six L's Packing Company. Before Six L's could collect on the check, payment was stopped by Respondent Williams, and no payment for the watermelons has since been made by either Respondent. The final hearing in this case was initially noticed for December 4, 1980. At the request of Respondent Williams and with the agreement of Six L's it was continued to a later date. The final hearing was rescheduled for May 11, 1981 in Fort Myers, Florida at 10:00 a.m. At that time neither Respondent made an appearance. In order to give them time to appear the hearing was recessed until 10:30 a.m. At that time it resumed and was concluded at 11:30 a.m. with still no appearance by either Respondent. To the knowledge of the undersigned no attempt was made by the Respondents to request a continuance or otherwise explain their failure to appear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company indebted to Six L's Packing Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,568.50. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer 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 Gopherbroke was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 4528 by the Department, and bonded by Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast (Hartford) in the sum of $25,000. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Hartford 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 April 1, 1985, Petitioner and Robert Neill, President of Gopherbroke, verbally agreed for Respondent Gopherbroke to act as agent in the sale of certain zucchini squash produced by Petitioner in 1985 on a net return basis, i.e. Petitioner to receive the gross sale price of the squash minus a handling fee of $0.50 per carton and a sales commission of 1/ 6.5 per cent of the gross sales price. Between April 1, 1985 and April 12, 1985 Petitioner through Tommy York delivered to Respondent Gopherbroke 84, 107 and 19 cartons of small, medium and large zucchini squash respectively for a total of 210 cartons represented by receipt tickets numbers 276-282 issued by Respondent Gopherbroke. Petitioner and Tommy York (York) had an agreement whereby York would harvest, clean, grade, package and deliver the zucchini squash produced by Petitioner to Respondent Gopherbroke for a percentage of the net proceeds derived from the sale of the squash. Respondent Gopherbroke was not a party to the agreement between Petitioner and York and was not authorized to withhold any money derived from the sale of Petitioner's squash to be paid to York under York's agreement with Petitioner. The net return on the 210 cartons of zucchini squash referred to in paragraph 6 above was $698.17 of which Petitioner has received only $349.09, the balance of $349.08 was paid to York by Respondent Gopherbroke. After April 12, 1985 York was no longer involved in the harvesting of Petitioner's squash due to a disagreement between York and Petitioner. On April 15 and 17, 1985 Petitioner delivered 30, 62 and 3 cartons of small, medium and large zucchini squash, respectively to Respondent Gopherbroke. The net return on the 95 cartons of zucchini squash referred to in paragraph 10 above was $127.35 which has been paid to Petitioner in two separate checks. However, Petitioner was not paid for 5 cartons of medium zucchini squash that Respondent Gopherbroke shows on its exhibit 2 (4/19 - 8731) as being dumped and on 21 cartons of medium zucchini squash Respondent Gopherbroke shows on its exhibit 2 (4/17 - 87298) as open but later shows a gross sale of $47.25 with charges of $10.50 for handling and $3.07 commission and an adjustment of $43.29 for a minus net proceeds to Petitioner of $9.61. The evidence is clear that the zucchini squash delivered to Respondent Gopherbroke by Petitioner on April 15 and 17, 1985 were harvested, cleaned, graded and packaged by Petitioner and his family and were of good quality when delivered. Respondent Gopherbroke presented no testimony or documentary evidence to support the dumping of the 5 cartons of squash or any justification for the adjustment on the 21 cartons of squash. On at least one occasion, Petitioner advised Respondent Gopherbroke that it was not authorized to pay York any of moneys owed to Petitioner by Respondent Gopherbroke for zucchini squash delivered by York. The price of medium zucchini squash during the period that the 5 cartons were dumped was $2.00 per carton for a gross amount of $10.00 minus the handling fee of $2.50 for a net return of $7.50. A sales commission of $0.65 had been deducted in Respondent Gopherbroke's earlier calculation. Petitioner was not furnished an account of sales within 48 hours after Respondent Gopherbroke sold the squash and the earliest payment for the squash was made 9 days after Respondent Gopherbroke had collected for Petitioner's squash.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Gopherbroke be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $399.87. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Gopherbroke fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Hartford be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes 1983 and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1986.
The Issue Should the Department of Insurance (now known as the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation) (Department) approve three insurance endorsement forms that State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) filed on November 15, 2001?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: State Farm is a domestic insurance company that the Department has licensed to transact property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate insurers doing business in the State of Florida. State Farm offers five types of homeowners' policies that have been approved for use in Florida, an FP-7921 (HO1), FP-7923 (HO3), FP-7924 (HO4), FP-7925 ( HO5-Extra), and FP-2926 (HO6). The HO1 is a "named perils" policy and provides coverage only for those perils specifically named in the policy. This policy is not offered in other states, and in Florida accounts for less than one percent of all of all policies in force. The HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies are known as "open perils" policies providing coverage for all risks unless specifically excluded by the policy. Although similar to HO3, the HO5 policy provides somewhat broader coverage with respect to settlement provisions. The HO6 policy is specifically geared toward condominium owners and the HO4 policy is the policy form that applies to renters. Of all the policies offered in Florida, the HO3 is the most widely used policy form and will be quoted from and used as the exemplar in this Recommended Order. The HO3 policy contains introductory provisions entitled "Declarations" and "Definitions," and is then divided into two coverage sections, Sections I and II. Section I refers to property coverage and with Section II referring to liability coverage. Section I is divided into a number of subcategories including the following: Coverage A (Dwelling), Coverage B (Personal Property), Section C (Loss of Use), Additional Coverage, Losses Insured, Losses Not Insured, and Conditions. Following the Section II provisions there are additional sections entitled "Section I and II-Conditions" and a section entitled "Optional Provisions." The HO3 policy provides coverage under Coverage A (Dwelling) for all risks of loss unless it is a "loss not insured." As stated in the policy: "We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) However, coverage for personal property (Coverage B) does not provide such "open perils" coverage. Rather, it provides coverage only for 16 named perils, contains a number of limitations on personal property that it does cover, and reflects a number of personal property items that it does not cover. All of State Farm's homeowners' policies currently provide some limited coverage relating to mold. Although the policies exclude mold as a covered peril, they provide some limited coverage for mold-related losses resulting from covered perils, such as a covered water loss that causes mold-related damage. Historically, there have been exclusions in property insurance for ordinance of law, earth movement, flood, war, the neglect of the insured, and nuclear hazard. Mold that resulted from a covered peril has historically not been excluded. On November 15, 2001, State Farm filed three proposed endorsement forms (Fungus (Including Mold) Exclusion Endorsement): (1) FE-5397 for use with HO1 policies; (2) FE- 5398, for use with HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies; and (3) FE-5399 for use with HO4 policies. The homeowners' policies, which the endorsements were to apply, had been previously approved by, and were on file with the Department, in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The goal of the endorsements was to eliminate mold coverage from State Farm's existing homeowners policies in Florida. State Farm's current rates do not include the cost of providing the mold coverage that the endorsements seek to exclude. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that State Farm would need to substantially raise its rates to include those costs. Before filing the mold-exclusion endorsements, State Farm entered into discussions with the Department about giving policyholders the choice of buying back some of the to-be- excluded mold coverage through buy-back endorsements (buy- backs). State Farm filed its buy-backs in June 2002, after failing to work out a solution with the Department that would have allowed for their approval. Although the Department disapproved the buy-backs in December 2002, State Farm has committed itself to provide policyholders with the optional buy-backs, if the exclusions are approved. If the exclusion endorsements are approved along with the buy-back provisions, any cost increase would be restricted to those policyholders who choose to purchase mold coverage through a buy-back. State Farm's filings of mold-exclusion endorsements are consistent with a nationwide effort by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, an affiliate of State Farm to eliminate mold coverage in homeowners policies. In Florida, State Farm's endorsements accomplish the complete elimination of mold coverage chiefly through the addition of a new exclusion for fungus, including mold, within "SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements, when coupled with the underlying policy, state in relevant part as follows: 2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as result of any combination of these: * * * g. Fungus. (Emphasis in the original.) (The text of the endorsement is underlined.) The endorsements delete all references to the term mold found in SECTION 1 - LOSSES INSURED. (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements define fungus as follows: "fungus" means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts produced or released by fungi. (Emphasis furnished.) This total exclusion of mold coverage, using language clearly encompassing all manner of causation and occurrence, replaces the mold exclusions in the existing policies that do not use such broad language. The difference between the post- and pre-endorsement policies can be seen from comparing the above-quoted endorsement as incorporated into HO3 policy on the one hand, with the mold exclusions as they currently exist in the HO3 policy on the other hand. While the endorsements totally exclude coverage for fungus (mold), and deny payment for mold damage historically provided to insureds, the endorsements are not ambiguous, notwithstanding the testimony offered by the Department to the contrary, which lacks credibility. The endorsements do not add coverage. Instead, the endorsements eliminate coverage for mold that currently exists. However, this fact alone does not render the endorsements inconsistent, misleading, or deceptive when the endorsements are read in their entirety along with the remaining provisions of the policies. State Farm's endorsements were initially deemed approved pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, which provides that an endorsement filed with the Department is deemed approved if it is not approved or disapproved within 30 days, or 45 days if there has been an extension, of its filing.. By letter dated June 28, 2002, the Department withdrew its deemed approval of the three endorsements and notified State Farm of its basis for disapproval. The Department's original disapproval letter cites three bases for disapproval. The Department asserts that State Farm's endorsements: (1) contain ambiguities in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; (2) deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract, also in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and (3) deny policyholders the right to obtain "comprehensive coverage" as that term is used in Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is part of the policyholders' bill of rights. On December 4, 2002, the Department moved for leave to amend its original disapproval letter. The motion was granted. The Department's amended disapproval letter, which the Department back-dated to June 28, 2002, reiterates the previously alleged bases for disapproval and cites two additional bases for disapproval: (1) the alleged violation of Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, itself constitutes a violation of Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) the endorsements, because they exclude coverage that "through custom and usage has become a standard or uniform provision" in Florida, violate Section 627.412(2), Florida Statutes. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the provision for mold coverage has, through custom and usage, become a standard or uniform provision. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that there is a "natural association between mold and water." In the fall of 2001, the Department began receiving a large influx of filings seeking to exclude or severely limit coverage for mold. Including State Farm's filing, the Department received between 400 and 450 filings representing between 200 and 250 insurers primarily between October 1, 2001, through the end of 2002. In the face of the inordinate number of filings, the Department sought input from all sectors of the public. The Department met with insurers and other interested persons and held four public forums around the state to determine the impact the filings would have on insurance contracts, the industry, and the market place. In the mean time, the Department routinely sought waivers from the insurers of the statutory review period set forth in Section 627.410(2), Florida Statutes, and additionally requested that insurers withdraw their filings. Insurers were advised by the Department that failure to waive the statutory review period or to withdraw their filings would result in the filing being disapproved. The Department initially approved the endorsements to limit or exclude mold coverage of three insurers: USAA, Maryland Casualty, and American Strategic. However, the Department withdrew its approval for each of these companies in letters dated September 18, 2002. The Department asserts that it does not have a policy to disapprove filings simply because they discuss mold or seek to limit or exclude coverage for claims involving mold damage. The Department admits that it is required to examine all filings based upon the statutory scheme. However, the Department has not approved a single one of the over 450 filings, regardless of the language or structure of the endorsements. The simple fact is that the Department had a policy from the fall of 2001 through December 16, 2002, imposing a moratorium on the exclusion or limitation of mold coverage. The Department altered that policy on December 17, 2002, when it entered into a settlement with Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), wherein Farm Bureau's endorsement was approved allowing a reduction in mold coverage from policy limits to a sub-limit of $10,000.00 per occurrence, $20,000.00 annual aggregate. The Department's previous position that policies offered to Florida's consumers should not be significantly reduced was abandoned at that time. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the $10,000.00 coverage was a reasonable amount of coverage for the vast majority of claims for mold damage. The endorsements seek to limit or exclude coverage for mold that has existed for decades. There is scant Florida experience to support the need for limitations or exclusions on mold coverage. Even so, the Department cannot disapprove endorsement forms without authority to do so. There is no statutory authority mandating mold coverage to the extent of policy limits or otherwise in order for policyholders to have comprehensive coverage. Beginning September 15, 2001, the Department did not approve a single mold endorsement seeking to exclude or limit coverage for mold as a resulting loss from a covered peril until December 17, 2002, when it approved a filing by Farm Bureau as a part of a settlement of an administrative proceeding in which the parties were awaiting ruling after a final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the endorsements filed with the Department by State Farm on November 15, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Ryan Reetz, Esquire Jim Toplin, Esquire Amie Riggle, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire State Farm Florida Insurance Company 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 344 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Does Respondent Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. (Horizon) owe Petitioner Richard Sapp, d/b/a Sapp Farms (Sapp Farms) $5,484.50 as alleged in the Amended Complaint filed herein by Sapp Farms?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Sapp Farms was a "producer" as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Tomatoes come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. Horizon is a Florida Corporation, owned entirely by Donald E. Hinton, and located in Sydney, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Horizon was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Horizon was issued License Number 10584, supported by Bond Number 58 84 19 in the amount of $16,000 written by Gulf Life Insurance Company, as Surety, with an inception date of September 26, 1998, and an expiration date of September 25, 1999. By Invoice numbered 1262, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 6, dated June 18, 1999, with a shipping date of June 16, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon several varieties and sizes of tomatoes in 25-pound cartons at an agreed-upon price of $9.00 per 25-pound carton for 267 cartons and $8.00 per 25-pound carton for 104 cartons for a total amount of $3,235.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. By check dated July 3, 1999, Horizon paid Sapp Farms $1,415.00 on these tomatoes leaving a balance owing of $1,820.00. By Invoice numbered 1263, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 10, dated June 22, 1999, with a shipping date of June 22, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 122 25-pound cartons of extra large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, 51 25- pound cartons of large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, and 296 25-pound cartons of 125-150 count Roma tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton for a total invoiced price of $3,752.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for these tomatoes. By Invoice numbered 1272, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 15, dated June 24, 1999, with a shipping date of June 23, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 70 25-pound cartons of extra large tomatoes at an agreed upon price of $8.50 per 25- pound carton for a total price of $595.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for those tomatoes. Sapp Farms agrees that it owes Horizon $682.50 in freight charges. See Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 12 and the Amended Complaint filed by Sapp Farms. Horizon contends that it did not agree to purchase the tomatoes at an agreed upon price per 25-pound carton but agreed to "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers and to pay Sapp Farms based on the price received for the tomatoes from its customers less any freight charges, etc. Additionally, Horizon contends that it made contact or attempted to make contact with Sapp Farms regarding each of the loads and was advised, except possibly on one load, by either Mark Davis or Richard Sapp that a federal inspection was not necessary and to "work" the tomatoes as best Horizon could. The more credible evidence is that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp was timely advised concerning the alleged condition of the tomatoes. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the condition of the tomatoes when delivered to Horizon’s customers had deteriorated to a point that resulted in rejection by Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence shows that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp advised Horizon that there was no need for a federal inspection or that Horizon could "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence is that Horizon agreed to purchase Sapp Farms’ tomatoes at an agreed-upon price and that upon those tomatoes being loaded on Horizon’s truck, Horizon was responsible to Sapp Farms for the agreed-upon price. Sapp Farms timely filed its Amended Complaint in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, and Horizon owes Sapp Farms for tomatoes purchased from Sapp Farms on Invoice numbered 1262, 1263, and 1272 less the partial payment on Invoice numbered 1262 of $1,415 and freight charges of $682.50 for total amount due of $5,484.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order granting Sapp Farms relief by ordering Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. to pay Sapp Farms the sum of $5,484.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Sapp Sapp Farms 4720 Gallagher Road Plant City, Florida 33565 Donald E. Hinton, Qualified Representative President, Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. 