The Issue The issues are whether Respondents offered and sold securities in Florida, in violation of the registration requirements of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes; offered and sold securities in Florida while Respondents were unregistered, in violation of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; or committed fraud in the offer, sale, or purchase of securities in Florida, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is the penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent James A. Torchia (Respondent) held a valid life and health insurance license. Respondent was the president and owner of Respondent Empire Insurance, Inc. (Empire Insurance), a now-dissolved Florida corporation. Empire Insurance was in the insurance business, and Respondent was its sole registered insurance agent. At no material time has Respondent or Empire Insurance held any license or registration to engage in the sale or offer for sale of securities in Florida. At no material time were the investments described below sold and offered for sale by Respondent or Empire Insurance registered as securities in Florida. These cases involve viaticated life insurance policies. A life insurance policy is viaticated when the policy owner, also known as the viator, enters into a viatical settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the viator sells the policy and death benefits to the purchaser for an amount less than the death benefit--the closer the viator is perceived to be to death, the greater the discount from the face amount of the death benefit. The viatical industry emerged to provide dying insureds, prior to death, a means by which to sell their life insurance policies to obtain cash to enjoy during their remaining lives. As this industry matured, brokers and dealers, respectively, arranged for the sale of, and bought and resold, life insurance policies of dying insureds. Prior to the death of the viator, these viaticated life insurance policies, or interests in such policies, may be sold and resold several times. In these cases, viators sold their life insurance policies to Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc. (FinFed). Having raised money from investors, American Benefit Services (ABS) then paid FinFed, which assigned viaticated policies, or interests in the policies, to various trusts. The trusts held the legal title to the policies, and the trust beneficiaries, who are the investors from whom ABS had obtained the funds to pay FinFed, held equitable title to the policies. Sometimes in these cases, a broker or dealer, such as William Page and Associates, intervened between the viator and FinFed. At some point, though, ABS obtained money from investors to acquire policies, but did not pay the money to FinFed to purchase viaticated life insurance policies. The FinFed and ABS investment program eventually became a Ponzi scheme, in which investor payouts were derived largely, if not exclusively, from the investments of other investors. ABS typically acquired funds through the promotional efforts of insurance agents, such as Respondent and Empire Insurance. Using literature provided by ABS, these agents often sold these investments to insurance clients. As was typical, Respondent and Empire Insurance advertised the types of claims described below by publishing large display ads that ran in Florida newspapers. Among the ABS literature is a Participation Disclosure (Disclosure), which describes the investment. The Disclosure addresses the investor as a "Participant" and the investment as a "Participation." The Disclosure contains a Participation Agreement (Agreement), which provides that the parties agree to the Disclosure and states whether the investor has chosen the Growth Plan or Income Plan, which are described below; a Disbursement Letter of Instruction, which is described below; and a Letter of Instruction to Trust, which is described below. The agent obtains the investor's signature to all three of these documents when the investor delivers his check, payable to the escrow agent, to purchase the investment. The Disclosure states that the investments offer a “High Return”: “Guaranteed Return on Participation 42% at Maturity.” The Disclosure adds that the investments are “Low Risk”: “Secured by a Guaranteed Insurance Industry Receivable”; “Secured by $300,000 State Insurance Guarantee Fund”; “Short Term Participation (Maturity Expectation 36 Months)”; “Principal Liquid After One Year With No Surrender Charge”; “State Regulated Participation”; “All Transactions By Independent Trust & Escrow Agents”; and “If policy fails to mature at 36 months, participant may elect full return of principal plus 15% simple interest.” The Disclosure describes two alternative investments: the Growth Plan and Income Plan. For the Growth Plan, the Disclosure states: “At maturity, Participant receives principal plus 42%, creating maximum growth of funds.” For the Income Plan, the Disclosure states: “If income is desired, participation can be structured with monthly income plans.” Different rates of return for the Growth and Income plans are set forth below. For investors choosing the Income Plan, ABS applied only 70 percent of the investment to the purchase of viaticated life insurance policies. ABS reserved the remaining 30 percent as the source of money to "repay" the investor the income that he was due to receive under the Income Plan, which, as noted below, paid a total yield of 29.6 percent over three years. The Disclosure states that ABS places all investor funds in attorneys’ trust accounts, pursuant to arrangements with two “bonded and insured” “financial escrow agents.” At another point in the document, the Disclosure states that the investor funds are deposited “directly” with a “financial escrow agent,” pursuant to the participant’s Disbursement Letter of Instruction. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction identifies a Florida attorney as the “financial escrow agent,” who receives the investor’s funds and disburses them, “to the order of [FinFed) or to the source of the [viaticated insurance] benefits and/or its designees.” This disbursement takes place only after the attorney receives “[a] copy of the irrevocable, absolute assignment, executed in favor of Participant and recorded with the trust account as indicated on the assignment of [viaticated insurance] benefits, and setting out the ownership percentage of said [viaticated insurance] benefits”; a “medical overview” of the insured indicative of not more than 36 months’ life expectancy; confirmation that the policy is in full force and effect and has been in force beyond the period during which the insurer may contest coverage; and a copy of the shipping airbill confirming that the assignment was sent to the investor. The Disclosure states that the investor will direct a trust company to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. When the life insurance policy matures on the death of the viator, the insurer pays the death benefits to the trust company, which pays these proceeds to the investor, in accordance with his interest in the trust. Accordingly, the Letter of Instruction to Trust directs FinFed, as the trust company, to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. The Letter of Instruction to Trust provides that the viaticated insurance benefits obtained with the investor's investment shall be assigned to this trust, and, at maturity, FinFed shall pay the investor a specified sum upon the death of the viator and the trustee's receipt of the death benefit from the insurer. The Disclosure provides that, at anytime from 12 to 36 months after the execution of the Disclosure, the investor has the option to request ABS to return his investment, without interest. At 36 months, if the viator has not yet died, the investor has the right to receive the return of his investment, plus 15 percent (five percent annually). The Disclosure states that ABS will pay all costs and fees to maintain the policy and that all policies are based on a life expectancy for the viator of no more than 36 months. Also, the Disclosure assures that ABS will invest only in policies that are issued by insurers that are rated "A" or better by A.M. Best "at the time that the Participant's deposit is confirmed." The Disclosure mentions that the trust company will name the investor as an irrevocable assignee of the policy benefits. The irrevocable assignment of policy benefits mentioned in the Disclosure and the Disbursement Letter of Instruction is an anomaly because it does not conform to the documentary scheme described above. After the investor pays the escrow agent and executes the documents described above, FinFed executes the “Irrevocable Absolute Assignment of Viaticated Insurance Benefits.” This assignment is from the trustee, as grantor, to the investor, as grantee, and applies to a specified percentage of a specific life insurance policy, whose death benefit is disclosed on the assignment. The assignment includes the "right to receive any viaticated insurance benefit payable under the Trusts [sic] guaranteed receivables of assigned viaticated insurance benefits from the noted insurance company; [and the] right to assign any and all rights received under this Trust irrevocable absolute assignment." On its face, the assignment assigns the trust corpus-- i.e., the insurance policy or an interest in an insurance policy--to the trust beneficiary. Doing so would dissolve the trust and defeat the purpose of the other documents, which provide for the trust to hold the policy and, upon the death of the viator, to pay the policy proceeds in accordance with the interests of the trust beneficiaries. The assignment bears an ornate border and the corporate seal of FinFed. Probably, FinFed intended the assignment to impress the investors with the "reality" of their investment, as the decorated intangible of an "irrevocable" interest in an actual insurance policy may seem more impressive than the unadorned intangible of a beneficial interest in a trust that holds an insurance policy. Or possibly, the FinFed/ABS principals and professionals elected not to invest much time or effort in the details of the transactional documentation of a Ponzi scheme. What was true then is truer now. Obviously, in those cases in which no policy existed, the investor paid his money before any policy had been selected for him. However, this appears to have been the process contemplated by the ABS literature, even in those cases in which a policy did exist. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction and correspondence from Respondent, Empire Insurance, or Empire Financial Consultant to ABS reveal that FinFed did not assign a policy, or part of a policy, to an investor until after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In some cases, Respondent or Empire Insurance requested ABS to obtain for an investor a policy whose insured had special characteristics or a investment plan with a maturity shorter than 36 months. FinFed and ABS undertook other tasks after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In addition to matching a viator with an investor, based on the investor's expressed investment objectives, FinFed paid the premiums on the viaticated policies until the viator died and checked on the health of the viator. Also, if the viator did not die within three years and the investor elected to obtain a return of his investment, plus 15 percent, ABS, as a broker, resold the investor's investment to generate the 15 percent return that had been guaranteed to the investor. Similarly, ABS would sell the investment of investors who wanted their money back prior to three years. The escrow agent also assumed an important duty--in retrospect, the most important duty--after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents; the escrow agent was to verify the existence of the viaticated policy. Respondent and Empire Insurance sold beneficial interests in trusts holding viaticated life insurance policies in 50 separate transactions. These investors invested a total of $1.5 million, nearly all of which has been lost. Respondent and Empire Insurance earned commissions of about $120,000 on these sales. Petitioner proved that Respondent and Empire Insurance made the following sales. Net worths appear for those investors for whom Respondent recorded net worths; for most, he just wrote "sufficient" on the form. Unless otherwise indicated, the yield was 42 percent for the Growth Plan. In all cases, investors paid money for their investments. In all cases, FinFed and ABS assigned parts of policies to the trusts, even of investors investing relatively large amounts. On March 21, 1998, Phillip A. Allan, a Florida resident, paid $69,247.53 for the Growth Plan. On March 26, 1998, Monica Bracone, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $900,000, paid $8000 for the Growth Plan. On April 2, 1998, Alan G. and Judy LeFort, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on June 8, 1998, the LeForts paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In the second transaction, the yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement notes a 36-month life expectancy of the viator. The different yields based on life expectancies are set forth below, but, as noted above, the standard yield was 42 percent, and, as noted below, this was based on a 36-month life expectancy, so Respondent miscalculated the investment return or misdocumented the investment on the LeForts' second transaction. On April 29, 1998, Doron and Barbara Sterling, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on August 14, 1998, the Sterlings paid $100,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield for the second transaction is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement notes that the Sterlings were seeking a viator with a life expectancy of only 30 months. When transmitting the closing documents for the second Sterling transaction, Respondent, writing ABS on Empire Insurance letterhead, stated in part: This guy has already invested with us (15,000) [sic]. He gave me this application but wants a 30 month term. Since he has invested, he did some research and has asked that he be put on a low T-cell count and the viator to be an IV drug user. I know it is another favor but this guy is a close friend and has the potential to put at least another 500,000 [sic]. If you can not [sic] do it, then I understand. You have done a lot for me and I always try to bring in good quality business. If this inventory is not available, the client has requested that we return the funds . . . In a third transaction, on February 24, 1999, the Sterlings paid $71,973 for the Growth Plan. The yield is only 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects the typical 36-month life expectancy for the viator. Although the investors would not have received this document, Respondent completed an ABS form entitled, "New Business Transmittal," and checked the box, "Life Expectancy 2 years or less (28%). The other boxes are: "Life Expectancy 2 1/2 years or less (35%)" and "Life Expectancy 3 years or less (42%)." On May 4, 1998, Hector Alvero and Idelma Guillen, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $6000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on October 29, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a third transaction, on November 30, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. For this investment, Ms. Guillen requested an "IV drug user," according to Respondent in a letter dated December 1, 1998, on Empire Financial Consultants letterhead. This is the first use of the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants, not Empire Insurance, and all letters after that date are on the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants. In a fourth transaction, on January 29, 1999, Ms. Guillen paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On April 23, 1998, Bonnie P. Jensen, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $120,000, paid $65,884.14 for the Growth Plan. Her yield was 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 20, 1998, Michael J. Mosack, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $70,600 for the Income Plan. He was to receive monthly distributions of $580.10 for three years. The total yield, including monthly distributions, is $20,883.48, which is about 29.6 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 27, 1998, Lewis and Fernande G. Iachance, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On June 3, 1998, Sidney Yospe, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $1,500,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 30-month life expectancy. On June 12, 1998, Bernard Aptheker, with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 10, 1998, Irene M. and Herman Kutschenreuter, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 9, 1998, Daniel and Mary Spinosa, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 5, 1998, Pauline J. and Anthony Torchia, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000 and the parents of Respondent, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 29, 1998, Christopher D. Bailey, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction on the same day, Mr. Bailey paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. Petitioner submitted documents concerning a purported purchase by Lauren W. Kramer on July 21, 1998, but they were marked "VOID" and do not appear to be valid. On July 22, 1998, Laura M. and Kenneth D. Braun, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $150,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan, as Respondent completed the Participation Agreement. However, the agreement calls for them to receive $205.42 monthly for 36 months and receive a total yield, including monthly payments, of 29.6 percent, so it appears that the Brauns bought the Income Plan. In a second transaction, also on July 22, 1998, the Brauns paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Roy R. Worrall, a Florida resident, paid $100,000 for the Income Plan. The Participation Agreement provides that he will receive monthly payments of $821.66 and a total yield of 29.6 percent. On July 16, 1998, Earl and Rosemary Gilmore, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on February 12, 1999, the Gilmores paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of two years or less. On July 14, 1998, David M. Bobrow, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $700,000 on one form and $70,000 on another form, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction, on the same day, Mr. Bobrow paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 27, 1998, Cecilia and Harold Lopatin, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 30, 1998, Ada R. Davis, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Income Plan. Her total yield, including monthly payments of $246.50 for three years, is 29.6 percent. In a second transaction, on the same day, Ms. Davis paid $30,000 for the Income Plan on the same terms as the first purchase. On July 27, 1998, Joseph F. and Adelaide A. O'Keefe, Florida residents with a net worth of $300,000, paid $12,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 5, 1998, Thurley E. Margeson, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 19, 1998, Stephanie Segaria, a Florida resident, paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 26, 1998, Roy and Glenda Raines, Florida residents, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of 30 months or less. In a second transaction, on the same day, the Raineses paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy, although, again, the New Business Transmittal notes the life expectancy of 30 months or less. On November 24, 1998, Dan W. Lipford, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan in two transactions. In a third transaction, on January 13, 1999, Mr. Lipford paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 1, 1998, Mary E. Friebes, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 4, 1998, Allan Hidalgo, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 17, 1998, Paul E. and Rose E. Frechette, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including monthly payments of $205.41 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 26, 1998, Theodore and Tillie F. Friedman, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 19, 1999, Robert S. and Karen M. Devos, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Arthur Hecker, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $410.83 for 36 months, is 29.6 percent. On February 11, 1999, Michael Galotola, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on the same day, Michael and Anna Galotola paid $12,500 for the Growth Plan. On November 3, 1998, Lee Chamberlain, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 23, 1998, Herbert L. Pasqual, a Florida resident, paid $200,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $1643.33 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 1, 1998, Charles R. and Maryann Schuyler, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. Respondent and Empire Insurance were never aware of the fraud being perpetrated by FinFed and ABS at anytime during the 38 transactions mentioned above. Respondent attempted to verify with third parties the existence of the viaticated insurance policies. When ABS presented its program to 30-40 potential agents, including Respondent, ABS presented these persons an opinion letter from ABS's attorney, stating that the investment was not a security, under Florida law. Respondent also contacted Petitioner's predecessor agency and asked if these transactions involving viaticated life insurance policies constituted the sale of securities. An agency employee informed Respondent that these transactions did not constitute the sale of securities.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Finding James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., not guilty of violating Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes; Finding James A. Torchia guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; Finding Empire Insurance, Inc., guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes, except for transactions closed on or after December 1, 1998; Directing James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., to cease and desist from further violations of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $120,000 against James A. Torchia. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Fred H. Wilsen Senior Attorney Office of Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation South Tower, Suite S-225 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1799 Barry S. Mittelberg Mittelberg & Nicosia, P.A. 8100 North University Drive, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33321
