The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is owed $7,097.15 by Respondent Green Acres for various nursery products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a wholesaler engaged in the business of producing agricultural products, primarily nursery plants, since approximately 1953. Green Acres is a retail nursery engaged in the business of selling sod, nursery products, and provision of other related landscaping services. Green Acres is a newly-formed business which commenced operations during the summer of 1992. On August 10, 1992, Green Acres purchased from Petitioner various quantities of flowers and nursery products which are reflected by Petitioner's invoice nos. 5074, 5076, 5077 and 5080 in the respective amounts of $625.25, $1,097.00, $2,927.50, and $383.20. On August 14, 1992, Green Acres purchased another order of nursery products from Petitioner which is reflected by Petitioner's invoice no. 5085 in the total amount of $1,063.75. On August 18, 1992, again Petitioner delivered products to Green Acres based on an order (Petitioner's invoice no. 5060) for the total sum of $599.20. Finally, on September 17, 1992, Green Acres ordered various nursery products from Petitioner (Petitioner's invoice no. 5097), which were delivered to Green Acres for the total sum of $401.25. Petitioner has made numerous attempts to collect for the nursery products that it supplied to Green Acres without success. These efforts to collect included personal trips to the Green Acres nursery by Roy Amerson. When disputes arose as to the pricing of plants, Green Acres unilaterally adjusted the price to the amount that it desired to pay which amount Petitioner accepted without protest based upon the fact that Petitioner's owners were aware that Green Acres was a new nursery and Petitioner was desirous of building a good client over a long period of time. For this reason, Petitioner also extended credit to Green Acres on an open-account basis for a long time without attempting to collect. Petitioner extended credit to Green acres based upon Petitioner's knowledge and understanding of the difficulty that new retail nursery owners undergo in starting a new nursery business. Green Acres suffered fire damage at one of its office buildings on the Friday prior to the Labor Day weekend during 1992. As a result of that fire, Green Acres contends that it paid Petitioner in cash for products and was not properly receipted for those payments. Green Acres maintains that its receipts were destroyed in the fire. Green Acres's contention in this regard was considered; however, it is more likely than not that Green Acres did not pay Petitioner for any nursery products which they have not been granted credit for. In this regard, Petitioner introduced invoices and credit notations for each purchase of products that Green Acres ordered. Those invoices appear to properly reflect the entire series of transactions of the purchase of products from Petitioner with the appropriate credits and adjustments noted. Respondent, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), issued a surety bond to Green Acres for the period during which Petitioner provided nursery products to Green Acres in 1992.
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 ordering Green Acres to pay to Petitioner the sum of $7,097.15 within fifteen (15) days after the issuance of its Final Order. Upon the failure of Green Acres to tender the referenced amount to Petitioner, it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services direct that the surety company pay over to the Department out of the surety bond posted for such dealer, the amount necessary to cover the indebtedness noted herein of $7,097.15. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy and Barbara Amerson Post Office Box 202 Terra Ceia, Florida 34250 Shelly K. Thomas 9330 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34641 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ms. Becky L. Herald State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 112 East Washington Street Bloomington, Illinois 61710-1001
The Issue Whether the Respondents should be required, pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, to pay the Petitioner $701.88 for agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Pleasant View Nursery, Inc., is a corporation located in Valrico, Florida. K. S. Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The Landscape Company and First Coast Wholesale Growers, is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida. K. S. Enterprises, at the time of the transaction involved in this proceeding, was licensed in Florida as a dealer in agricultural products. Lawyers Surety Corporation provided Surety Bond Number FLA-390042 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bond"), in the amount of $10,000.00 in support of K. S. Enterprises' license. The conditions and provisions of the Bond assure proper accounting and payment to producers, their agents or representatives for agricultural products purchased by K. S. Enterprises. On December 31, 1990, Pleasant View sold to K. S. Enterprises nursery plants produced by Pleasant View. The nursery plants were provided to, and accepted by, K. S. Enterprises. In consideration for the nursery plants sold to K. S. Enterprises on December 31, 1990, K. S. Enterprises agreed to pay Pleasant View the sum of $6,741.60 within 30 days from date of sale. K. S. Enterprises also agreed to the following terms of payment: We extend credit to few