1839 Dover Road, North Post Office Box 70 Sydney, Florida 33587 Michael E. Riley, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell A Professional Association Post Office Box 1050 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent failed to remit to Petitioner a payment for nursery products received.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Gramling Nursery, Inc. (Gramling), is a wholesale nursery (producer) which sells landscape plants and other nursery products from its facility located at 3402 South Redman Parkway, Plant City, Florida. Respondent, Landscape & Water Amenities, Inc. (LWA or Respondent), is a landscaper which maintains its principle office at 2453 South Third Street, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. During times material, LWA was the holder of agricultural bond number 06827 issued through American States Insurance Company in the amount of $10,000.00. Respondent, American States, is a surety company securing payments to producers of agricultural products supplied to LWA. On May 9, 1989, LWA submitted an application for credit to Petitioner. Petitioner approved LWA's credit application and issued a charge account with the following terms: All bills are due when the material is delivered and become past due the 10th of the month following the date of purchase. Delinquent accounts are subject to one and one-half percent per month (18% annually) service charge. Should any collection procedures become necessary, all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, are borne by the customer and venue will be in Hillsborough County. It is a condition of your account [that] you maintain an agricultural bond as required by state law and the bond amount will set your credit limit. On July 13 and July 28, 1989, Petitioner sold to LWA nursery plants on invoice numbers 24796 and 24834 in the respective amounts of $4,038.07 and $140.23, for the total sum of $4,178.30. Petitioner made at least six telephone calls in an effort to collect the payment for the nursery plants which it delivered to LWA and these efforts were all unsuccessful. By letter dated October 19, 1989, Petitioner forwarded, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a demand letter to Frank Timmons, president of LWA, for full payment of $4,397.81 to be received by October 27, 1989. Petitioner advised LWA that in the event that payment was not received, Petitioner would file against LWA's agricultural bond and take other necessary legal action to collect the debt. By letter dated November 21, 1989, Petitioner received a letter from Michael J. Marees, Esquire, which was addressed to all creditors of Landscape and Water Amenities, Inc., advising that his law firm had been retained to assist LWA "in winding up its affairs and conducting a voluntary liquidation of its remaining assets." In attempting to liquidate the remaining assets, to the extent that funds were reportedly available, attorney Marees made an across the board distribution of ten percent of the outstanding debt owed by LWA to all of its creditors. In this regard, Petitioner received a check in the amount of $439.78. By letter dated January 29, 1990, Petitioner advised LWA that the above-referred payment was applied to LWA's account in the form of interest ($401.82) and principal ($37.96) leaving a balance due on that date of $4,141.34. Petitioner received no further communiques from either LWA or American States.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of License and Bond, issue a Final Order finding that Respondent, Landscape & Water Amenities, Inc., owes Petitioner the sum of $4,141.34, plus interest accruing at the rate of one and one-half percent per month from January 29, 1990. In the event Respondent LWA fails to pay this sum the Respondent surety shall be required to pay that amount from its agricultural bond pursuant to Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1990. Copies furnished: Hugh M. Gramling, President Gramling Nursery, Inc. 3402 South Redman Parkway Plant City, Florida 33566 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Frank Timmons Landscape & Water Amenities, Inc. 10445 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32225-6723 American State Insurance Company 500 North Third Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Mallory E. Horne, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Doyle E. Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Robert J. Walsh and Company, Inc. has been in the business of selling agricultural products since 1962. It is a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in s. 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985). It is not a "producer" as defined in s. 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1985). Walsh's modus operandi which it has used for many years is to have its salesmen call on landscapers, nurseries and other customers for trees, plants and other agricultural products to determine their needs. These salesmen have the prices of products and their availability from producers and the salesmen take orders from these purchasers. This order is sent to the producer who delivers the product to the purchaser and sends Walsh a copy of the delivery ticket. Walsh bills the customer for the product delivered and the producer bills Walsh for the consumer-cost of the product less a 20-25 percent discount from which Walsh derives its profit from the sale. The producer relies solely on Walsh for payment for the product it produces and delivers to the customer. Walsh has no authority to sell the product at a price other than that set by the producer. In any event, the producer bills Walsh for the product delivered at the producer's established price less the discount it gives Walsh for acting as intermediary in the sale. If products are damaged in transit, the producer's driver will make any necessary adjustment with the customer or return the damaged plant for replacement by the producer. Walsh does not represent the grower if such a situation develops. Similarly, if the product is rejected by the purchaser for not meeting quality standards, that issue is resolved between the grower and the customer without input from Walsh. Whatever agreement is reached between the grower and the customer is reflected on the invoice signed by the customer and forwarded to Walsh who has the responsibility of collecting from the customer. The grower bills Walsh for the cost of the product less Walsh's commission. The sales forming the bases for the complaints filed by Walsh with Respondent involve sales to Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, Dean Pent and J & W Landscape. On January 31, 1985, Walsh sold Pent three laurel oaks grown by Stewart Tree Service for a total price of $467.46 including sales tax (Ex. 2). On March 27, 1985, Walsh sold various trees and plants grown by Goochland Nurseries to J & W Landscape for a total price of $403.98 (Ex. 3). On April 22, 1985, Walsh sold two live oaks grown by Stewart Tree Service to Pent Landscape Company for a total price of $336.00 (Ex. 4). On July 3, 1985, Walsh sold various plants grown by Goochland Nurseries to J & W Landscape for a total price of $564.96 (Ex. 5). On all of these sales the producers billed Walsh for the product and were paid by Walsh. Walsh billed the customers who did not pay and Walsh filed the complaints (Ex. 8, 9 and 10), denied by Respondent on grounds Walsh was not an agent or representative of the producers. In 1976, Petitioner filed a complaint against the bond of the Ernest Corporation, a licensed dealer in agricultural products and received $5,589.20 from Respondent who recovered from the bonding company. In the complaint Walsh alleged that it was agent for Southeast Growers, Inc., selling their nursery stock throughout Florida. Respondent's witnesses could not recall what additional evidence they saw to conclude that Walsh was, in fact, an agent for the producer. However, these witnesses all testified that had they then believed Walsh was solely responsible to the producer for payment for the products sold they would not have concluded Walsh was the agent or representative of the producer. The bond on which Petitioner is attempting to recover provides that if the principal "shall faithfully and truly account for and make payment to producers, their agents or representatives, as required by Sections 604.15 - 604.30, Florida Statutes, that this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect." (Ex. 11 and 12)