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, as beneficiary of her deceased father's State of Florida life insurance policy, is entitled to a benefit of $10,000 or $2,500, and is related to how notice of a change in coverage amount and premium was provided to the decedent.
Findings Of Fact At the time of his death on November 29, 2008, Maurice Adkins was covered by the state life insurance plan, as a retired employee of the State of Florida. The Petitioner, Justina Mullennix, is the daughter of Mr. Adkins and is the beneficiary of any life insurance benefits paid or payable from the state life insurance plan on account of the death of her father. Effective January 1, 2000, the coverage for retirees was increased to $10,000.00. The premium for this coverage was $4.20 per month. The DSGI prepared a letter dated July 31, 2006, to notify the retirees that effective January 1, 2007, the life insurance benefit options provided to retirees would change. The changes allowed retirees to elect one of the following options: $2,500 benefit for a monthly premium of $ 4.20. $10,000 benefit for a monthly premium of $35.79. Termination of coverage. The letter dated July 31, 2006, informed retirees that their life insurance premium would remain the same, but that their coverage would be reduced to $2,500, unless they elected coverage in the amount of $10,000 and elected to pay the higher premium. The letter advised the retirees they could change their election up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of the DSGI, maintains benefits data for the People First/Division of State Group Insurance. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and mailing addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. Mr. Waller created the file, prepared in July 2006, to use in a "mail merge," to send all retirees a copy of the letter dated July 31, 2006. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record that he maintained. In July 2006, the address of record for Mr. Adkins was 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207, and was included in the file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and on July 3, 2006, delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockeridge. Thomas Lockeridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of the DSGI. The DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes to mail the letter of July 31, 2006, to all retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the print shop of the DSGI, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing names and addresses of retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters dated July 31, 2006, in envelopes addressed to each retiree who carried life insurance at the time, were delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen. The State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Adkins at the Belair address. The return address on the envelope containing the letter was the Division of State Group Insurance, 4050 Esplanade Way, Ste. 215, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0949. The letter was not returned to the Division. The letters that were returned to the DSGI were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of the DSGI. Each letter that was returned to the Division of State Group Insurance was handled in one of two ways: a) if the envelope showed a different address on a yellow sticker applied by the US Postal Service (USPS), the letter was re-mailed to that address; b) if the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of the Division of Retirement was made, a copy of the print screen showing the address in the Retirement database was made, if different from that on the database of the Division of State Group Insurance, and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the Division of Retirement database. A copy of each Retirement screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. For every person whose letter was returned, and for which there was not another address, there would have been a Retirement print screen. The absence of a Retirement print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. There is no retirement print screen for Mr. Adkins, indicating that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to the DSGI. DMS has contracted with Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an on-line system known as “People First.” Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES). When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys People First System. People First became the system of record for the DSGI beginning January 1, 2005. People First and the Division of Retirement do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. Once a year the DSGI must hold Open Enrollment for the health program. § 110.123(3)(h)5, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 60P-1.003(16). Open Enrollment is the period designated by the DMS during which time eligible persons may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, the DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period, for the 2007 Plan Year, ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During open enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending open enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Adkins’s Open Enrollment Package to the 2877 Belair Road E., Jacksonville, Florida 32207 address, on September 3, 2006. The Open Enrollment Package for Plan Year 2007 was mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class postage paid. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins, for 2006 Open Enrollment, was not returned to People First. The Open Enrollment Package mailed to Mr. Adkins on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Adkins’s 2007 Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of the DSGI; "Information of Note"; a Privacy Notice; Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and a 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included the following statement: Retiree Life Insurance For Plan Year 2007, those currently enrolled with retiree life insurance may elect to retain the current $4.20 premium for a benefit of $2,500, retain the current benefit of $10,000 for a premium of $35.79, or cancel coverage. If no change is made during open enrollment, participation will continue at the $4.20 premium level. Neither Mr. Adkins nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000.00 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 and 2007. Because the election was not made, at the death of Mr. Adkins, the benefit paid to the Petitioner was $2,500.00. Prior to January 1, 2007, the Life Insurance Trust Fund was used to augment the premiums paid by retirees for life insurance. The premium paid by the retirees did not support a $10,000 coverage level. In year 2006, the DSGI determined that the money in the life insurance trust fund, used to augment the retiree’s benefits from years 2000 through 2007, would not be available after 2007. Beginning January 1, 2007, the change in life insurance coverage was made because the funds in the Life Insurance Trust Fund were no longer available to augment the premium payment required to maintain a benefit level of $10,000.00, for a payment of $4.20 per month by the retirees. In 2006, the DSGI determined that the then-current life insurance premium of $4.20 would support a benefit of $2,500, and that the $10,000 benefits would cost $35.79. The notices provided by the July 31, 2006, letter and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package were sufficient notices of the increase in premium in that they provided a reasonable opportunity within which to make a selection of the level of coverage. On December 30, 1997, the Division of Retirement received a written notice of change of address for Mr. Adkins. The new address was 217 Skye Dr. W, Jacksonville, Florida 32221. Although Mr. Adkins had changed his address with the Division of Retirement, he did not notify the DSGI. A change of address with one division does not automatically change addresses in the other. The two divisions have different databases. During no time relevant to these proceedings have the two divisions shared databases. The DSGI, through People First, used the database of the Division of Retirement to send the 2004 Benefits Statement as an experiment to determine whether DSGI undeliverable returns would decrease. The same database was also used for the mailing of the letter dated September 2, 2003. However, neither DSGI nor People First changed its database after the 2004 Benefits Statement was sent and subsequent information was mailed to the DSGI address of record, based upon the COPES system. Therefore, the letter dated July 31, 2006, and the 2006 Open Enrollment Package for the Plan Year 2007, were mailed to the same Belair address, the address of record. A change of address for Mr. Adkins was not made in the database of the DSGI until December 1, 2008, when People First was provided a change of address. The only change of address that the Petitioner has alleged, was the one provided by Mr. Adkins to the Division of Retirement (only) in 1997.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Justina Mullennix 1217 Skye Drive West Jacksonville, Florida 32221 John Brenneis, General Counsel Division of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Did Mr. Carter violate sections 627.4554(4)(a), 627.4554(4)(c)2., 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2006, 2009, 2010); section 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2006, 2010); sections 626.9541(1)(k)2., 626.9541(1)(l), and 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2009, 2010); section 626.621(9), Florida Statutes (2010); and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-215.210? If so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Legislature has vested the Department with the authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. § 20.121(2)(g) and (h)1.d., Fla. Stat. (2011). At all times material to his proceeding, Mr. Carter was licensed by the Department as a Florida life (including variable annuity) agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life insurance agent (2-16) and life and health agent (2-18). He has been appointed as an agent for several different life insurance companies, including Allianz, EquiTrust and Great American, but not RiverSource. Counts I through V--W.K. and J.K. 2006, J.K. and W.K., and the MasterDex 10 J.K. was born in 1937 in Madrid Spain, where she finished high school. Spanish is J.K.'s native tongue. She cannot write in English and does not speak or understand English well. When J.K. was 17, she met W.K., a member of the United States' armed services. They married in Spain. Six months after the marriage, the newlyweds moved to Brooklyn, New York, W.K.'s home. They later relocated to Florida. W. K. constructed a mall in New Port Richey containing 18 stores that included a restaurant and a frame shop. J.K. ran the frame shop. Wal-Mart eventually bought the mall. By 2006, J.K. and W.K. had accumulated approximately two million dollars in brokerage investments. Until the decline of his health and mental faculties in 2008, W.K. handled all financial matters for the couple. J.K. did not understand them or have any interest in them. In 2006, J.K. and W.K. met Mr. Carter, who began marketing annuities to them. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact, combined with the fact that W.K. had died several years before the hearing, limit the ability to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to J.K. and W.K. or what information or instructions they gave him. On July 25, 2006, W.K. applied for a MasterDex 10 annuity policy from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. He paid an initial premium of $603,470.34 for the policy. W.K. was 73 years old at the time. W.K. obtained the money to fund the policy from the couple's Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Carter knew this. As part of the annuity application process, Mr. Carter submitted an Allianz "Product Suitability Form" for W.K. Completion of the form is a prerequisite to processing the application and issuing the policy. The stated purpose of the form is "to confirm that your [the applicant's] annuity purchase suits your current financial situation and long-term goals." The form, signed by W.K. and Mr. Carter, stated that an annuity was the source of the funds for payment of the annuity's premium. This statement was not accurate. Mr. Carter knew that it was not accurate. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a willful deception by Mr. Carter with regard to the policy. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a dishonest practice in his conduct of the business of insurance. The suitability form also indicated that W.K. expected the annuity to provide him a steady stream of income in six to nine years. Allianz accepted the application and issued the policy. Mr. Carter received a commission of $66,381.73. The MasterDex 10 is a complex financial product with many difficult to understand restrictions, conditions, interest options, bonuses, penalties, and limitations. The MasterDex 10 that W.K. and J.K. purchased paid interest linked to the performance of the Standard and Poors 500 stock market index. It also guaranteed interest of at least one percent. A "Nursing Home Benefit" was one of the options the MasterDex 10 provided. The "benefit" permitted the policy holder to receive payments of the full "annuitization" value of the policy over a period of five years or more if the holder was confined to a nursing home for 30 out of 35 consecutive days. The "annuitization value" is the maximum value that the policy can reach. It is the total of all payments that would be made to the holder if he either (1) let the premium and interest earned accumulate for a minimum of five contract years and then took ten years of interest only payments, followed by a lump sum payment of the annuitization value or (2) equal payments of principal and interest over ten or more years. Policy holders could make additional premium payments to increase the policy value. The policy also permitted limited withdrawals without penalty. After holding the policy for 12 months after the most recent premium payment, a holder could, without penalty, withdraw up to ten percent of the premium paid once a year until a maximum of 50 percent of the premium had been withdrawn. This meant that after one year passed, W.K. could make five annual withdrawals of $60,347.03. The policy also provided for loans on the annuity. In the years following this transaction, Mr. Carter maintained contact with W.K. and J.K. by periodically asking them to join him at a restaurant for lunch. Decline of W.K.'s Health While visiting his mother in Greece in 2008, W.K. fell and hit his head. Afterwards his health declined. On June 3, 2008, W.K. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and determined to be unable to make sound financial and medical decisions. From June 2008, forward, J.K. was very worried about W.K.'s health, caring for him, and making him as comfortable as possible. On November 5, 2008, W.K., at Mr. Carter's suggestion, executed a Durable Power of Attorney, prepared for her by a lawyer, giving J.K. broad authority to act on his behalf in financial matters. At some point, W.K. was admitted to the Bear Creek Skilled Nursing Center and resided there for a period of time. On April 4, 2010, he was discharged from Bear Creek. W.K. resided in Bear Creek for a period of time. Although there is some hearsay evidence about when W.K. entered Bear Creek, the evidence does not corroborate direct evidence or hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection in circuit court, sufficient to prove when W.K. entered Bear Creek. Consequently, the evidence does not establish the length of time that W.K. spent in the facility and does not establish that W.K. would have been eligible for the "Nursing Home Benefit" described in paragraph 16. After W.K. returned home in April, J.K. engaged an enterprise called "Granny Nannies" to provide caretakers at home. The services cost approximately $12,000 per month. During this period J.K.'s health also declined markedly. Among other things, she had appendicitis and breast cancer. Treatment of the cancer required chemotherapy, which left her in pain and exhausted. During this time Mr. Carter obtained a copy of the power of attorney executed by W.K. in favor of J.K. On June 18, 2010, the court appointed Paula Rego as guardian for W.K and J.K. with authority to act on their behalf in all matters affecting property rights. On November 26, 2010, W.K. died in hospice care after a short hospital stay. The Events of 2010 In December 2009, J.K. met with insurance sales agents and sisters Kimberly Trotter and Chandra Valdez. J.K. had responded to a mail solicitation by them. During the meeting, J.K. and Mss. Trotter and Valdez realized that J.K. knew them because J.K. and W.K. had rented space to the sisters' parents. Capitalizing on the connection and J.K.'s concerns about paying the monthly costs of care for W.K., Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez began providing financial advice and marketing annuity products that they sold. They advocated liquidating W.K.'s and J.K.'s existing annuities, including the MasterDex 10. In December 2009, Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez sold W.K. and J.K. two annuities with Great American for approximately $661,098. On January 28, 2010, W.K. authorized J.K. and Ms. Trotter to access policy information. In January 2010, Ms. Trotter attempted to liquidate the MasterDex 10 policy and transfer the funds to Great American. Allianz notified Mr. Carter of this in February 2010. He intervened to stop the transfer. On March 3, 2010, Allianz received another request to liquidate the MasterDex 10 from J.K. Allianz sent her what it calls a "conservation letter." The purpose of the letter is to "conserve" the business with the company. The letter also identified needed information, including a copy of J.K.'s power of attorney for W.K. On March 4, 2010, Allianz notified Mr. Carter of the liquidation request. He contacted J.K. and began a successful effort to obtain a letter asking to reverse the liquidation. On March 17, 2010, Ms. Trotter or Ms. Valdez again convinced J.K. to liquidate the MasterDex 10 funds and transfer them to Great American. Again Mr. Carter acted to stop the liquidation. On March 23, 2010, J.K. signed a letter written by Mr. Carter asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to RiverSource, a company that issued another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was. She only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. On March 26, 2010, J.K. submitted a liquidation request form for the MasterDex 10 signing it on behalf of herself and W.K. J.K. submitted the request at the urging of Ms. Trotter and/or Ms. Valdez. Allianz received the request on March 31, 2010. It began processing the full liquidation of the annuity policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent Allianz a letter saying that J.K. did not want to liquidate W.K.'s MasterDex 10 policy. The letter claimed that this was the second time that competing agents had tried to cancel the policy. Allianz reinstated the policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent a handwritten letter to Great American stating that J.K. did not want the MasterDex 10 policy canceled. The letter refers to having previously provided the power of attorney. Mr. Carter signed the letter. J.K. signed the letter on behalf of W.K. and herself. On April 7, 2010, Great American received a typewritten letter addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" stating that J.K. and W.K. wanted to transfer their funds to Great American since "December and January" and that J.K. did not see Mr. Carter on April 1 and did not sign a letter that he sent. On April 9, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote and sent a letter, signed by J.K. at his request, asking Great American to cancel the policies sold by Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez and waive all surrender charges. The letter states that J.K. is fighting cancer and that the agents forced her to sign the policy documents. Mr. Carter included with the letter a Withdrawal/Surrender Request Form completed by him and signed by J.K. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote a letter to Allianz stating that J.K. needed more than ten percent of the value of the MasterDex 10 policy (the penalty-free withdrawal permitted) to provide the funds needed to take care of W.K. The letter states that W.K. and J.K. wished to change ownership of the policy to J.K. only and then to fully surrender the policy. Mr. Carter's letter is signed by J.K. on her behalf and on behalf of W.K. Mr. Carter enclosed forms with the same date, which he prepared for J.K.'s signature, requesting the change of ownership and liquidation. Allianz sent J.K. a letter, with a copy to Mr. Carter, on April 29, 2010, identifying alternatives to liquidating MasterDex 10 for getting the money needed to care for W.K. The Allianz letter also disclosed that liquidating the policy would result in a substantial loss of money. In part, the letter stated: We understand you wish to surrender your annuity policy. As we review your request, we want to be certain you are aware of all the alternatives that are available to you. This information can help you make an informed decision based on your best financial interests. It is possible for you to access a portion of your policy's value while your policy remains in deferral. This would allow its value to continue to grow tax-deferred, and still provide the cash you need. Your annuity may permit you to take a free withdrawal, policy loan, or partial surrender. Finally, it's important to realize exactly how much you will be giving up should you decide to fully surrender your policy. Your policy's current Accumulation Value is $751,566.07 and its Surrender Value is $585,014.49. By surrendering your policy now, you are giving up the difference between these two values [$166,551.58]. Any one of these options could provide you with needed cash while allowing you to receive your full accumulation value in cash after your policy's 10-year surrender charge period. The letter provided a ten-day period, called a conservation period, during which J.K. could withdraw her request to liquidate the policy. Mr. Carter called Allianz on April 30, 2010, and spoke to Amber Hendrickson. In the recording of the conversation, Mr. Carter sounds agitated and speaks forcefully. J.K. participated in the telephone call. She is quiet and deferential. In the call, J.K. waives the ten-day "conservation" period. Mr. Carter insists that Allianz process the surrender swiftly. Allianz processed the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 on April 30, 2010. It wired funds from the liquidated annuity to J.K.'s Regions Bank account the same day. On April 30, 2010, J.K. signed a check for $475,000 to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company to purchase an annuity. Mr. Carter wrote the check. Also on April 30, 2010, J.K. signed an EquiTrust annuity application completed by Mr. Carter. The form indicates that the policy is not replacing an existing annuity contract. This is not an accurate representation. On April 30, 2010, Mr. Carter also completed an Annuity Suitability Questionnaire for J.K. to sign and submit with the EquiTrust application. He indicated that J.K. had income from a pension. Mr. Carter knew that this was not accurate. Mr. Carter also indicated that J.K.'s income was adequate to cover all expenses, including medical. He knew this was not accurate because he was fully aware of the cost of W.K.'s caregivers and J.K.'s concern about them. The form, as completed by Mr. Carter, is misleading about the source of the funds for purchase of the annuity. He made the technically correct representation that the funds come from a checking account. But the funds were from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 and were placed in the checking account the same day the application was completed. The funds were actually from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. The form also stated that the proposed annuity would not replace any product. Mr. Carter knew this was not accurate also. He knew that the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10, albeit in a lower amount, because J.K. kept some cash and lost a good deal of money in surrender costs. A letter Mr. Carter sent to EquiTrust on August 16, 2010, when it was investigating complaints about J.K.'s purchase of the annuity, demonstrates that he knew the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter's letter described the surrender and purchase this way: "An amount of $475,000 was placed into the EquiTrust Annuity (Market Power Bonus Index's Fixed account), the remaining balance of $110,038.75 was sent to her checking account, plus two other accounts valued at $50,000 that were closed, and a Jefferson National check that wasn't cashed for $3,500." Also, on April 23, 2010, J.K. signed, on behalf of herself and W.K., a Surrender/Withdrawal Request to RiverSource asking for the full withdrawal of the net accumulation value of their annuity contract with RiverSource. RiverSource sent J.K. a check for $26,430.07. It deducted $2,158.32 for a withdrawal charge and $295.98 for a "rider charge" from the full value of $28,884.37. On May 5, 2010, EquiTrust received J.K.'s policy application documents and check. EquiTrust required additional documents including a financial needs analysis form. Mr. Carter sought an exception to the requirement for a financial needs analysis form. He did not receive the exception. On May 6, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust the required financial needs analysis form. He completed the form for J.K., who was 72 at the time. J.K. also signed this form. The form repeats some of the incorrect statements of the previous forms. It is also includes additional incorrect statements. The instructions for the section about "Replacements" states, "complete if an existing life insurance policy or annuity contract will be used to fund this product." Mr. Carter checked "no" as the response to the question: "Is the agent assisting you with this annuity purchase the same agent on the life insurance policy or annuity contract being replaced?" This indicates he is aware that the policy replaces the MasterDex 10. The response was also a representation that he knew to be false, because he was the agent on the policy being replaced. Mr. Carter also indicated on the needs analysis form that the source of funds for the EquiTrust annuity purchase was "Stocks/Bonds/Mutual Funds." Mr. Carter knew that this representation was not correct. It was also inconsistent with the statement on the suitability questionnaire that the funds came from a checking account. On May 18, 2010, J.K. signed a letter, written by Mr. Carter, asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to Genworth, a company holding another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. J.K. signed a letter, dated May 20, 2010, instructing EquiTrust to cancel the annuity she had with it. On May 23, 2010, Mr. Pearson submitted a form, signed by J.K., using the power of attorney, asking Genworth to liquidate an annuity held for W.K. On May 26, 2010, EquiTrust received the request to cancel J.K.'s policy and advised Mr. Carter. On May 31, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust a letter saying that J.K. did not want to cancel and enclosed a letter he prepared, dated May 26, 2010, and signed by J.K. asking EquiTrust to withdraw the cancelation request. The letter also stated that an agent who provided her untruthful information initiated the request. On June 2, 2010, at Mr. Carter's urging, J.K. sent EquiTrust a letter saying she wanted to keep the EquiTrust policy. On June 2, 2010, Mr. Carter sent, by facsimile, a letter written by him and signed by J.K. asking Great American to make Peter Gotsis her annuity agent. J.K. did not know Peter Gotsis and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter asked her to. On June 29, 2010, EquiTrust received a check for an additional $90,302.19 premium for J.K.'s policy. In July 2010, with the assistance of employees at her bank and others, J.K. contacted an attorney. The attorney, Joan Hook, contacted Mr. Carter and the various companies with annuities. Due to the efforts of Ms. Hook, J.K.'s guardian, Ms. Rego, Ms. Karen Ortega of the Department, and others, the series of transactions were undone and J.K. returned to her position before the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. From December 2010 forward, it was clear to Mr. Carter or anyone else having regular dealings with J.K. that she is confused, uninformed about financial matters, compliant, reasoning poorly, and not capable of making sound decisions. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact combined with the fact that W.K. died several years before the hearing, makes it impossible to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to W.K. and J.K. and to determine what information or instructions they gave him. Much of the evidence related to Counts I through V is hearsay evidence that would not be admissible over objection in a civil action. In addition, there is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of W.K. and J.K., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the various products promoted by Mr. Carter or of the liquidation of the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the Allianz and the EquiTrust annuities. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz and EquiTrust. Count VI--G.D. and K.D. G.D. lives in New Port Richey, Florida, where she moved from New York about 40 years ago. She was born on January 17, 1935, and has a ninth-grade education. G.D. had worked as a courier. Her investment experience consists of funding certificates of deposit (CDs), placing money in a mutual fund, and purchasing a Transamerica annuity. She is frugal and a conservative investor. G.D. is married to K.D. who was born April 12, 1927. Both are retired. G.D. met Mr. Carter in January 2010, when she responded to a postcard that he sent suggesting that he could save her money on taxes on social security payments. At that time, G.D. was 75 years old and K.D. was 83. G.D. was and is in bad health due to having suffered four strokes. She had difficulty speaking to Mr. Carter during his sales presentations. G.D. and K.D. disclosed to Mr. Carter that their total monthly family income, including social security and K.D.'s pension income, was approximately $2,400.00. They also disclosed that their assets included approximately $325,000.00 in CDs held with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union. G.D. and K.D. each owned an annuity, one with Hartford and one with Transamerica, which they told Mr. Carter about. Together, the annuities had a value of approximately $85,000. G.D. and K.D. also had approximately $66,000 in a money market account. Mr. Carter convinced G.D. and K.D. to liquidate their CDs to purchase two Allianz annuities called a MasterDex 10 Plus. One required payment of a $38,219.39 premium. The other required payment of a $287,365.00 premium. The couple applied for the annuities for G.D., with K.D. as the beneficiary, because he was the older of the two. Mr. Carter completed the applications, which they signed. Part six of the applications is titled: "Replacement (this section must be completed)." It asks two questions. The first is: "Do you have existing life insurance or annuity contracts?" Mr. Carter checked "no" as an answer. This was not correct, and he knew it. The second question asks: "Will the annuity contract applied for replace or change existing contract or policies?" This Mr. Carter correctly answered "no." Section six also asks for the amount of coverage in force. Mr. Carter did not provide this information. Mr. Carter also completed the Florida Senior Consumer Suitability Form Questionnaire for G.D. and K.D., which they signed. The form accurately reflects the couple's net worth, liquid assets, and income. It reports correctly that they owned or had owned CDs, fixed annuities, and variable annuities. The completed form also accurately reflects the couple's desire for guaranteed income. The form discloses that the annuity must be owned a minimum of 15 years to receive its maximum value. The MasterDex 10 Plus annuity is a complicated financial product with a ten percent "bonus" that the buyer does not receive unless she holds the policy for 15 years. In fact, holding the policy for 15 years is the only way to get the full benefit of the policy. While money may be withdrawn earlier, that results in losses of the benefits and in some cases penalties. For instance, if a policy holder chooses to liquidate the policy, the value she receives is only 87.5 percent of the premium paid with one percent interest for the period held. These provisions have a substantial financial effect on the benefits of the annuity. For example, in the fifth year, the cash surrender value of the $38,219.49 premium policy is $36,027.00. About ten months after purchasing the annuities, G.D. and K.D. began having second thoughts about the purchase of the annuities. G.D. consulted with the financial advisor "Wayne" at her bank. G.D. later concluded that she had also misunderstood the interest rate. Mr. Carter had shown her sales material with the ten percent "bonus," which generated a high interest rate of 13.3 percent for one year. But G.D. did not understand that the interest rate only applied in one year, and the money was not immediately available. On November 17, 2010, G.D., with Wayne's help, composed a complaint letter to Allianz that summarized her complaints and requested that her premium payments be returned without fees. On November 28, 2010, Carter responded with a letter to Allianz defending his annuity sales. On December 17, 2010, Allianz's employee, Mary Lou Fleischacker, advised G.D. by letter that the "free look" period for cancelling the contracts had passed. But Fleischacker did request further information about the sales. By two letters dated January 10, 2011, Allianz advised G.D. that she would suffer over $80,000 in penalties if she canceled the contracts. G.D.'s efforts to terminate the annuities prompted Carter to come uninvited into G.D.'s home and insistently demand that G.D. telephone Allianz and cancel her attempt to rescind the contracts. He also asked her, without explanation, to wait one week before liquidating the policies. G.D. refused. Carter repeatedly telephoned G.D. and returned uninvited to the house several times making the same demand. G.D. refused to answer her door. Mr. Carter came to G.D.'s daughter's house uninvited one evening, told her that her mother was going to lose a lot of money, and revealed her mother's financial matters to her. Mr. Carter demanded that G.D.'s daughter deliver to her mother for signature a letter he wrote rescinding the liquidation requests. G.D.'s daughter agreed to get Carter to leave. G.D.'s daughter feared for her mother's safety because of Mr. Carter's harassing telephone calls to her and her mother. She urged her mother to call the police. G.D. called the police and a New Port Richey officer told Mr. Carter to cease the harassment, and then filed a report on January 13, 2011. Mr. Carter did not contact G.D. or her daughter after that. Eventually, with the assistance of Department Investigator Ortega, G.D. was able to obtain the return of her funds from Allianz. There is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of G.D. and K.D., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the liquidation of the CDs and purchase of the MasterDex 10 Plus annuities as promoted and sold by Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the MasterDex 10 Plus annuity. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz. Mr. Carter's repeated, persistent, and overbearing efforts to require G.D. to speak with him about the cancelation and withdraw it demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance. Count VII--G.B. G.B. was born on January 14, 1930. She has a high school education. G.B. worked at and retired from Lucent Technology wiring telephone boards. She receives a small pension. Her husband, K.B., managed their financial affairs before he died ten years ago. Before K.B.'s death, the couple maintained investment accounts with Schwab. After K.B.'s death, Schwab employee, Barry Tallman, recommended that G.B. seek financial advice from Christopher Trombetta, CPA. She did so. Mr. Carter and a colleague, Christopher Drew, met with G.B. on June 29, 2010. She was 70 years old, timid, and easily confused. G.B. had responded to a promotional postcard she received from them purporting that the law governing taxes on social security income had changed and that they could lower her taxes. Mr. Carter was the person who presented G.B. information and persuaded her to purchase an annuity in the course of a meeting that lasted one to two hours. The evidence does not permit a determination of what representations and information Mr. Carter presented in his sales meeting with G.B. Her memory of the meeting was not distinct. She was confused about the meeting and did not remember facts precisely or explicitly. Mr. Carter completed applications for EquiTrust annuity products. G.B. signed the applications. Mr. Carter also completed financial needs analyses. G.B. signed them also. A box that asks if the applicant is aware that the annuity may be "a long-term contract with substantial penalties for early withdrawal" was checked "yes." The form also accurately represented that the source of funds for the annuity premium was stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. The other representations in the form were accurate. Mr. Carter persuaded G.B. to purchase two EquiTrust Market Power Plus annuities. G.B. signed two EquiTrust annuity contracts ending with 29F (E-29F) and 30F (E-30F). The initial premium for E-29F was $458,832.71. The initial premium for E-30F was $118,870.34. Both annuities were designed to provide G.B. with income in 2036. The funds for the premium came from the liquidation of her stock brokerage account. Both contracts had 20 percent surrender charges for the first two years of ownership. G.B. could not have surrendered the contract with its full financial benefits without a penalty until she was 95 years old. Mr. Carter delivered the annuity contracts to G.B. on August 6, 2010. The contracts provided G.B. the right to cancel the annuity by returning it within 15 days of the date she received it. Soon afterwards, Barry Tallman notified G.B. that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated. Transamerica Agent William Pearson had liquidated the accounts to transfer the money for purchase of the EquiTrust annuities. She was surprised. G.B. grew concerned about the annuities and consulted Mr. Trombetta and a financial advisor named Judith Gregory on September 20, 2010. With their assistance, G.B. wrote a complaint letter to EquiTrust asserting that Mr. Carter had assured her, among other things, that the annuities would protect her money should she enter a nursing home. G.B. wanted to cancel the annuities and have her full premium returned. G.B.'s letter to EquiTrust said, "I do not want any calls or visits from the agent or the agent's office." Mr. Carter learned of the effort to cancel the annuities. On November 15, 2010, at Mr. Carter's suggestion, he and Mr. Drew returned to G.B.'s home uninvited and unannounced. Mr. Carter insisted on entering and speaking to G.B. Mr. Carter began loudly and forcefully arguing with G.B. She telephoned Mr. Trombetta and asked that he speak to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter yelled at Mr. Trombetta. Mr. Trombetta credibly describes part of the conversation as follows: And before I could barely get that out, Rick exploded on me. He snapped and he started cursing up and down. F'n me up one side and down the other. And "you don't F'n know what you are talking about. You don't care about this person. You don't f'n know what you are doing;" and this and that. When G.B. returned to the telephone to speak with Mr. Trombetta, he advised her to call the police if Mr. Carter did not leave her house within five minutes. Mr. Carter and Mr. Drew left. EquiTrust eventually returned over $600,000 to G.B. There is no expert testimony evaluating and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of G.B.'s life expectancy which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the two annuities Mr. Carter sold G.B. Mr. Carter's conduct, in his unannounced visit to G.B. to try to persuade her to change her plans to liquidate the annuities and his conversation with Mr. Trombetta, demonstrated a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order revoking the licenses of Richard Edward Carter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance and insurance related activities in Florida. Petitioner is the agency responsible for regulating any licensed or unlicensed person or entity engaged in unfair insurance trade practices within the meaning of Section 626.951, Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent, Leroy Preston, is licensed to sell life and health insurance in Florida. The other Respondents are not licensed to transact insurance in Florida and are not otherwise licensed by Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 624 through 632, 634, 635, 637, 638, 641, 648, and 651 (the "Florida Insurance Code"). Respondent, American Family Benefits Group, Incorporated ("AFBG, Inc.") is a Florida corporation wholly owned by the four individual Respondents. Respondent, Roy L. Beach, is an officer and director of AFBG, Inc., and is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Respondents, Preston, Kenneth King, and Robert King, are officers and directors of AFBG, Inc. The individual Respondents comprise American Family Benefits Group ("AFBG") and the board of directors for AFBG, Inc. (the "Board"). Background Respondents designed a marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. Promotional materials describing the benefits of membership were reviewed and approved by each member of the Board and mailed to thousands of prospective customers in 50 states. Memberships were offered to individuals at a price of $99 per membership. The benefits of membership included: life insurance up to $350,000 at no cost to members; a certificate of deposit of $5,000; a major bank credit card, regardless of credit history, secured by the certificate of deposit; non- qualifying mortgage loans; non-qualifying automobile leases; discounted long distance service; and discounted catalog prices. Respondents received approximately 140,000 applications for membership. Approximately 600 applications included payment of the $99 membership fee. Petitioner issued a Notice And Order To Show Cause on February 10, 1994. The marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. was terminated by Respondents. Respondents returned the membership fee paid by approximately 300 applicants. On May 6, 1994, Petitioner issued an Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause ("Amended Notice"). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Sections 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a), (b), (h), (l), and (n). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(a) by making misrepresentations for the purpose of effecting an assignment or pledge of insurance policies to secure a loan. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(b) by representing that insurance policies obtained on the life of members would be used to secure a loan that would fund membership benefits. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(h) by offering the payment of money to induce customers to enter into an insurance contract. The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(l) by inducing customers to pledge, assign, borrow on insurance policies, convert insurance policies, or to take out an insurance policy with another insurer ("twisting"). Finally, the Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(n) by offering free insurance as an inducement for the purchase or sale or services directly or indirectly connected with real or personal property. Pledge Or Assignment To Effect A Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(a) Respondents knowingly issued and circulated a statement or sales presentation (the "promotional materials") that was a misrepresentation. The misrepresentation was made for the purposes of: effecting a pledge or assignment of an insurance policy; and effecting a loan against an insurance policy. Payment of the $99 membership fee did not entitle a new member to any of the benefits of membership. A new member was not required to elect any membership benefit, including the insurance benefits. Such a member could simply pay Respondents $99 and choose to receive none of the benefits of membership. A new member who wished to elect any of the benefits of membership was in substantially the same position as a new member who chose to receive no benefits. A new member who desired any one of the benefits of membership was first required to elect the insurance benefits. Insurance benefits entitled a new member to five universal life insurance policies on the life of the new member. Each policy was to be issued for $70,000. 2/ No life insurance policies were available unless a new member applied for and obtained all five policies and assigned four of the five policies to a bank. The bank must then make a loan in an amount and terms that were sufficient to fund all of the benefits of membership. 3/ A loan in the gross amount of $84,000 was needed to fund the benefits of membership. The net loan proceeds were to be used to purchase an annuity, a certificate of deposit to secure the credit card for the new member, pay Respondents a profit of $5,000, pay commissions and referral fees to independent parties up to $3,000, pay administrative costs, and fund the other benefits of membership. 4/ Respondents' pro forma projections of economic feasibility for the membership program showed an annual interest rate of six per cent, an amortization period of 20 years, and level periodic payments of principal and interest. Respondents' pro formal projections were based, in relevant part, on three assumptions. First, the insurance policies would be used as part of the collateral securing the loan needed to fund the benefits of membership. Second, Respondents were to be personally liable for each loan. Third, an annuity would secure the loan, pay the debt service on the loan, and pay the premiums for the insurance policies assigned to the lender. The insurance policies that new members were required to assign to the lender to secure the purported loan had no loan value. Respondents represented to prospective members that the life insurance policies were universal life policies. However, the policies were "skeleton" universal life policies that had de minimis cash value and no loan value. The loan to value ratio of any loan secured by the insurance policies would necessarily exceed 100 percent. Respondents' personal liability for loans to new members lacked economic substance. Capital contributions to AFBG, Inc. and Respondents' individual assets were inadequate to secure individual loans of $84,000 to 140,000 members. The annuity needed to pay the debt service on the loan and the insurance premiums on the policies securing the loan was not economically feasible. 5/ The membership fee of $99 was inadequate to pay the first year insurance premium on one $70,000 policy, much less the other four policies required to fund any of the benefits of membership. The economic reality of the membership program required a new member to pay Respondents $99 and to apply for and obtain five insurance policies from independent insurance agents. There was little or no probability of receiving any of the benefits of membership because the loan needed to fund those benefits had little or no economic reality. Thus, the membership program required a new member to pay $99 to Respondents for no benefits of membership. If $99 had been paid by all 140,000 applicants, Respondents would have received $13,860,000 in return for illusory promises of membership benefits. Insurance Policies To Secure Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(b) Respondents knowingly published, circulated, disseminated, and placed before the public an untrue statement concerning the business of insurance. Respondents represented that the universal life insurance policies obtained by individual members would be used as collateral to secure the loan needed to fund their insurance benefits. Respondents knew that the insurance policies were skeleton policies with little or no cash value and no loan value. The untrue statements issued by Respondents concerned the business of insurance. Respondents used economic incentives to induce prospective members to obtain life insurance policies. Without life insurance policies, new members were not entitled to any of the other benefits of membership including, a certificate of deposit, a credit card, non-qualifying mortgages, and non- qualifying car leases. The purchase and assignment of life insurance policies was an integral part of the business conducted by Respondents. The economic incentives used by Respondents were designed to effectuate a contract of insurance. Respondents effectuated approximately five contracts of insurance. The subsequent assignment of insurance policies to a lender also constituted the business of insurance. Those assignments constituted the transaction of matters subsequent to the insurance contract and arising out of the insurance contract. Unlawful Rebates: Section 626.9541(1)(h) 27. Respondents knowingly offered an indirect rebate of an insurance premium to prospective members as an inducement to enter into an insurance contract. Respondents' offer to pay the insurance premiums on members' insurance policies was a valuable consideration intended to induce new members to enter into insurance contracts. Twisting: Section 626.9541(1)(l) 28. Respondents knowingly made misleading representations with respect to insurance policies for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce new members to pledge, assign, borrow on, or convert an insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer. Respondents representations were misleading. 29. Respondents' representations led prospective members to believe that a pledge, assignment, or conversion of their insurance policies could be used to secure a loan needed to fund other membership benefits. The representation that a loan could be obtained by new members upon assignment of their insurance policies had no economic reality. Free Insurance: Section 626.9541(1)(n) Respondents offered to provide free insurance as an inducement for new members to purchase real or personal property. The benefits of membership included non-qualifying mortgages in real property, non-qualifying car leases, and non-qualifying bank credit cards. None of those benefits were available to new members unless they obtained life insurance policies and assigned those policies to a lender. The insurance policies were free to new members. There was no cost to new members. The insurance premiums were to be paid out of the annuity to be purchased from the net loan proceeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of all of the charges in the Amended Notice and ordering Respondents to permanently cease and desist the marketing of memberships in AFBG, Inc. It is further recommended that a fine of $4,000 should be imposed on each of the Respondents, not to exceed the aggregate amount of $20,000, and that the license of Respondent, Leroy Preston, should be suspended for 30 days. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether the licenses of Frank Joseph Brennan should be disciplined for actions of Mr. Brennan or of agents associated with Frank J. Brennan, P.A. with respect to the sale of insurance products to three (3) clients: Rebecca Fisher, Celine M. Rompre, and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph T. Nolan.
Findings Of Fact Frank Brennan Frank Joseph Brennan holds licenses as an ordinary life agent, ordinary life including health, health agent, and ordinary-variable annuity agent. Brennan is the owner and president of Frank J. Brennan, P.A., which sells life and health insurance products, including tax sheltered annuities of the National Western Life Insurance Company. The firm has several thousand tax sheltered annuity clients. Brennan had been the president and the director of Lancer Securities Corporation. On March 22, 1979, he was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for acting as an officer or director of any registered investment company. That injunction states that it did not constitute evidence against or an admission by Brennan, and that the injunction did not "establish or prove any of the acts alleged or asserted in any pleadings." Brennan was suspended from associating with any investment advisor for 120 days, and barred from associating thereafter with an investment advisor other than as a supervised employee in an order entered by the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 1979. Brennan was barred from associating with any member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. in the capacity of a principal in an order entered by that association on October 15, 1980. Brennan was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 1980 from associating with any member in the capacity of a principal and fined $1,000. In May 1983, United Equitable Insurance Company terminated Brennan as an agent based on an adverse Equifax report. That report was not placed in evidence. (The foregoing findings 3 through 7 are based upon the Department of Insurance's Second Request for Admissions and Fifth Request for Official Recognition.) The Relationship Of Gregory Langsett And Betty Jones To The Frank J. Brennan, P.A. Frank J. Brennan, P.A., has contracts with a number of licensed insurance agents, including Gregory Langsett and Betty Jones. Langsett has a producer agreement with National Western Life Insurance Company which describes him as an independent contractor, and an agent's agreement with the Brennan firm. Under the agent's agreement Langsett has with the Brennan professional association dated December 4, 1981, Langsett is deemed an independent contractor and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee. You are free to exercise your own judgement as to the persons from whom you solicit applications and the time and place of such solicitation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 28, Paragraph 1.) Brennan had been involved in training of Langsett and Jones when they first were associated with the firm. Agents such as Langsett and Jones are not listed on the employer's quarterly wage report made by the Frank J. Brennan, P.A. to the State of Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. Agents such as Langsett and Jones pay their own estimated income tax withholding and their own social security taxes. The Brennan firm does provide agents with business cards (although Jones had her own cards printed). It also provides sales kits, telephone answering, postal services, makes available space for meeting with clients at the firm office and provides accounting services incident to the payment of commissions on business submitted to carriers through the firm, all without charge to the agents. Educational meetings are held on Fridays, which the agents are encouraged, but not required, to attend which discuss the various insurance products available through insurance companies the Brennan firm is associated with. Agents benefit from advertising done by the Brennan firm. Brennan occasionally provides leads to agents. For example, January 1986 Brennan provided to Betty Jones and her husband (also a licensed insurance agent) a list of approximately 100 names of employees of the Boca Raton Academy so that they could be solicited for purchase of tax sheltered annuities, and an arrangement was worked out under which Brennan and the Joneses would divide commissions from any such sales. There is no evidence that Brennan controlled the time, place or manner of these solicitations, or of any other solicitations for the purchase of insurance products. Langsett and Jones were not subject to the direct supervision and control of Brennan in their activities of soliciting insurance clients. They are not employees of the Professional Association -- they are independent contractors. This arrangement of appointing soliciting agents who are independent contractors is used by other sellers of tax sheltered annuities, and is not unique to the Brennan firm. (Tr. 496, 579). Brennan does have the authority, based on his contracts with insurance carriers, to appoint licensed agents as agents of insurance carriers. Rebecca Fisher's Dealings With Frank J. Brennan, P.A. and Frank Brennan Rebecca Fisher is an employee of the Dade County School Board. She contacted Langsett concerning tax sheltered annuities offered by the National Western Life Insurance Company, after learning of Langsett from another employee. Under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, employees of school boards may have a portion of their wages paid into a tax sheltered annuity. They pay no income tax on the amounts deposited in the annuity through payroll deduction and the interest paid on the amounts deposited is not taxed when earned. Such annuities are long term savings plans designed to supplement the participant's retirement income. Ms. Fisher already had a tax sheltered annuity with Northern Life Insurance Company which had a face value of over $90,000. She had bought it through an insurance agent, Mr. Paul Indianer, with whom she had dealt over a number of years. Langsett met with Mrs. Fisher at her home for about 15 to 20 minutes on a Saturday in June 1985. Mrs. Fisher was not able to spend much time with Mr. Langsett that day because she had to go to a funeral at about noon. Thereafter, Mrs. Fisher attempted to call Langsett at the Brennan insurance offices. She called after 5:00 p.m. and Langsett was not there. Respondent Brennan answered the phone call. They discussed the possibility of opening a tax sheltered annuity account through National Western by rolling over into a new account money she had in her current tax sheltered annuity. Mrs. Fisher knew if the money were rolled over she would incur a surrender charge. She also discussed with Brennan whether it would be possible to borrow money from a new National Western tax sheltered annuity for home improvements. She was told money borrowed from a National Western annuity could be used for home improvements, and taxes would not have to be paid on the money borrowed from the annuity until her death. Her current annuity did not have a provision that permitted borrowing. At the hearing the provision permitting borrowing was referred to as the TEFRA provision -- so known , because it had its genesis in a portion of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). (Tr. 45, 46, 80) Reviewing the totality of Mrs. Fisher's testimony, the Hearing Officer is not persuaded that Mrs. Fisher is able to recall with clarity the conversation which she had with Mr. Brennan. For example, the Hearing Officer does not accept the testimony that Respondent