customers because of the tremendous capital required to carry it, because of the extensive cost of borrowing that capital. All accounts 30 days past due will be charged 1 1/2%. . . . A bill for payment for the plants purchased by K. S. Enterprises was sent to K. S. Enterprises the first week of January, 1991. No payment was made by K. S. Enterprises. K. S. Enterprises was billed again during the first week of February, 1991. No payment was made by K. S. Enterprises during the month of February. Interest of $101.12 attributable to the month of January, 1991, and $102.61 attributable to the month of February, 1991, was added to K. S. Enterprises account. Another bill was sent to K. S. Enterprises in March, 1991. On or about March 18, 1991, K. S. Enterprises paid $500.00 to Pleasant View. The payment was credited against the principal outstanding and not against interest in order to reduce the amount of interest that would accrue on the remaining indebtedness. Pleasant View continued to bill K. S. Enterprises each month for the balance due from K. S. Enterprises. Accrued interest was added to K. S. Enterprises' account each month. By August, 1991, the total amount of interest due from K. S. Enterprises was $701.88. The total amount remaining unpaid for the plants sold to K. S. Enterprises was $6,241.60. On or about June 19, 1991, a letter was mailed to K. S. Enterprises notifying K. S. Enterprises of Pleasant View's intent to file a complaint with the Department. K. S. Enterprises received the notice on or about June 25, 1991. On or about June 19, 1991, Pleasant View filed the complaint with the Department. The complaint was filed within six months after the date of the sale to K. S. Enterprises. Subsequent to the Department sending notice to K. S. Enterprises of the complaint, K. S. Enterprises paid Pleasant View $6,241.60. On or about August 13, 1991, Pleasant View received the payment of $6,241.60 from K. S. Enterprises. Pleasant View applied the payment first to the amount of interest that had accrued ($701.88) leaving $5,339.72 ($6,241.60 payment less $701.88 applied to interest) to apply against the remaining indebtedness. Applying the remaining $5,339.72 toward the remaining $6,241.60 owed for the plants left an unpaid balance of $701.88. These actions were taken pursuant to established policy of Pleasant View.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order requiring that K. S. Enterprises, Inc., pay the sum of $701.88 to Pleasant View Nursery, Inc. It is further RECOMMENDED that, should K. S. Enterprises, Inc., fail to comply with the Final Order, that Lawyers Surety Corporation should be called upon to pay the sum of $701.88 to Pleasant View Nursery, Inc., pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Case Number 92-3032A Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX Pleasant View has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Respondents did not file a proposed recommended order. Pleasant View's Proposed Findings of Fact Hereby accepted. Accepted in finding of fact 5. Accepted in findings of fact 6-7. Accepted in findings of fact 8-9 and 11-12. Accepted in findings of fact 14-15. Accepted in findings of fact 13 and 17. Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Goben, Office Manager Pleasant View Nursery, Inc. 1321 North Valrico Road Valrico, Florida 33594 Kenneth W. Smith, President K. S. Enterprises, Inc. 1914 Beachway Road, Suite 2-J Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2320 Lawyers Surety Corporation Legal Department 1025 South Semoran Suite 1085 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol, Pl-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Beach Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Landscape Technologies or Landscape Technologies, Inc. or as Land Tech (Beach) operated as a dealer in agricultural products under license No. 2889 issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). On Beach's behalf, respondent Regency Insurance Company posted a surety bond with DACS, No. SF00356 in the amount of $3,000, effective September 24, 1988, through September 23, 1989, to secure payment for Florida agricultural products. Testimony of Brooks. On August 30, 1989, Beach took delivery from petitioners of seven live oak trees petitioners grew near Chiefland, Florida, agreeing to pay $125 for each which, with sales tax, aggregated $927.50. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716280. Testimony of Cochran. Having earlier made a deposit of $637.50, Beach took delivery from petitioners on September 18, 1989, of 15 Florida-grown live oak trees, agreeing to pay $170 for each. With sales tax (but less the deposit) Beach owed petitioners $2,065.50 on account of this transaction. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716788. Testimony of Cochran. The next day Beach took delivery from petitioners of 15 more Florida- grown trees again agreeing to pay $170 for each. Again with sales tax and less an earlier deposit, indebtedness on account of the transaction aggregated $2,065.50. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716790. Testimony of Cochran. Finally, on September 20, 1989, Beach took delivery from petitioners of 16 Florida-grown live oak trees, agreeing to pay $170 for each, which with sales tax and less an earlier deposit, amounted to $2,203.20. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716791. Testimony of Cochran. On March 3, 1990, Beach or Landscape Technologies, Inc. paid petitioners $1,000, thereby reducing indebtedness to petitioners on account of the foregoing transactions from $7,261.70 to $6,261.70. Petitioners applied a check in the amount of $1,500 to reduce the indebtedness to $4,761.70, even though the check purported to be in payment of another invoice. In the answer it filed with DACS, Landscape Technologies, Inc., admitted indebtedness of $4,661.10.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order Beach to pay petitioners four thousand seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy cents ($4,761.70) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event Beach fails to pay petitioners four thousand seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy cents ($4,761.70) within fifteen (15) days of the final order, DACS order Regency Insurance Company to pay three thousand dollars ($3,000) or such lesser sum as satisfies the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1989), for disbursal to petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CHRISTOPHER B. PHILLIPS LANDSCAPE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 523 LAKEVIEW ROAD CLEARWATER, FL 34616 REGENCY INSURANCE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 190 HALLANDALE, FL 33009-0190 CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 J. COCHRAN & RUSSELL STRANGE C & S TREE FARM ROUTE 1, BOX 738 CHIEFLAND, FL 32626 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondent owes payment to Petitioner in the amount of $60,748.78 for watermelons sold by Petitioner to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Between May 18 and June 5, 1990, Petitioner James G. Young sold a total of 40 truckloads of watermelons to Respondent Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. Petitioner was to have received a price of five cents per pound through May 26, 1990 and four cents per pound through the remainder of the shipping season. Respondent has failed to pay $60,748.78 of the amount owed to Petitioner for such produce. At no time did Petitioner received any complaint that the watermelons were unsatisfactory. Respondent is a licensed agricultural dealer engaged in the business of brokering agricultural products, Florida license #0030. Respondent is subject to regulation by the Department. Respondent has posted a Fireman's Fund Insurance Company surety bond #11141308327 in the amount of $50,000 with the Department. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. No evidence was presented to contradict the testimony of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc., to pay to Petitioner the sum of $60,748.78. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James G. Young Route 3 Box 272-A Wildwood, Florida 34758 Patricia M. Harper, President Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. 2124 Forest Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37916 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Surety Claims Center Post Office Box 193136 San Francisco, Florida 94119-3136
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Monticello Nursery Company of Florida, Inc., is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 190, Monticello, Florida. (Petitioner's Complaint) Respondent, Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, is located at 1660 Emerson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. At the time of the transactions involved, Respondent was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products under License No. 3531. (Petitioner's Complaint, Order of Department of Agriculture dated November 15, 1985) Corespondent, Transamerica Insurance Company as surety provided bond number 5182-39-34 for Respondent in the amount of $4,750. (Petitioner's Complaint, Order of Department of Agriculture dated November 15, 1985) Petitioner's complaint for $6,159.30 is based upon two invoices for nursery plants: Invoice 1060 in the amount of $2,612.80, and Invoice 1308 in the amount of $6,109.30. From the total of $8,722.10 is deducted "payments and credit" of $2,562.80. (Petitioner's Complaint) The figures on the complaint and the attached invoices accurately reflect the statement of account for the subject transactions. (Testimony of Sandy Mazza) Invoice No. 1060 is for several kinds of nursery plants and is dated 12/31/84. On the invoice the order date is 10/26/84 and the "ship date" is 12/07/84. Whether the sale occurred upon order, shipment or date of invoice is immaterial, as all three dates are more than nine months prior to the filing of the complaint on September 5, 1985. Invoice No. 1308 is for a quantity of crepe myrtle trees and is dated 1/31/85. The order date and "ship date" are both 1/28/85. One invoice supports, and the other conflicts with, the date of 12/31/84, stated on the face of the complaint as the "date of sale". The invoices are competent evidence as supported by the bookkeeper's testimony. The finding in the November 15, 1985 order of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that the sale totaling $6,159.30 was made on September 5, 1985, conflicts with both the complaint and the invoices and is unsupported by any evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued requiring Respondent Paul Pent, pay Petitioner $3,546.50. The Final Order should specify that failure to comply will result in a requirement that Transamerica Insurance Company pay said sum to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for distribution to Monticello Nursery. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, 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 1st day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Cooper, Esquire Douglas, Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 211 East Call Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Mr. Paul Pent Pent Landscape Company 1660 Emerson Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Transamerica Insurance Company 1150 South Olive Street Los Angeles, California 90015 Joe W. Kight, Chief Division of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Zellwin Farms Company, was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida in 1947 and has continually conducted its business under that name in Zellwood, Florida. Zellwin Farms Company is engaged in the production of field produce crops including carrots, radishes, cauliflower, sweet corn, and other crops grown in open fields. It is not engaged in the culture and propagation of mushrooms and has received no customer inquiries by mail or telephone regarding the availability of mushrooms. The Respondent, Zellwood Farms, Inc., was organized under the laws of the State of Florida in March, 1983. Its sole business Involves a single agricultural product, the production of mushrooms, under controlled climate conditions, indoors, whereby the temperature, humidity, soil, water content and light levels are fully controlled. It produces only mushrooms and has no current plans to expand to other agricultural products, particularly open field crops which is the sole area of agricultural business engaged in by the Petitioner, Zellwin Farms Company. It has indicated an interest in the future In marketing a specialty agricultural product, bean sprouts, which Zellwin Farms does not produce and has expressed no Intention to produce in the future. Zellwood Farms, Inc. does not advertise the raising or production of field crops nor does it advertise its intent to so broaden its business in the future. The parties agree that, since the incorporation of Zellwood Farms, Inc. in 1983, that items of mail, telephone calls and some deliveries of goods have been misdirected between the two companies. During the same period of time however, there have been many thousands of items of mail, telephone calls and deliveries of goods correctly directed to the two companies, without misdirection difficulties of any type. Zellwin's comptroller, James Staley, in his deposition, established that misdeliveries of goods and invoices have occurred about twice per week on the average. In that connection, Zellwin, the Petitioner, receives about 200 deliveries per month on the average. Telephone calls and mail misdirections appear to have occurred on approximately the same relatively minor scale initially, but are decreasing. Records maintained by Zellwood, the Respondent, in evidence, likewise show a small percentage of such misdirections of all telephone calls, mail and goods deliveries it receives. Between October 22, 1983, and January 3, 1984, Zellwood Farms, Inc. received approximately 2,200 pieces of mail. Only seven of these were misdirected, that is, not intended for the Respondent, and of those seven, six of the 2,200 appear to have been intended for Zellwin Farms Company, the Petitioner. Deliveries of goods to Zellwood Farms, Inc. amounted to 223 shipments between October 17, 1983, and January 3, 1984. Only six of these were misdirected. There were 4,170 telephone calls received by Zellwood Farms, Inc. between October 18, 1983, and January 3, 1984. Fifteen of these calls were misdirected, that is, not intended by the caller for Zellwood Farms, Inc. Only three of these 15 misdirected calls were specifically intended for the Petitioner, Zellwin Farms Company. The parties agreed that they had discovered no harmful effect on relations with their regular customers in the two separate markets which they serve. Postal employee Hortense Parker (testifying for Petitioner) established that in part, the instances of misdirected mail which have occurred are due to the proximity and identical appearance of the post office boxes of the two parties at her post office, which are only two feet apart. Thus, any similarity of the names of the two parties was not shown to be the sole reason for misdirected mail. It was not demonstrated that the misdirected mail or goods shipments resulted from confusion in the minds of the customers or consumers of the two companies' products which would cause a harmful effect on sales, revenues and customer relations, as opposed to possible confusion by suppliers of equipment or other third parties who are not customers or purchasers from either of the parties in the separate and distinct markets which they serve. Both Zellwin Farms Company and Zellwood Farms, Inc. are substantial, large producers, having significant shares of the respective agricultural product markets they serve. They do not compete with each other for customers since the mushrooms grown by Zellwood Farms, Inc. and the field produce crops grown by Zellwin Farms Company are clearly directed to distinctly separate consuming markets.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition of Zellwin Farms Company, seeking to forbid the use by the Respondent of the name Zellwood Farms, Inc. be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Lloyd T. Asbury, Esquire Suite 2207 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Michael P. McMahon, Esquire Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dana McKinnon, Director Division of Corporations The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