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985) provides in pertinent part: Any person claiming himself to be damaged by any breach of the conditions of a bond or certificate of deposit, assignment or agreement given by a licensed dealer in agricultural products as herein before provided may enter complaints thereof against the dealer and against the surety, if any, to the department, which complaint shall be a written statement of the facts constituting the complaint. Section 604.15(1) , Florida Statutes (1985) provides: "Dealers in agricultural products" means any person, whether itinerant or domiciled within this state, engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer or his agent or representative for resale or processing for sale; acting as an agent for such producer in the sale of agricultural products for the account of the producer on a net return basis; or acting as a negotiating broker between the producer or his agent or representative and the buyer. (emphasis supplied) One of the complexities of this case which leads to some confusion is the fact that both Pent and Walsh were dealers in agricultural products as above defined. Walsh fits into the category of a person claiming himself to be damaged by a breach of any condition of the bond of Pent. However, he has the burden of showing that he is a person covered by the bond. According to the terms of the bond, coverage is provided only for "producers, their agents or representatives." Walsh is clearly not a producer in this case but claims coverage as an agent or representative. In construing "agent" or "representative" the legislative intent should be considered. The purpose of these provisions of the statute requiring licensing and bonding of dealers in agricultural products, as expressed in Section 604.151, Florida Statutes, is to protect producers from economic harm. Economic harm sustained by an agent or representative is imputed back to the principals, which in this case are the producers. An agency may be defined as a contract either expressed or implied upon a consideration, or a gratuitous undertaking, by which one of the parties confides to the other the management of some business to be transacted in the former's name or on his account, and by which the latter assumes to do the business and render an account of it. 2 Fl. Jur. 2d "Agency," Section 1. Here, Walsh was selling agricultural products on its own account, which products it was purchasing from the producers. The producer sold its product to Walsh and delivered it to the address Walsh indicated. The customer receipted for the product and the producer billed Walsh for the total cost, including transportation, to the ultimate buyer, less the 20-25 percent commission Walsh received. Walsh paid the producer and billed the customer. Whether or not Walsh collected from the customer had no bearing on the debt Walsh owed the producer for the product. It could be said that the producer was the agent for Walsh in delivering the product to the user. Even though Walsh never had actual possession of the product the sale to Walsh was complete when the producer delivered the product to the user. The entire transaction clearly is a buy-and-sell operation by Walsh and not Walsh acting as an agent for the producer. The fact that Walsh sells the producer's product does not make Walsh the agent or representative of the producer, when the producer holds only Walsh responsible to pay for the product. Nor was Walsh a representative of the producers. Representative is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977 Ed.) as: "standing or acting for another esp. through delegated authority." Walsh had no delegation of authority to act for the producer. Walsh had no authority to modify the price, settle disputes, or any other function normally performed by a representative. The above interpretation of those having standing to file a complaint against a dealer in agricultural products is the same interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions that is made by Respondent. As stated in Natelson v. Dept. of Insurance, 454 So.2d 31 (Fl 1st DCA 1984): Agencies are afforded a wide discretion in the interpretation of a statute which it [sic] administers and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The reviewing court will defer to any interpretation within the range of possible interpretations. (citations omitted). This interpretation limiting recovery on an agricultural bond to producers and their agents or representatives is certainly within the range of possible interpretations, especially considering the purpose of these statutory provisions to be the protection of the economic well being of the producer. From the foregoing, it is concluded that Robert J. Walsh & Company, Inc. was not the agent or representative of Goochland Nurseries and Stewart Tree Service and does not have standing to file a complaint against Dean Pent, d/b/a Pent Landscape Company, and Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, and their surety, Transamerica Insurance Company.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition as contained in Petitioner's letter dated March 24, 1986. ENTERED this 14th day of July 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Egan, Esquire Phillip Kuhn, Esquire Post Office Box 7323 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Ronnie H. Weaver, Esquire Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Right Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the respondent is indebted to the complainant for the sale of Florida-grown agricultural products, and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact Based on 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: Mr. Rose has a grove of lychee trees on his property; each year he harvests the lychee nuts for sale, but the sale of agricultural products is not his sole source of income. In mid-June, 1996, Mr. Rose heard that the Growers Association was offering $3.50 per pound for lychees, the highest price of which he was aware. Mr. Rose took his fruit to the Growers Association on June 18, 1996. Mr. Rose had not done business with the Growers Association previously but had sold his fruit to another company. Mr. Rose received a grower's receipt showing that, on June 18, 1996, he had brought in 298 pounds of fruit, that 14 pounds were culls, and that the Growers Association had packed 27.9 ten- pound boxes of fruit. The Growers Association