or Langsett told Fisher that National Western would pay 20 percent interest the first year and 18 percent the second year on its annuities. Those figures represented the surrender charges on the Northern Life tax sheltered annuity she already had. Neither did Brennan tell Fisher that she would get $75,000 of free life insurance in connection with a new tax sheltered annuity. One of the possibilities Brennan mentioned to Fisher was a more involved transaction in which her money would be rolled over into a new tax sheltered annuity, and a $50,000 loan would be taken against that new annuity. The $50,000 might be used to purchase a single premium life insurance policy. Interest paid on the amount placed in that policy would accumulate without any income tax being owed on the interest as it was paid. National Western Life Insurance Company would provide $75,000 of life insurance in connection with such a policy, over and above its $50,000 face amount, for a $155,000 total life insurance benefit. The single premium life insurance policy does not make a specific charge for the $75,000 additional death benefit. There is, of course, a charge for this insurance in that the interest rate paid on the $50,000 deposited in the single premium life insurance policy is reduced by the mortality charge on the $75,000 additional death benefit. Mrs. Fisher confused these two different insurance products (the tax sheltered annuity and the single premium life insurance policy), and thought that the life insurance was part of the tax sheltered annuity, which is not what Brennan discussed. Mrs. Fisher's notes of her conversation indicate that there would be a rollover penalty assessed against the face amount of her Northern Life tax sheltered annuity if she moved it to a National Western tax sheltered annuity. She had incurred penalties when she had moved money from her first annuity with Franklin Life to Standard Life the second annuity from Standard Life to Northern Life, both at the suggestion of her insurance advisor/agent, Mr. Indianer. (Tr. 57). Those notes also appear to indicate that Brennan referred to her current Northern Life tax sheltered annuity as "antiquated," and described the method by which payments are made under the annuity as "suicide" from an income tax point-of-view. In view of the complexity of these insurance matters, and Mrs. Fisher's misunderstanding of what Brennan had said on other significant portions of the conversation, the Hearing Officer is not satisfied that the evidence is clear and convincing that Brennan used those terms to describe Mrs. Fisher's current insurance products in his conversation with Mrs. Fisher. Similarly, the testimony that Brennan referred to her old Franklin Life and Standard Life annuities (which Indianer had already persuaded her to replace) as "garbage" is not accepted. Under the Internal Revenue Code, if money were borrowed from the annuity for the purpose of home improvements, no tax would be due on the amount borrowed until the annuitant's death, or the surrender of the annuity for cash or annuitization. (Tr. 624, 781). Borrowings for other purposes must be paid back in five years or they are treated as a distribution from the shelter, and require that income tax be paid on that distribution. Neither the code nor case law requires a loan to be repaid when the annuitant reaches a certain age. In short, contrary to the allegations of Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence is not convincing that Brennan made improper or defamatory remarks about Fisher's prior annuities or existing annuity, that he misrepresented the actual tax implications of the plans or the interest rate offered by the plans, or falsely represented that Fisher would receive $75,000 of free life insurance with a National Western annuity contract. Celine Rompre's Dealings With Betty J. Jones Betty J. Jones is an insurance agent licensed by the State of Florida. She also worked as an independent contractor through the Frank J. Brennan, P.A., selling tax sheltered annuity products of the National Western Life Insurance Company. Unlike Langsett there is no evidence that she has a written contract with the Brennan firm, but she does have a producer agreement with National Western Life Insurance Company. On or about July 23, 1985, Ms. Jones solicited Celine M. Rompre for the purpose of selling her a National Western Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Rompre was an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board who already had a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity payroll deduction handled through Voyager Life Insurance Company; the insurance agency which had sold that annuity to her was owned by Edward Parmele. Respondent Brennan personally had nothing to do with the solicitation which Betty J. Jones made of Celine Rompre. Betty J. Jones was not acting under the direct supervision and control of Frank J. Brennan in that transaction. Betty Jones met with Celine Rompre and discussed the National Western tax sheltered annuity. Mrs. Rompre's husband also works and the Rompres do not need Mrs. Rompre's salary for living expenses. At the time she spoke with Betty Jones, Mrs. Rompre's annual salary was $5,500. She believed that it would increase to $7,200 at the beginning of the next school year, which did happen. At the time Mrs. Rompre was putting $1,040 into her Voyager Insurance Company tax sheltered annuity each year. Betty Jones discussed with Mrs. Rompre increasing her tax sheltered annuity contribution to approximately $4,000 per year. Jones told her that the maximum amount she could contribute would have to be separately calculated for each year. (Tr. 752). Mrs. Rompre was interested in this because Mrs. Rompre's daughter was then in the 8th grade, and it would be possible to borrow against that money to help with her daughter's education. Mrs. Rompre knew she would incur a substantial surrender charge on her current annuity if she switched to National Western. She signed papers prepared by Jones to accomplish the transfer of her annuity to National Western. Rompre was not eligible to increase her Section 403(b) annuity contribution immediately because she had changed her contribution once that year and only one change in the payroll deduction can be made annually. (Tr. 751). When the paperwork went to the School Board to change the annuity from the Voyager annuity to the National Western annuity, Mrs. Rompre was contacted by Mr. Parmele about her Voyager annuity. He stated that Mrs. Rompre could not put $4,000 per year into a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. This influenced Mrs. Rompre to cancel the transfer to National Western. In fact, Mrs. Rompre was in a situation where she qualified to put as much as $5,051 into a tax sheltered annuity (this amount is known as the maximum exclusion allowance) over the next year under a catch-up provision of the Internal Revenue Code because she had not been contributing to an annuity for all eight years she had been employed by the Palm Beach County School Board. (Tr. 780). There is no evidence that Ms. Rompre was contributing to any other qualified retirement plans that would have affected her maximum exclusion allowance. Betty Jones did not misrepresent to Celine Rompre the amount of her maximum exclusion allowance, the terms of the surrender charges for the Voyager life insurance policy or the National Western life insurance policy, or improperly affixed the signature of Celine Rompre to a letter to the Voyager Life Insurance Company requesting cancellation of her existing account. Dealings Of Frank J. Brennan With The Nolans In about March of 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Nolan went to Brennan for help preparing their tax return and for financial planning. Mr. Brennan had been highly recommended to them. Mr. Nolan is a loss prevention manager for Radio Shack, and Mrs. Nolan is employed by the School Board of Broward County. Mr. Nolan had recently received an inheritance of about $30,000 and was looking for a way to invest it. The Nolans emphasized that the investment vehicle be liquid so they could access the money if they needed it. They were concerned that they might need it for the care of their parents. When Mr. Nolan came to Brennan, he had whole life insurance policies with Prudential and Metropolitan Life which had some cash value. Brennan suggested those policies be cancelled so that the cash value could be invested, and this was done. Mrs. Nolan's Section 403(b) Tax Sheltered Annuity When the Nolans came to Brennan, Mrs. Nolan did not have a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Brennan suggested that she contribute to such an annuity program as a means of saving on income taxes. He also told them they could borrow against those funds, but this was of no interest to the Nolans. Mrs. Nolan purchased a tax sheltered annuity with Great American Life Insurance Company which currently paid 13.75 percent interest. One of the documents which is filled out to begin the payroll deduction with the Broward County School Board for Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuities is an amendment to the annuitant's employment contract to cause part of the salary to be paid directly into the annuity. On that form there are disclosures, including whether there is a sales charge, administration fee, or transfer fee, as well as whether there is a surrender charge. The amendment which she executed does not show any surrender charge in connection with the Great American Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) annuity she purchased. Later the Nolans received another copy of the amendment which had the surrender charge portion filled in. It stated there would be a surrender charge of one-fifth of the first year's deposits only, which is waived if all proceeds are withdrawn over 36 months or longer. When Mr. Nolan received this he immediately called Mr. Brennan to ask about the surrender charge. Brennan told him that the annuity document itself explained the surrender charge and it should have been on the amendment to the employment contract as well. Brennan negligently failed to explain the surrender charge to the Nolans when the annuity was first taken out. After receiving the altered amendment to employment contract, Mrs. Nolan instructed the School Board to stop the annuity deductions as of December She had contributed $7,234 to the annuity at that time. The Nolans then asked to cancel the annuity because they had not been made aware of the surrender charge. Mr. Brennan responded by stating that in order to get the refund, they would have to sign a release at the request of the insurance company, but the Nolans refused to sign any release. They prepared a short letter to the insurance company seeking the recision of the policy. Brennan also wrote to the company seeking the refund. The Nolans did receive their money back. In connection with the rescission, the Nolans demanded and received from Brennan assurances that if the amount deposited in the annuity were not received by March 3, 1986, that Brennan would pay 10 percent interest per year on the proceeds until the Nolans received the proceeds. The Nolans received the amount before the agreed date when Brennan would begin to pay interest. The amount they received was only the principal paid in, however, and did not include any interest for the period the money had been held by Great American Life Insurance Company. Repayment of the $7,234 rendered these funds subject to current income taxes, because that income had not been subject to tax when placed in the annuity. The Nolans' Other Insurance Purchases From Brennan When the Great American Section 403(b) annuity was purchased, the Nolans also purchased other insurance products. These included two $2,000 individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for Mr. and Mrs. Nolan with National Western in the form of annuity policies, a Kemper Life Insurance policy on Mr. Nolan with a face value of $100,000 to replace the existing policies he had cancelled, and a $30,000 single premium endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan from National Western Life Insurance Company, which included a life insurance benefit so that the face amount of the policy was $200,602. These purchases saved the Nolans about $3,000 in income taxes. The Nolan's had had IRA accounts at savings and loan institutions before they came to Brennan, which they would roll over when the instruments in which the money was deposited matured. Brennan explained that these National Western annuities were different than the accounts they had. These annuities were cancelled because the Nolans became dissatisfied with Brennan due to the non-disclosure of the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) annuity with Great American Life Insurance Company. Mr. Brennan arranged for those to be cancelled without penalty at the request of the Nolans. They received the principal paid in plus interest. After the cancellation of the prior whole life policies at Brennan's suggestion, see Finding of Fact 37, above, Mr. Nolan purchased a Kemper Life Insurance term life insurance policy. At first he considered rescinding it along with the IRAs, also due to dissatisfaction with Brennan because of the failure to disclose the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) annuity. Ultimately he kept the Kemper policy, which was a better policy than the ones that had been cancelled. The $30,000 inheritance Mr. Nolan received was used to purchase a $30,000 single premium life endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan, which then paid 11.12 percent interest on the amount deposited and permitted borrowing from the policy at 7.4 percent. The policy was placed on Mrs. Nolan's life because she was the better underwriting risk. The interest which accrued on that policy was not subject to current federal income taxation, so the purchase was consistent with the Nolan's goal of achieving a high yield on the money with minimum taxation. That $30,000 premium purchased over $200,000 worth of life insurance on Mrs. Nolan, which Brennan described as "a freebie" in connection with the tax sheltered investment of the $30,000. This policy was cancelled under a policy provision which gave the right to cancel the policy during the first year, in part due to dissatisfaction with Brennan over the non-disclosure of the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Nolan was also dissatisfied with the endowment policy after he received it because (1) the interest guaranteed to be paid on the $30,000 was only 4 percent although he understood that the actual interest to be paid would fluctuate with economic conditions and be competitive and (2) to access the $30,000 he could not withdraw money, but had to borrow from the policy. Although a loan could be processed quickly, Mr. Nolan did not like the idea of having to borrow his own money. The record is not clear whether the Nolans did or did not receive interest on the $30,000 for the time it was on deposit with National Western Life Insurance Company before the cancellation. The policy itself provides that on cancellation the insured "will be refunded the greater of the premium you paid or the cash value at that time." (Respondent's Exhibit 25) Because Mrs. Nolan signed an application naming Mr. Nolan and beneficiary for the insurance purchased with the $30,000, because she had a physical examination to obtain the policy, and because the check to purchase it was made out to National Western Life Insurance, Mr. Nolan's testimony that he did not understand that the "investment" he was making with his $30,000 involved the purchase of an insurance policy is not accepted. Brennan did sell the $30,000 policy to the Nolans in part on the basis that they would receive approximately $200,000 in free life insurance. The Nolans were more interested in a tax shelter for the $30,000 that would pay high interest, not in the insurance benefit. In summary, Brennan failed to explain the surrender charge associated with the Great American Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity to the Nolans when it was purchased. Brennan made no misrepresentations with respect to the sale of the two annuities from National Western Life Insurance which were to be used as the Nolans' individual retirement accounts. There were no misrepresentations made to Mr. Nolan with respect to the purchase of his Kemper Life Insurance policy, which he still has. Brennan told the Nolans that they would receive free life insurance associated with the deposit of $30,000 in the endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan's life, which had been purchased due to the tax free accumulation of interest on the $30,000 deposited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. That on Count III, for offering free life insurance as an inducement for the deposit of $30,000 in the single premium endowment policy, Brennan be FINED $2,500.00 and his license SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 1st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0707 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. See Rule 28-5.405(3), Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Before ruling on the individual proposals made by the Petitioner, it is appropriate to make some general comments. The proposals submitted by the Petitioner are exceptionally detailed, indeed unnecessarily so. Many are rejected as unnecessary or cumulative to the facts found in the Recommended Order. Others are irrelevant because they address issues not properly raised by the allegations of the First Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of the principal witnesses on counts one and two, Rebecca Fisher and Celine Rompre, was certainly sincere but generally unpersuasive. The testimony of the other expert witnesses who make their livings by selling tax sheltered annuities was also not convincing because their view of Mr. Brennan and his activities is so colored by their competition. Mr. Parmele's testimony left an abiding impression of hostility to Brennan for trying to persuade clients of Parmele to switch their annuities to companies represented by Brennan, and Parmele's testimony is discounted based upon his hostility. Mr. Indianer was not as hostile, but his financial interest in removing Brennan as a competitor also causes substantial discounting of his testimony. The opinions of Robert Storms are accorded little weight because he does not regard himself as an expert in tax sheltered annuities. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 3-6. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected because it is not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript citation given. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary, and unsupported by the transcript citation given. Covered in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unsupported by transcript citation given which only reflects a division of commissions between the Jones' and Brennan with respect to sales to employees of the Boca Raton Academy. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the exhibit citation given. PX 25 authorizes Langsett to procure applications; whether this is a license as a "writing agent" is unclear. Rejected as a statement of law. Rejected because Betty Jones had no written contract with the Brennan firm. Langsett's relationships are covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected because Jones had no written contract with the Brennan firm. With respect to Langsett's contract with the firm, rejected as irrelevant. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 8. Jones had no written contract with the firm. Rejected because Langsett and Jones testified that being independent contractors included that they pay their own expenses, not meant that they pay their own expenses. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with the transcript citations given. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent that the information was provided in the form of sales kits, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate and cumulative to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and inconsistent with the transcript citation given. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact, also irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as unnecessary. The citation given supports only the statement made as to Betty Jones. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. - Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact, also unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact, also unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as inconsistent with Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected for the reasons stated for the rejection of proposed finding of fact 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Further, Mr. Storm's testimony is not persuasive on the point. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the form, PX 9, is a creation of a committee which is advisory to the risk manager of the School Board of Broward County and has no legal status. Rejected because the form, PX 9, is a creation of a committee which is advisory to the risk manager of the School Board of Broward County and has no legal status. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Mr. Storm's testimony as to what would be misleading is unpersuasive. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. The power to appoint sub-agents who become producers for insurance carriers does not mean that Brennan exercised direct supervision and control over such persons, or over Langsett and Jones in the situations at issue in this matter. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 25. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony7 not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the finding is taken out of context. Agents such as Langsett submit business through the Brennan firm and receive their commission through the accounting system at the Brennan firm. When the files are submitted to the carriers, this does not imply that the firm has the right not to pay Langsett, it is the medium through which his payments are processed. See Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as a misstatement of the testimony. That testimony occurred because Langsett was asked about commissions payable in a situation he never had experienced. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 12 concerning education. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 12 and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. As pointed out at the beginning of these rulings, Mrs. Fisher's version of her dealings with Langsett and Brennan were not found persuasive. For example, only one meeting occurred between Fisher and Langsett, not two. Rejected as irrelevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint and unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected because I do not accept Mrs. Fisher's version of the events, rendering Mr. Indianer's comments on that version irrelevant and unnecessary. See also the general comment about Indianer at the beginning of this section. The issue of free life insurance is covered in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not findings of fact. Covered in Findings of Fact 27, 29, 30 and 31. Many of the proposed findings are rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 29, 30 and 31. The proposal that Jones told Rompre she could deposit $4,000 per year for five years is rejected and the contrary testimony of Ms. Jones, incorporated in Finding of Fact 31, has been accepted. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Storms is not found persuasive. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not findings of fact. Many of the proposals are unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected because Mr. Parmele's testimony is not found persuasive. Further, many of the proposals aggregated in the finding are unnecessary. That Jones told Rompre she could deposit $4,000 a year for five years has been rejected. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Covered in Finding of Fact 1. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 25. The proposal that Jones had a written agent's agreement with the Brennan firm is rejected because no such document was offered in evidence. To the extent necessary, covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary but discussed in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact as relates to the credibility of Indianer and Parmele. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary but discussed in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 14. Covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary because Indianer's testimony has not been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 14 and 25. Covered in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and 31. Covered in Finding of Fact 29. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as cumulative to Findings of Fact 30 and 31. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Parmele has not been accepted for the reasons. stated in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. See also Finding of Fact 33. Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as unnecessary because it is based on income of $7,200 which was not Mrs. Rompre's income at the time of her meeting with Betty Jones. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. To the extent not cumulative, covered in Finding of Fact 31. Covered in Findings of Fact 35 and 38. Covered in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 43. Covered in Findings of Fact 39, 44 and 46. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and because the problem was not only that the form did not contain the surrender charge, but that Brennan had not explained the surrender charge to the Nolans when the Great American Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity was first purchased. Generally rejected as unnecessary. The surrender value is explained in the altered amendment to the employment contract. See Finding of Fact 39. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 41. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 44. Covered in Finding of Fact 44. Covered in Finding of Fact 46 and 47. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 46. Covered in Finding of Fact 46. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 46. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary and because the testimony of Mr. Indianer has not been found persuasive. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Parmele has not been accepted. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. Sentences 1 and 2, covered in Finding of Fact 14. The remainder, rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Falco, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Room 413-B, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Russell L. Forkey, Esquire Pamela M. Burdick, Esquire 400 Southeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code as alleged in an Amended Order to Show Cause and, if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating viatical settlement providers in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Future First Financial Group, Inc., is licensed by the State of Florida as a viatical settlement provider. Its President and Chief Executive Officer is Mr. Randy Stelk. A viatical settlement contract involves the sale of a life insurance policy's benefits in exchange for an immediate discounted cash settlement to the original policy holder. A Florida resident "viator" (the insured) desiring to enter into a viatical settlement contract, acts through a Florida licensed broker, who provides the policy information to licensed viatical settlement providers like the Respondent, for subsequent re-sale of policy benefits to purchasers. Future First was initially licensed as a viatical settlement provider on December 26, 1997. The initial regulation of viatical settlement providers in the State of Florida by the Petitioner began at approximately the time Future First initially became licensed. Consolidated findings concerning Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, and 45: Future First was a licensee of and regulated by the Department of Insurance at all times pertinent hereto. The health status representations on the exhibits (referenced in the Department's Proposed Recommended Order) concerning each of these counts, which are the insurance policy applications in question in these counts, are materially inconsistent with the health status representations related to the later viatical settlement agreements contained in the other exhibits so referenced as to each of the above-enumerated counts. These latter exhibits constitute the showing of actual medical condition to the Respondent by the insureds or viators in each transaction referenced in these counts. The overall effect of this showing is to indicate to the Respondent that the viators in question in these counts were HIV positive or had the disease AIDS, along with related diseases and medical conditions, contrary to the representations initially made to the insurance companies issuing the subject policies, in the insurance policy applications referenced in these counts, wherein the viators represented that they suffered from none of the medical diseases or conditions referenced in those application forms, including AIDS. All the exhibits referenced in these counts came from the business files of Future First and were supplied to the Department by Future First upon the Department's request during the investigation process. These material inconsistencies should have caused Future First to be on notice or to know or believe that the viators in question in these counts had made or indeed may have made fraudulent or material misrepresentations on their insurance policy applications. Subsection 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, requires Department licensees to report to the Department any knowledge or belief that a fraudulent insurance practice, as defined in Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, had been or was being committed. Subsection 817.234(3), Florida Statutes, specifically prohibits the presentation of false, incomplete or misleading information in support of an insurance application or the concealing of any fact material to the application. Thus Subsection 817.234(3), supra, specifically prohibits the very act strongly suggested by the evidence presented in the exhibits supportive of the above-referenced counts of the Amended Order. Future First made no reports to the Department concerning these matters until it contends it first became aware of these inconsistencies in health status representations upon receipt of the Order to Show Cause and later the Amended Order to Show Cause. Consolidated Findings of Fact Concerning Counts 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, and 42: The facts established as to these counts are much the same as those referenced above. The health status representations on the insurance policy applications in question and in evidence (exhibit numbers cited in the Proposed Findings as to these counts in the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order) are materially inconsistent with the health status representation on the other exhibits which consist generally of the various documents of health or medical information provided to the Respondent by the viators in question, when the transactions leading to the viatical settlement agreements at issue were being entered into and finalized. The commonality among all of these counts as well as the counts in the above Findings of Fact (Part A above) consist of the viator's having been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS and/or related medical conditions sometime in the past prior to executing the insurance policy applications at issue and then responding in the negative on relevant questions on those policy applications, the overall effect of which was to deny the HIV positive test result, the HIV infection and the diagnosis of AIDS and related medical conditions. The viators at issue then openly revealed these conditions and the dates of the relevant diagnoses, all of which pre-dated the insurance policy applications, in the medical status representations they made to the Respondent and which were also revealed in the medical records provided to the Respondent at some point prior to the issuance of the Order to Show Cause and Amended Order. The health status representations made by the viators at these two different, germane points in time are materially inconsistent. Those material inconsistencies reasonably should have caused Future First and its operating officers to be on notice, to know or to believe that the viators made or may have made fraudulent or material misrepresentations on their insurance policy applications. Moreover, the evidence, as to these counts delineated in Part B above, shows that Future First was actually informed specifically that the policies in question had been rescinded by the insurers because the viators had made material misrepresentations on their policy applications. Exhibits such as the Future First policy summary forms show that Future First had been informed of the policy recisions as to the Counts referenced in Part B above. All of the documents constituting the Department's exhibits supportive of these findings, and the policy summary forms included, were found within the business files of Future First and were supplied to the Department by Future First upon its request during the investigative phase of this prosecution. Subsection 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, requires Department licensees to report to the Department any knowledge or belief that a fraudulent insurance practice as defined in Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, had been or was being committed. Subsection 817.234(3), Florida Statutes, specifically prohibits the presentation of false, incomplete or misleading information in support of an insurance application or the concealing of any fact material to the application. Thus, Subsection 817.234(3), supra, specifically prohibits the acts suggested by the documentary evidence presented by the Department, which supports the Findings of Fact herein. Future First made no report on these matters concerning the viators and policies to the Department, prior to the investigatory audit. Additional Findings of Fact Concerning Counts 2, 5, 41, 42, 43, and 44: Concerning Count 2, Exhibits 15 through 17 are viatical settlement purchase agreements entered into between Future First and various viatical settlement purchasers. These agreements represent to those purchasers that the policies, which are the subject of the agreements, are beyond the contestability period (typically two years) during which an insurer company may rescind its policy. The settlement purchase agreements specify that the "contestability period" runs for two years from the date of policy issuance. Exhibit 2 shows, however, that the policy in question was issued on January 22, 1998, and Exhibits 15 through 17, the agreements, were entered into in February, March and April of 1998, well before the January 22, 2000, conclusion of the contestability period. Future First thus had within its possession, in its files, the documents and information to show that the policies were not beyond contestability when the interests in those policies were sold to the investors or viatical settlement purchasers. The purchasers, by initialing the relevant portion of their purchase agreements had indicated and contracted for the purchase of non-contestable policies or policies which had survived the two-year contestable period before being purchased by these investors or viatical settlement purchasers. The vice-president in charge of underwriting, Mr. Sweeney, under the business practices of Future First, essentially made all the calculations and decisions involved in negotiating and effecting the settlement purchase agreements with the investors and the viatical settlement agreements with the original viators or insureds. As an experienced insurance executive and underwriter who had all of the relevant documents available to him, he is chargeable with knowledge that the policies he and Future First were conveying to the settlement purchasers were still within the contestability period, despite his being on documentary notice that the investors had contracted to purchase only non-contestable policies. The officers and directors of the Respondent allowed him to have this independence of action, freedom of conduct and bargaining power on behalf of Future First and therefore, Future First, the corporation, is chargeable with the conduct it allowed him to engage in, even assuming, arguendo, that no other officer, director or employee of the company knew of the relevant details of these transactions. Thus Future First misrepresented to its investors that the policies were beyond contestability when in fact they were not. It thus is chargeable with knowingly selling interests in contestable policies to investors, who had specifically contracted for the purchase for non-contestable policies. This misrepresentation was material to the purchases because the insurers' ability to rescind the policies during contestability, thereby destroying the very instrument securing the purchasers' investment, was not made known to those purchasers. The potential destruction of that instrument and the consequent loss of the investment to the purchaser is material to any reasoned decision to invest. CEO Randy Stelk's testimony at hearing to the effect that computer input error had caused contestable policies to be inadvertently sold to purchasers who contractually specified a non-contestable policy is rebutted by Future First's own documents from its records which correctly and explicitly identify the policy as contestable. See Exhibits 11a and 11f, at pages 1 and 4, and Exhibit 24, all of which correctly identify the policy as contestable. Exhibit 24 specifically notes the dates at which the policy was projected to emerge from its contestability period. Thus this documented evidence, together with the evidence of Mr. Sweeney's close and direct involvement with arranging for the transactions and making decisions as to which policies to sell to which investors belies Mr. Stelk's testimony in this regard. Concerning Count 5, Exhibits 50, 54, 55, 56 and 57, are viatical settlement purchase agreements which inter alia represented to the respective viatical settlement purchasers that the policy in question was beyond the contestability period during which an insurer may rescind the policy. The "contestability period" runs for two years from the date of policy issuance. However, Exhibit 39, shows that the policy in question was issued on February 3, 1998, and Exhibits 50, 54, 55, 56 and 57, were respectively entered into in February of 1998, well prior to the February 3, 2000, end of the contestability period. Here again, Future First's own records, which correctly and explicitly identify this policy as contestable also specifically note, at Exhibits 42d and 46, the date at which the policy was projected to emerge from the contestability period. The purchase agreements referenced above clearly show that the investors contemplated and contracted to purchase a non-contestable policy. These documents clearly were available to Mr. Sweeney and to Future First at the time Mr. Sweeney was making the underwriting decisions and entering into the agreements with the investors, and consequently this knowledge is chargeable to him and to Future First. Again Mr. Stelks' testimony that computer input error had caused inadvertent sale of contestable policies to purchasers who had contractually specified non-contestable policies is rebutted by Future First's own records, the evidence concerning Future First business practices and specifically Mr. Sweeney's underwriting methods and conduct. Thus, Mr. Stelk's testimony in this regard is not credited. Thus, it is inferred that Future First, through Mr. Sweeney, knowingly represented to investors that the policies were beyond contestability when they were not and such a representation was material to the purchase because the insurers' ability to rescind a policy during contestability and destroy the very instrument securing the investment was not made known to the purchaser. The potential destruction of that instrument and the consequent loss of investment is material to any reasoned decision to invest. Concerning Count 41, the fifth page of Exhibit 428, contains a paragraph entitled "Incontestability" which establishes that the life insurance policy in question was subject to a two-year contestability period, during which the insurer could rescind the policy. Exhibits 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 and 451, are all viatical settlement purchase agreements through which the viatical settlement investors purchased an interest in the death benefit of the life insurance policy in question. Each of those purchase agreements contains a standard section entitled "Minimum Criteria" which