packed only marketable fruit. Ninety-nine percent of the tropical fruit grown in Florida is handled in pools.1 According to industry practice, the "handler" does not purchase the fruit outright but is responsible for packing, storing, selling, and shipping the fruit and for accounting for and remitting the proceeds of sale, minus expenses, to the members of the pool on a pro rata basis. The pools are composed of all growers whose fruit is packed during a designated period of time. Prices initially quoted to growers participating in a pooling arrangement are not guaranteed because the actual sales price may vary, depending on market conditions. It was the practice of the Growers Association to handle lychees under a pooling arrangement, and the receipt Mr. Rose received from the Growers Association contained the notation "P- 407LY," which designated the pool to which Mr. Rose's fruit was assigned. The Lychee P-407LY pool to which Mr. Rose's fruit was assigned consisted of fruit packed by the Growers Association between June 15 and 21, 1996. Mr. Rose was told on several occasions by employees of the Growers Association that he would receive $920.70 after expenses for the sale of his lychees. This amount was reflected in a Pool Price Report generated by the Growers Association on July 10, 1997, which also showed that a total of 107.6 pounds of fruit was included in the pool and that the Growers Association anticipated receiving a total of $4,088.65 for the sale of the fruit in the pool. The Growers Association maintained in its files a work order showing that 83 ten-pound boxes of lychees were sold to Produce Services of America, Inc., at a price of $38.00 per box and that the fruit was shipped on June 21, 1996. According to the July 10 report, the Growers Association had received payment of $932.90 for 24.55 ten-pound boxes of lychees sold to "L & V" on June 21, 1996, at $38.00 per box, but there is no indication in the report that the anticipated payment of $3,154.00 had been received from Produce Services of America. Mr. Rose repeatedly called the Growers Association during July and August to inquire about when he would receive payment for his fruit. In accordance with the information he had consistently been given by employees of the Growers Association, he expected to receive $920.70. When he received a check from the Growers Association dated August 29, 1996, in the amount of $367.48, he called the Growers Association for an explanation of why he had received that amount rather than the $920.70 he was expecting. Ultimately, he spoke with Mr. Kendall in early September, who told him that the $367.48 was all he was going to receive as his pro rata share of the pool because Produce Services of American had not paid in full for the 83 boxes of fruit it purchased. As reflected in the Pool Price Report dated September 19, 1996, the Growers Association received a total payment of only $1,847.42 for the fruit in the pool, rather than the $4,088.65 shown in the July 10, 1996, report. After the Growers Association's expenses were deducted, a total of $1,417.25 was distributed to the five growers in the pool. Although a copy of this final price report for the P-407LY pool should have accompanied Mr. Rose’s check, it did not. According to the information contained in the September 19 Pool Price Report, the shortfall in the amount received for the sale of the fruit in the pool is attributable to the Growers Association's receiving only $913.00, or $11.00 per box, for the sale of the 83 boxes of lychees to Produce Services of America, instead of the anticipated $3,154.00. The $913.00 was paid to the Growers Association by check dated August 19, 1996. Mr. Rose did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he had a contract for the outright sale of 27.9 ten-pound boxes of lychees to the Growers Association. Rather, the evidence establishes that Mr. Rose's fruit was handled by the Growers Association under a pooling arrangement and that, consistent with the practice in the tropical fruit industry, the Growers Association assumed responsibility for packing, storing, selling, and shipping the fruit. The Growers Association failed to offer any credible evidence to explain why Produce Services of America paid only $11.00 per box for the 83 boxes of fruit shipped from the pool, notwithstanding that the agreed sales price was $38.00 per box.2 Even if the fruit was damaged or in poor condition when it was delivered to Produce Services of America, the Growers Association packed 27.9 ten-pound boxes of marketable fruit on Mr. Rose’s account, and, once packed, it had complete control of the fruit in the pool. The Growers Association failed to offer any evidence to establish that it acted with reasonable care in fulfilling its responsibilities under the pool arrangement. Consequently, it bears the risk of loss rather than Mr. Rose and is indebted to him for $553.22, which is the difference between the $920.70 Mr. Rose would have received as his pro rata share of the pool had Produce Services of America paid the agreed-upon sales price of $38.00 per box and the $367.48 which the Growers Association paid to Mr. Rose by check dated August 29, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order finding that the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., is indebted to Mike Rose for the sale of agricultural products and ordering the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., to pay Mike Rose $553.22 within fifteen (15) days of the date its order becomes final. The Final Order should also provide that, in the event that the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., fails to pay Mike Rose $533.22 within the time specified, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, as surety for the South Florida Growers Association, Inc., must provide payment under the conditions and provisions of its bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners sold nursery plant materials to Respondent U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. for which the latter did not pay.
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 460 Juniper plants, for $731.40 including tax. The plants were picked up by U.S. Lawns employee Mark Rosetta. U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. does not dispute the validity of the claim arising out of the May 24 sale. However, U.S. Lawns has never paid for these plant materials. On June 6, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 40 Juniper plants and 50 grass plants for $166.95 including tax. These plants were picked up by Jeffrey Miller, who was an employee of U.S. Lawns. U.S. Lawns disputes the validity of the June 6 sale. However, the owner of U.S. Lawns, Glen Jaffee, never responded to numerous telephone calls from Pen Smith of Jon's Nursery, Inc. concerning the unpaid invoices. Nor did anyone respond to a certified demand letter that Mr. Smith mailed to U.S. Lawns on August 29, 1990, or the numerous monthly statements reflecting the unpaid balances. An officer and employee of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., Pat Oyler, had ordered the plant materials by telephone from Jon's Nursery, Inc. Mr. Oyler had previously ordered plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns from Jon's Nursery, which had always been paid. On two occasions subsequent to the sales in question, Mr. Oyler ordered plant materials from Jon's Nursery, Inc. on behalf of U.S. Lawns, but