is initialed by the purchaser, thereby indicating the purchaser's decision to purchase an interest only in a policy which was beyond contestability. Future First nonetheless placed all of those investors' monies into the policy in question (See Exhibit 428) while it was still within the two-year contestability period without informing the purchasers of that fact. Future First had the policy in its possession and necessarily had to have a copy of it in possession in order to purchase the policy from the viator, which it did in July of 1998. It thus knew the policy was still within its contestability period when interest in it were sold to the purchasers in question. The same reasons found with regard to Counts 2 and 5 prevail here with regard to Mr. Sweeney's involvement. The documents were in Future First's possession and within its knowledge such that the circumstantial evidence clearly shows that Future First is chargeable with knowledge or belief that it sold contestable policies to investors who had no reason to believe they were purchasing contestable policies. Concerning Count 42, Exhibit 453 is dated March 24, 1998, and is a viatical settlement purchase agreement between Future First and the viatical settlement purchaser named therein. The agreement contains the same initialed provision found with regard to the agreements in Counts 2, 5 and 41, indicating the purchasers' decision to invest only in a policy which was beyond the two-year contestability period. The agreement bears the designation "PRA 58075" in the lower left hand corner of the first page (purchaser number). Exhibit 459 is a letter dated May 21, 1998, authorizing Charles R. Sussman, Trustee for the Fidelity Trust (identified in numerous exhibits, including 454 in this count, as the escrow agent used by Future First for viatical settlement contract transactions), to wire funds from that trust to Compass Bank for the purchase of an interest in the death benefits of the Farmers New World Life Insurance policy on the viator named therein, which purchase was accomplished through the execution of Exhibit 454 on June 6, 1998. Among the PRA numbers identified in Exhibit 459, is 58075, corresponding to Exhibit 453, the above-referenced purchase contract. Exhibit 455 is an internally prepared Future First document that clearly states that the life insurance policy in question was still well within its contestability period on May 21, 1998. The exhibits thus establish that Future First represented to the investor that the policy it would purchase with his funds was beyond contestability when, because of the unequivocal documents in its possession, Future First had to have known, through Mr. Sweeney, that it was not. Indeed all of those exhibits were found within the business files of Future First and Future First stipulated that included in those exhibits are its purchase request agreements that contain the contestability provision in question. Exhibits 462 and 463 establish that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy referenced in those exhibits was issued on March 28, 1998. Exhibit 465, establishes that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy was purchased by Future First on June 22, 1998. Exhibit 468, establishes that on July 1, 1998, purchaser 58075's funds were used to purchase an interest in that Manhattan National Life Insurance policy obviously well within the two-year contestability period since the policy was only issued on March 28, 1998. This was despite an express representation otherwise in the viatical settlement purchase agreement. Exhibits 471 and 472, show that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy was rescinded during the contestability period in September 1998. Exhibit 473 establishes that Future First decided to switch the viatical settlement purchaser's funds out of the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy into a John Hancock Life Insurance Company policy. However, it did not inform the purchaser that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy had been rescinded during its contestability period. Exhibits 485 and 486, establish that the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy referenced therein was issued on January 23, 1998. Exhibit 487 establishes that the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy was purchased by Future First in November of 1998, using the purchaser's funds referenced in Exhibits 488 and 489. Among those purchaser's funds were those of Purchaser 58075. Thus, Purchaser 58075's monies were used to purchase an interest in the death benefit of the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy in question. Despite the "beyond contestability" representation made in the viatical settlement purchase agreement between Purchaser 58075 and Future First, Future First placed that purchaser's money into the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy while it was still in its contestability period. Future First's own records refute Mr. Stelk's testimony that computer input error caused inadvertent sales of contestable policies to purchasers who had specified, contractually, their desire for non-contestable policies. The documents from Future First's own records in evidence, explicitly identify this policy as contestable and that the purchasers involved had desired non- contestable policies. In light of the foregoing reasons found as fact as to Counts 2, 5 and 41, which are adopted as to Count 42, Future First is chargeable with knowledge that it was selling contestable policies to purchasers who had specified contractually their wish and intent to purchase non-contestable policies. Count 43 involves the sale by Future First of interests in the death benefits of J.C. Penny Life Insurance Company Policy No. 25184/74L40L3762 in January of 1998, to three different viatical settlement purchasers. This is evidenced by Exhibits 498, 499 and 500, the respective settlement purchase agreements. Each of those purchase agreements includes a provision that required the purchase of an interest only in a policy which was beyond contestability. Exhibits 494, 496, 498, 499 and 500, together however, show that the interest in the policy sold to those purchasers were sold while the policy was still contestable, without informing the purchasers. All of these exhibits came from the business files or records of Future First and Future First stipulated that included in those exhibits are the purchase request agreements that contain the provisions restricting purchases to policies which were beyond the two-year contestability period. In light of the findings made as to Counts 2, 5, 41 and 42, next above, it is determined that Future First, the Respondent, is charged with knowledge that it, and specifically its vice-president in charge of underwriting, Mr. Sweeney, sold those policies which were still contestable to the relevant purchasers; that those purchasers had specified in their purchase agreements their intent to purchase only policies which were uncontestable and that it had not so informed those purchasers. Count 44, concerns a viatical settlement purchase agreement entered into by Future First on March 24, 1998, relating to the sale and purchase of an interest in the death benefit of an insurance policy. See Exhibit 510, in evidence. That agreement represented to the purchaser that the interest to be purchased was to be from a policy which was beyond the two- year contestability period. See Exhibits 508 and 510. However, the policy selected for investment for that purchaser by Future First was not beyond contestability. Exhibit 506, obtained from Future First's own files, clearly shows that the issuance date of the policy was May 6, 1998, and Exhibits 504, 508 and 510 considered together, indicate that the policy was sold to that purchaser while it was still contestable. Future First thus subjected the purchaser's investment to the undisclosed risk of rescission of the policy. The existence of such a risk would certainly be material to that investor's decision about whether to so invest. Thus by investing the purchaser's funds in a contestable policy instead of an uncontestable policy, without advising that investor of such a deviation from their contractual agreement, is, in effect, a material misrepresentation in that transaction. For the reasons found as to Counts 2, 5, 41, 42 and 43 above, Future First is chargeable with knowledge that the policy was contestable and that it had invested the purchaser's funds in a contestable policy when it was contractually bound to only invest that purchaser's funds in an uncontestable policy, as established by the terms of the viatical settlement purchase agreement. Future First's business practices. Future First conducts its business in various states through representatives resident in such states known as viatical settlement brokers. Viatical settlement brokers gather all relevant information, including available medical information and usually provide it to various viatical settlement providers in order to solicit multiple bids on a particular policy. Future First does not solicit viators itself. During the time period relevant to the allegation in the Amended Order, when Future First initially received a package from a broker, it was divided into its insurance and medical components. The insurance component was provided to Mr. William Sweeney, Future First's Vice-President of Underwriting. The medical component was provided to a nurse on the staff with Future First for initial medical review and then forwarded to Future First's independent medical consultant, Dr. Michael Duffy. During the time period relevant to the Amended Order, Future First offered a one, two or three-year viatical purchase program. That is, viators must have a certified life expectancy of one, two or three years in order to qualify with Future First. After Dr. Duffy reviewed a particular file and the viator was deemed qualified as to one of the three available programs, Dr. Duffy would certify and assign a life expectancy to the viator and return the file to Mr. Sweeney. Life expectancy estimates are inherently subject to many variables, are unpredictable and constitute a risk to the purchaser. Mr. Sweeney's responsibilities included verification that the insurance information provided with any particular file was correct and complete (including insurance policy applications), that the policy actually existed and was in force, that premiums were paid up to date, that the insurance company had the appropriate rating, as well as conducting other verifications. Before a policy was approved for purchase, it was Mr. Sweeney's ultimate responsibility, pursuant to Future First's existing corporate policy, to compare the date of initial diagnosis of a potential viator's medical condition to the insurance policy application to look for any inconsistencies. Mr. Sweeney next completed a "file summary cover sheet" referencing certain information and verifications and attached it to the file. Mr. Sweeney was essentially a "one-man operation" in exclusive control of Future First's underwriting department and was ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not Future First would offer to bid on a particular policy. Future First's business operations in effect at the time relevant to the Amended Order were so compartmentalized that other officers or employees at Future First might not know any details associated with Mr. Sweeney's activities. After Mr. Sweeney authorized Future First to bid on a particular policy, the file was transferred to the bidding department. The bidding department did not re-visit or otherwise question Mr. Sweeney's decision to bid on a particular policy, but only reviewed the cover sheet to establish a bid price. If documentation was missing from any file, it was Mr. Sweeney's responsibility to contact the broker to request the missing documents. All viatical settlement brokers with whom Future First did business in Florida were required to be licensed by the Petitioner. Future First currently no longer conducts business with the broker "Funds For Life" because that particular broker dealt solely in "contestable" policies and Future First no longer purchases such policies, at least since the Petitioner's audit. Future First no longer has a business relationship with the Texas-based broker "Southwest Viatical," in part because Southwest Viatical routinely failed to provide complete documentation to Future First, including the insurance applications of viators. Southwest Viatical was specifically requested to provide insurance policy applications regarding the relevant policies referred to in the Amended Order but refused to do so. Most of the Southwest Viatical files purchased by Future First did not include insurance applications at the time of purchase. The insurance applications were ultimately obtained by Future First, however, at some point prior to the 1999 audit by the Petitioner. Future First became concerned about the character of individuals associated with Southwest Viatical and when requested by Southwest Viatical to forward commission funds to an offshore account, Future First declined to do so and immediately ceased doing business with Southwest Viatical. Future First cooperated thoroughly with Texas authorities in their investigation of Southwest Viatical, ultimately culminating, as a direct result of Future First's assistance, with the apprehension and subsequent incarceration of two principals of Southwest Viatical. During the period of time alleged in the Amended Order Future First received, on the average, between 400 and 600 policies per month from brokers requesting a bid. Future First rejected and never bid on the majority of policies referred to it by Southwest Viatical. On the average, Future First ultimately purchased approximately 25 percent of the policies submitted to it for a bid. Mr. Sweeney was primarily responsible for communicating with brokers as to all aspects of a potential viatical settlement transaction and to request all required documentation, including insurance policy applications. During the course of Mr. Stelk's affiliation with Future First he personally became familiar with the handwriting of William F. Sweeney. It is Mr. Sweeney's initials which appear on the cover sheets entered into evidence by the Petitioner, exemplified by Petitioner's Exhibit 4a. All the remaining "cover sheet" exhibits of the Petitioner contain the initials "WFS" on the top right hand corner which are Mr. Sweeney's initials. Mr. Sweeney is not currently an officer, director or employee of Future First because he was removed from any position with the Respondent corporation by order of the Petitioner. No other officers, directors or employees of the Respondent have been subject to a similar removal order, nor has Future First itself. The criminal proceedings currently pending against the Respondent are the direct result of Mr. Sweeney's activities while employed by Future First. The Petitioner's lead investigator reviewing Future First's business activities recommended that individual charges only be brought against Mr. Sweeney and against no other individual employed by or affiliated with the Respondent. Future First has a business relationship with licensed life insurance agents and/or securities brokers throughout the United States to solicit funds from individuals for ultimate purchase of viatical settlements. Those licensed individuals present an approved Purchase Request Agreement (PRA) to a potential purchaser to discuss the various Future First programs available and to help the purchaser finalize a PRA. Depending on what state the purchaser resided in, the purchaser would then issue a check either to Future First directly or to the Fidelity Trust (Future First's escrow agent), to be held until such time as Future First could purchase from a viator a policy matching the program desired by that purchaser. Thereafter, a formal "closing" would occur when the purchaser was, where appropriate, made a beneficiary on one or more insurance policies; all verifications and notifications to the insurance company and other entities were completed; an attorney and the trustee, would approve all aspects of the transaction within their purview, and a copy of the closing package would be sent to the purchaser for his or her records. After the closing, Future First would engage Life Watch Services, Inc., an unaffiliated company, to monitor the health status of the viator on a monthly basis in order that all appropriate actions may be taken at the time of the viator's death, so that the policy benefits may be promptly paid to the purchaser. Future First initially engaged in the purchase of contestable policies only after being approached by groups of agents with potential purchasers willing to assume the risk associated with contestable policies. Understanding the risk associated with such policies, Future First reserved 20 percent of its potential profit from such transactions and placed those funds in trust in a "Guaranty Fund" in the event that an insurance company rescinded a policy within the contestable period. In the event an insurer rescinded a contestable policy, Future First purchased a new policy for its customer out of the Guaranty Fund, at no additional cost to the customer. No purchaser ever lost any "investment time" if a policy was rescinded by an insurance company because that purchaser would be provided a new policy involving a viator with the same ultimate remaining life expectancy. Thus, without any prompting by a governmental authority, Future First made the business decision to voluntarily exceed the protections of Florida law by establishing the Guaranty Fund in order to purchase replacement policies for its customers if the initial policy was rescinded by the insurer. The Guaranty Fund was also utilized to make the purchaser whole even when an insurance company cancelled or non- renewed an insurance policy on an entire group, or if a new insurance carrier for a particular group later reduced the benefit level assigned to the purchaser. The Guaranty Fund was also used for the benefit of purchasers if a viator as a member of an employer group, quit his or her job and the viator exercised a statutory right to have the group policy benefits converted to an individual policy. Because benefit levels on such individual policies are typically lower, the Guaranty Fund was used to purchase additional insurance benefits to assign to the purchaser. Additionally, if a policy lapsed for any reason, the Guaranty Fund was used to procure a new policy or policies in order that the purchaser would be fully protected according to the terms of the PRA. No policy purchased by Future First has ever lapsed for failure of Future First to pay the premium. Funds from the Guaranty Fund have been used to purchase new policies when a viator committed suicide and the insurance company later rescinded the policy, as well. The Guaranty Fund maintained by Future First existed to cover other contingencies beyond just the possible recession of insurance policies because of the misrepresentation of the viator discovered by the insurer within the contestable period. Future First, through use of the Guaranty Fund, has replaced approximately 17 million dollars in face value of insurance policies, equating to about 12.4 million dollars in direct cost to Future First and, as a result, no Future First purchaser has ever been harmed. The 12.4 million dollars used to purchase replacement policies would otherwise have been retained by Future First as profit. Today Future First does not purchase contestable policies in the regular course of its business. The only exception to that occurs when an insured group undergoes a carrier change and a new contestable period is automatically instituted by the new carrier. There is no prohibition in Florida either presently or during the times relevant to the Amended Order, against the purchase of contestable policies by a viatical settlement provider. The recission of the contestable policies at issue in fact immediately followed an inquiry from the Department of Insurance to the insurers, which alerted them that the Department suspected fraud in the inception of the policies. That is, it suspected fraud on the part of the viators or insureds on those policies, not Future First. Future First immediately utilized the Guaranty Fund and began replacing the policies. None of the rescinding insurers have accused Future First of any complicity in any alleged fraud with respect to the policies referenced in the Amended Order, nor has the Department of Insurance alleged any such fraud against Future First. All but one or two of the