paid for them with his personal check, and Mr. Smith told him that he would need, in such cases, to order the plants in his name. On May 31, 1990, Concepts in Greenery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns ten 15-gallon crepe myrtles for $318 including tax. These items were picked up by Jeffrey Miller driving a U.S. Lawns truck. These plant materials had been ordered by Mr. Oyler of U.S. Lawns. Concepts in Greenery, Inc. had also previously done business with U.S. Lawns and been paid. In a sale which had taken place on March 25, 1990, Mr Oyler had ordered about $400 worth of plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns. Additionally, in its application for credit with Concepts in Greenery, Inc. dated April 11, 1988, Mr. Jaffee, as president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., had certified that Mr. Oyler was vice president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Repeated telephone calls and monthly statements from Concepts in Greenery, Inc. to U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., as well as a certified letter dated September 19, 1990, to Mr. Jaffee, were unsuccessful in obtaining any response whatsoever from the latter company. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. made several sales of a variety of plant materials to U S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Including tax, these sales were as follows: March 13, 1990, for $131.18; March 26, 1990, for $544.05; April 5, 1990, for $12.24; April 6, 1990, for $90.10; April 17, 1990, for $593.60; April 18, 1990, for $55.65; and April 27, 1990, for $92.75. An eighth invoice dated June 4, 1990, for $581.15 has been excluded because it bears the names of Oyler Construction Company, Inc., Bentley Green, and Pat Oyler as the persons invoiced and nowhere mentions U.S. Lawns. The total of the seven sales to U.S. Lawns is $1519.57. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Jaffee and U.S. Lawns, including by letter dated August 27, 1990, but never received any response to its demand for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. to pay the above-indicated sums to the respective parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Pen Smith, Sales Manager Jon's Nursery, Inc. 24546 Nursery Way Eustis, FL 32726 Charles Brown, Nursery Manager Concepts in Greenery, Inc. 16366 Old Cheney Highway Orlando, FL 32833 David Rubright, President Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. 1921 Hill Drive Apopka, FL 32703 Glen Jaffee 612 Bryn Mawr Orlando, FL 32804 Bankers Insurance Company 10051 5th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33702
The Issue Whether Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. owes Petitioner, Florida Farm Management Inc. the sum of $4,846.00 for watermelons shipped by Petitioner and handled by Respondent as Petitioner's agent during the period from May 30, 1989 through July 5, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as that term is defined in Section 605.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued license number 596 by the Department, and bonded by Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) for the sum of $47,000.00, bond number R2-27-13, with an effective date of November 13, 1988 and a termination date of November 13, 1989. At all times material to this proceeding, Debruyn was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. Around the last week of April, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent orally agreed, among other things, for Petitioner to produce certain quantities of Mickey Lee Watermelons and for Respondent to market those watermelons. This oral agreement was reduced to writing, executed by the Respondent and sent to Petitioner to execute. Petitioner, after making certain changes in the agreement and initialing those changes, executed the agreement and returned it to the Respondent. It is not clear if Respondent agreed to the change since they were not initialed by Respondent. However, the parties appeared to operate under this agreement as modified by Petitioner. Under the agreement, Respondent was to advance monies for harvesting and packing, furnish containers and labels for packing and agreed to pay certain chemical bills. Petitioner was to reimburse any monies advanced by the Respondent for (a) harvesting or packing; (b) containers and labels and; (c) chemicals, from the proceeds of the sale of watermelons. Any balance owed Petitioner for watermelons was to be paid within 30 days. Additionally, Respondent was to receive a commission of 8% of net FOB, except 30 cent maximum on sales of less than $6.25 per carton and 40 cents per carton for melons delivered on contract to National Grocers Co. The relationship of the parties was to be that of producer and sales agent. Before entering into the agreement with Respondent, Petitioner had agreed to furnish National Grocers Co. four shipments of melons totalling 8,000 cartons. Respondent agreed to service that agreement. Although Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows a credit of $6,007.13 for chemicals paid for by Respondent, the parties agreed that only $3,684.68 was expended by Respondent for chemicals and that Respondent should receive credit for that amount. The parties agree that Respondent advanced a total of $18,960.00 for harvesting and packing and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. The parties agree that Respondent paid to Petitioner the sum of $12,439.32 and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Cartons and pads for packing the melons were shipped on two occasions and the total sum paid by Respondent for those cartons and pads was $17,225.00. The cartons were printed with the logo of Respondent on one side and the logo of Petitioner on the other side. Petitioner agrees that the number of cartons and pads used by him came to $12,463.78 and the Respondent should be given credit for that amount. All cartons and pads in the sum of $17,255.00 were delivered to Petitioner's farm. The amount in dispute for the remainder of the carton is $4,762.22. The Respondent was responsible under the agreement to furnish cartons and pads (containers). Respondent ordered the cartons and pads after determining from Petitioner the number needed. There were two orders for cartons and pads placed and delivered. There was an over supply of cartons and pads delivered to Petitioner. This over supply was the result of a miscommunication between Petitioner and Respondent as to the amount of cartons and pads needed. Petitioner agrees that all of the cartons and pads were delivered to his farm but that he was unable to protect these cartons and pads from the weather. However, Petitioner advised Respondent that the remainder of the carton and pads could be picked up at his farm. Respondent contended that he was denied access to the farm and was unable to pick up the remainder of the cartons and pads and, therefore, they were ruined by exposure to the weather. While there may have been times when Respondent attempted to retrieve the carton and Petitioner was unavailable, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was intentionally denied access to Petitioner's farm to retrieve the cartons. Clearly, the ordering, purchasing and storing of the cartons and pads was a joint effort and both Petitioner and Respondent bear that responsibility. Therefore, the Petitioner is responsible for one-half of the difference between the total cost of the cartons ($17,225.00) and the amount used by Petitioner ($12,462.78) which is $2,381.11 and Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows that Petitioner shipped melons to Respondent in the amount of $54,715.63, after adjustments for complaints and commission. Respondent's accounts payable ledger shows receiving melons from Petitioner in the amount of $51,483.00, after adjustments for complaints and commission. The difference in the two ledgers in the amount of is accounted for as follows: Invoice No. 210066 - Customer paid $2.00 per carton less on 93 cartons, Petitioner agreed to the reduction. However, Petitioner's account is in error by 9 cents which reduces total amount to $54,715.54. Invoice No. 210067 - Respondent paid for more melons than Petitioner shows were shipped - $39.60. Invoice No. 210068 - difference in calculation of commission $13.32 Invoice No. 2100105 - difference due to Petitioner not agreeing to adjustment in price taken by customer. $2,886.00 Invoice No. 2100239 - difference of $108.04 due to Respondent allowing customer adjustment which Petitioner did not agree to. Invoice No. 2100267 - difference of $210.00 for same reason stated in (e) above. Petitioner should be allowed the difference due to miscalculation of commission in invoice Nos. 210068, 2100134 and 2100160 in the sum of $68.10 since Petitioner's calculation was in accordance with the agreement. There was no dispute as to the condition of melons being as contracted for upon receipt. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the melons shipped under invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 by Petitioner were not of the size and number contracted for by the customer. As to invoice Nos. 2100239 and 2100267, the adjustments were made after the fact without contacting Petitioner. As to invoice No. 2100105, the Petitioner shipped the melons to Russo Farms, Inc., Vineland, N.J., as per Respondent's order who then unloaded the melons and reloaded on Russo's truck and shipped to another buyer. It was this buyer's complaint that resulted in Russo demanding an adjustment. Respondent granted such adjustment without approval of the Petitioner. Although Respondent did contact Petitioner in regard to this complaint, Petitioner would not authorize a federal inspection, which he could have, but instead, requested that Respondent obtain an independent verification of the basis of the complaint. Instead of an independent verification of the complaint, Respondent had Russo evaluate the load as to size of melons and number of boxes. No complaint was made as to condition of the melons. Petitioner would not accept Russo's evaluation because based on the total weight of the melons shipped, as indicated by the freight invoice, Russo's evaluation could not have been correct. The only evidence presented by Respondent as to size and number of melon in regard to invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 was hearsay unsupported by any substantial competent evidence. Petitioner should be allowed the difference in invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 for a sum total of $3,204.00. No adjustment should be made for the differences in invoice No. 210067 other than the 9 cent error made by Petitioner because this amount is not used in Petitioner's calculation of the gross amount due for melons shipped. Therefore, the sum total of all melons sold and shipped is $54,715.63 - 0.09 = $54,715.54. The amount due Petitioner is calculated as follows: Sum total of melons shipped with proper adjustments $54,715.54 Subtract from that the following: Chemicals 3,684.68 Advances 18,960.00 Cost of Cartons $12,462.78 + 2,381.11 14,773.89 Payment 12,439.32 Subtotal of Deductions 49,857.89 Difference and amount owed $4,857.65
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. be ordered to pay the Petitioner Florida Farm Management, Inc. the sum of $4,857.65. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. as ordered, the Respondent, Peerless Insurance Company be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Not a finding of fact but the issue in this case. 2.-3. Adopted in findings of fact 2 and 4. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 4. First sentence adopted in finding of fact 7. The balance is not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-14. Adopted but modified in findings of fact 21 and 22. 10(A), 10(C)(1), 10(E), and 10(F) adopted in finding of fact 24. 10(C)(2)(3), 10(d) rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See findings of fact 5, ,7, 9 - 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent. 1.-7. Adopted in findings of fact 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 6, and 7 respectively as modified. Not material. This involved invoice Nos. 210066 and 210067 and adjustment were agreed to be Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material. This involved invoice No. 2100160 and adjustments were granted by Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. 12.-13.Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Adopted in finding of fact 5, and 9-15 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-15. Adopted in finding of fact 13 as clarified. Adopted in finding of fact 23 as clarified but see findings of fact 9-22.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Akers Holdings, LLC, and its surety, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a landscape distribution company and a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. This matter arose over an Agent Complaint filed by Petitioner on March 23, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $136,942.49, based upon numerous invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. Respondent Akers Holdings, LLC, by its agent or employee, R. Dean Akers, signed a Promissory Note on March 23, 2005, in the amount of $137,445.47 plus ten percent simple interest per annum. Under the note, Respondent agreed to repay its outstanding debt to Petitioner at the rate of $12,083.64 per month, commencing March 15, 2005, until paid in full. Respondent made payments under the note as follows: Date of Payment Amount Paid Check No. 3/15/2005 $12,083.64 13536 4/15/2005 12,097.81 1360 5/13/2005 12,090.51 13657 6/14/2005 12,129.37 1372 7/29/2005 12,103.41 13782 The payment dated 7/29/2005 was received by Petitioner on August 8, 2005. No subsequent payments were made by Respondent, Akers Holdings, LLC, after that date. At the time of hearing, based upon the evidence presented by Petitioner, the amount due to Petitioner under the Promissory Note was $81,655.81, and the amount due to Petitioner on open account was $30,734.58. Respondent, Akers Holdings, LLC, offered no excuse for its nonpayment of either the Promissory Note or the open account with Petitioner. Accordingly, Respondent Akers Holdings, LLC, or its surety, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, owe Petitioner $81,655.81 on the Promissory Note and $30,734.58 on open account, for a total amount owed of $112,390.39.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, or its surety, to pay Petitioner $112,390.39 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 26th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 87 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 R. Dean Akers Akers Holdings, LLC 5006 20th Avenue, South Tampa, Florida 33619 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