rescinded policies have been replaced and the purchasers made whole, pursuant to the terms of their original PRA. One of the two policies not fully replaced as of the date of the hearing was being contested by Future First as to the legality of the insurance company's rescission, and Future First will replace the policy, if needed, at such time as that legal issue is resolved. Of all the policies at issue in the Amended Order, including, as well, any replacement policy subsequently purchased by Future First with money from the Guaranty Fund, only one or two contestable periods had not expired as of the date of the hearing. Those contestable periods were to expire thirty to sixty days after the date of the final hearing in this matter. Future First regularly monitors and verifies the status of all policies assigned to its purchasers, including the status of all replacement policies. The direct costs to Future First to purchase replacement policies for the rescinded policies referenced in the amended order was approximately $1.5 million dollars paid out of the Guaranty Fund. Since its initial licensure in the State of Florida, Future First has cooperated with the Petitioner concerning pending legislation, rule development and other contacts with the Petitioner agency. It has cooperated fully with the Petitioner when the audit of Future First occurred in February of 1999, provided all requested information and documentation and made all personnel available to confer with examiners in a full and frank manner. In the course of the four-week on-site audit, Mr. Stelk personally met with the Petitioner's examiners once or twice a week to discuss the Petitioner's suggestions for improving compliance. The Petitioner issued a draft "Report of Examination" as a result of its audit on August 5, 1999. It contained suggestions, comments and recommendations which had been discussed during Future First's staff meetings with the examiners. Future First addressed many of the Petitioner's concerns raised in the Report of Examination (report) and implemented certain suggested changes in its business practices. Mr. Stelk directed that a formal response to the report be filed, addressing the specific points raised by the Petitioner and explaining any corrective action taken where applicable. Future First viewed certain of the findings and suggestions made at the earlier meetings and later contained in the draft report as potentially helpful to its business. It therefore implemented those suggestions even before receiving the draft of the report. Certain suggestions in the report of such as a request to formalize a refund policy, were not strictly required by a controlling statute. However, Future First nonetheless voluntarily implemented such a refund policy. Future First has cooperated with all governmental agencies interested in reviewing its files at all times during the course of its licensure as a viatical settlement provider and during the course of the relevant investigations. There has been no allegation or suggestion that it has in any way altered any documents, tampered with its files or that any information was purposely missing. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner had no knowledge as to when any particular documents were received into Future First's files, including insurance applications, medical diagnosis information or other documents and has conceded that some policy applications or medical documentations may not have been received until after the bid process and viatical transactions in some cases were actually closed. Thus, Future First would not have been able to compare documents to detect possible fraud as to those situations. Therefore, Future First could not have been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation to its purchasers as to such transactions and files if it had no documentation at the point of the transaction being closed to indicate to it that possible insurance fraud in the inducement, by a viator, had occurred. In point of fact the Petitioner is not accusing Future First of fraud. However, as of the time of the audit in February 1999, because of the discussions and information it received at meetings with Department agents and employees, and certainly as to formal notification on August 5, 1999 in the Department's report, the Respondent knew that many insurance applications in its files had medical diagnosis information or disclosures by viators which were at odds with the medical information it obtained in the viatical settlement and contracting process. It still failed to report that knowledge (and indeed circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that at least Mr. Sweeney had that knowledge even before the February 1999 audit, as to many of the files). Future First still did not report potential fraud on the part of viators to the Department that it obviously had knowledge of until it began to actually report it in a formal way, after the first Show Cause Order was served (January 2000). It is also clear that the Department knew about this inconsistent medical information and probable insurance fraud by the time of its February 1999 audit. In November of 2000, as part of its efforts to cooperate with the requirements of the Department and the relevant statutes and rules, Future First filed an Anti-Fraud Education and Training Plan (Plan) with the Department, Division of Insurance Fraud. Neither Future First nor any of its representatives received any notice from the Department that the Plan was in any way deficient or otherwise non-compliant with Florida law. It has implemented that Plan and adherence to it has had a positive effect on Future First's business. The Anti-Fraud Plan stresses that Future First will not bid on a policy for purposes of viatical settlement unless the viator's insurance application is present in the file at or before the time of the bid. Future First's corporate policy, even prior to the implementation of the Anti-Fraud Plan has been that the insurance application must be reviewed and compared with available medical documentation for any inconsistencies prior to bidding on a policy. It is also apparent, however, that Mr. Sweeney and those under his direction and control apparently did not do so in many cases. During the course of the investigation, the "free- form" stage of this proceeding and the formal stage of this proceeding, Future First has made numerous form and other filings with the Petitioner seeking approval in connection with a new PRA and various other purchaser disclosures required by recent amendments to Florida Statutes. After comments and questions from the Department, resulting in some revisions to such documents, the new PRA and disclosure documents were approved by the Department, approval of the last document being obtained in April 2001. The Respondent, by its involvement through Mr. Stelk with the Viatical Life Settlement Association of American and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, has made a bonafide effort to gain knowledge of specific, appropriate business practices of other viatical settlement providers doing business in the United States as well as in Florida. Unlike certain other viatical settlement providers operating in Florida and elsewhere, Future First has never made premium payments on insurance policies out of the personal checking accounts of officers, directors or employees, has never instructed viators not to contact insurance companies and has never required viators to sign undated, change-of-ownership forms for filing with the insurer after the contestability period expired for any reason whatever, including as part of an effort to conceal from an insurance company the fact that an insurance policy was subject to viatical settlement. No such activity or effort to conceal has been alleged. (Compare, Accelerated Benefits Corporation documents in evidence pursuant to the Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition). On March 19, 2000, February 8, 2001, and March 6, 2001, Future First filed with the Department identifying information and documents pursuant to the requirements of Subsection 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, to the effect that fraud may have been involved in the procurement of all of the rescinded insurance policies referenced in the Show Cause Order and the Amended Order. The three separate fraud notifications constitute the Respondent's Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 and correspond to the time period shortly after service of the initial Show Cause Order and the Amended Show Cause Order.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a refund of state group life insurance premiums retroactive to the date she became disabled and continuing through the date of approval of a waiver of premium based on disability.
Findings Of Fact During her entire career with the State, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC). At all times material, DOC, like all State governmental agencies, had its own personnel office. At all times material, the Division of Retirement (Retirement) handled all governmental agencies’ employees’ retirement issues. At all times material, the State has provided its employees, including Petitioner at DOC, with various types of insurance through Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS), Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI), the Respondent herein. For more than 20 years, ending January 1, 2007, the State of Florida provided state officials, employees and retirees basic life insurance coverage through Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). Although Petitioner retired on full disability in mid- 2000, at all times relevant to these proceedings, Petitioner has continuously participated in the State Group Insurance Program’s (Program’s), life insurance plan (Plan). The Program is authorized by Section 110.123, Florida Statutes. Because of enhanced benefits, employees were required to complete a new life insurance enrollment form during “open enrollment,” conducted in 1999, for coverage beginning January 1, 2000. Petitioner completed the life insurance enrollment form and dated it "10/04/99." Directly below Petitioner's signature on this enrollment form, the following statement appears: Waiver of Premium for Disability If you are totally disabled for a continuous 9 months and are less than 60 years of age at the time disability begins, Prudential will continue your coverage with no premium due, provided you report your disability within 12 months of its start and submit any required proof to Prudential. The second page, last paragraph of the 1999, enrollment form provided an address and a toll-free telephone number for Prudential, and advised participants that the form was intended to provide a summary of benefits, as more completely set out in the certificate. Petitioner produced the enrollment form in response to Respondent's request for production of documents. She identified her signature thereon at hearing, and had the enrollment form admitted in evidence as Exhibit P-1. She also admits in her Proposed Recommended Order that she signed it. Although her testimony waffled in some respects, on the whole, she testified to the effect that she had retained a copy of this form where she had access to it at all times material. She is, therefore, found to have had knowledge of its contents since 1999. Petitioner testified that she never received either a life insurance policy nor a certificate of insurance, from Prudential or from any entity of Florida State Government, and that neither her DOC Personnel Office, Retirement, Florida First,1/ or DMS/DSGI advised her at the time of her retirement in mid-2000, that she could apply to Prudential for a life insurance premium waiver. However, Petitioner also had admitted in evidence as Exhibit P-2, a “Continuation/Termination Form” which she signed on “4-11-00,” stating a retirement date of “3- 10-00.” That form specifies that “. . . the amount of life insurance shall be $10,000 . . .” with a footnote reading, “This [referring to the $10,000, amount] would only apply if Waiver of Premium is not approved.” (Bracketed material supplied.) Also, the credible testimony of Respondent’s witnesses and of exhibits in evidence show that a complete certificate of life insurance was mailed to Petitioner in a timely manner. There is no proof that the insurance certificate varied the substance of the enrollment form as quoted in Finding of Fact 7. Indeed, the certificate provided, in pertinent part: The Policyholder will continue the full premium for continuance of insurance in accordance with item 8 above, [referring to “Total disability commencing before age 60— Unlimited for Employee Term Life Insurance”] provided the employee furnishes written proof of such total disability when and as required by the Policyholder. * * * Period of Extension Protection for a Disabled Employee— one year after receipt by Prudential’s Home Office of written proof that his total disability has existed continuously for at least nine months, provided the employee furnishes such proof no later than one year after the later of (1) the date premium payments for the employee’s insurance under the Group Policy are discontinued or (2) the cessation of any extended death benefit under the provisions for “Extended Death Benefit for Total Disability” above, and successive periods of one year each after the year of extension under (1), provided the employee furnishes written proof of the continuance of the employee’s total disability when and as required by Prudential once each year. Only employees disabled before retirement and under 60 years of age were eligible for the premium waiver. Employees who became disabled during retirement were not eligible for the waiver. By the terms of her enrollment form and certificate, if Petitioner did not notify Prudential before the twelfth month, she could not receive the waiver. When, precisely, Petitioner became “totally disabled” for purposes of her State life insurance certificate’s definition is debatable, because for some time prior to her actual retirement date, she was working off and on while pursuing a “permanent total disability” determination, pursuant to the definition of that term as expressed in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, The Florida Workers’ Compensation Law. Petitioner ultimately received the workers’ compensation ruling she sought, possibly before March 10, 2000. Petitioner’s last day of work was March 10, 2000, when, she testified, a superior had her forcibly removed from DOC property. Despite her assertion that she was not approved for in-line-of-duty retirement until September 1, 2000, Petitioner also testified that the State granted her retirement upon disability, effective April 1, 2000, and April 1, 2000, is the date put forth by Respondent as Petitioner's disability retirement date, as well. Upon that concurrence, it is found that Petitioner qualified for total disability for State life insurance purposes before retirement and that she qualified for the waiver by age at retirement. When Petitioner retired on disability in 2000, employees of both DOC and of Retirement knew that she was retiring on disability. Retirement provided Petitioner with printed materials referring her to the insurance company and/or DMS/DSGI for insurance questions and stating that Retirement did not administer any insurance programs. There is no evidence Petitioner asked anyone about the waiver in 2000. From her retirement date in mid-2000, until Prudential ultimately granted her a premium waiver in 2007, Petitioner paid the full life insurance premiums to the State Life Trust, either via deduction from her retirement or directly by her own check. From the date of her retirement through December 2006, Petitioner paid $4.20, per month for life insurance, and beginning January 1, 2007, through November 2007, she paid $35.79, per month. According to Petitioner, she only became aware of the availability of the potential waiver of premiums when she received a booklet during open enrollment in October 2007, advising her that beginning January 1, 2008, the State life insurance coverage would be provided through Minnesota Life Insurance. The specific language that caught her eye was: No premium to pay if you become disabled --- If you become totally disabled or as defined in your policy, premiums are waived. Petitioner conceded that there is no substantive difference between the foregoing instruction and the statement on her 1999, enrollment form for Prudential. (See Finding of Fact 7.) Petitioner applied for the Minnesota life insurance, with premium waiver, triggering a series of bureaucratic decisions that maintained her continuous life insurance coverage by Prudential and permitted Petitioner to apply to Prudential for waiver of the life insurance premium as described in her 1999, enrollment form. Although bureaucratic delays occurred through DOC’s personnel office, Prudential accepted Petitioner’s proof of age, disability, etc., and granted the waiver of premiums based on disability. The monthly premiums of $35.79, that Petitioner paid in October and November 2007, were retroactively reimbursed to her by the State, based upon Prudential's receipt of Petitioner's waiver package on October 3, 2007. Beginning in December 2007, Prudential activated the waiver of premium, so that Petitioner has not had to pay any premium since. Adrienne Bowen, a DSGI manager of Prudential contracts for twenty years, testified that, in 1999-2000, Prudential’s waiver did not apply until after nine months of continuous disability and after the participant had reported the disability to Prudential, and after Prudential had approved the waiver of premiums. She further testified that she believed that there was no provision for the waiver to apply retroactively. For this testimony, Ms. Bowen relied upon Exhibit R-11, a “Group Life Administration Manual,” which had been devised so that the State life insurance plan would be consistently administered. On the foregoing issues, The Group Life Administration Manual states, in pertinent part: WAIVER OF PREMIUM When an employee becomes disabled and is unable to work because of a disability, the employee may be eligible to extend the group life coverage without premium payments. In order to extend coverage, the employee must submit proof of disability within the period shown on the Group Contract (generally at least 9 months but less than 12 months after the total disability starts). If the proof is accepted, you may stop the premium on behalf of the employee’s group coverage. We recommend that premium payments continue for that employee until a decision is made regarding the claim. (Emphasis in original.) However, Ms. Bowen also testified that DSGI and Prudential now allow an insured to request the waiver at any time after nine months of continuous disability, without automatic denial if the employee’s first request is not made within 12 months after she first becomes disabled. This was done in Petitioner's situation in 2007. Prudential did not refuse to waive premiums because Petitioner’s application was not made within 12 months of total disability. However, the premiums refunded related back only to the first day of the month in which she made application for waiver. Petitioner seeks a reimbursement for overpayment of premiums from April 1, 2000, to September 30, 2007. Her first request to Respondent for an administrative hearing appears to have been made on or about May 12, 2008. After several levels of internal agency “appeals,” the cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about August 28, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order which calculates the State group life insurance premiums Petitioner paid between May 12, 2006, and October 1, 2007, and orders payment to Petitioner of that amount within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 23rd day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's license or eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined because of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and whether Respondent should be denied a resident license to represent various insurance companies in this state because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Michael Eugene Best was either licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a health insurance agent in the State of Florida, and was engaged in the sale and brokerage of insurance, doing business as M. E. Best Investments. The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for the monitoring and regulation of the insurance business in this state. Ms. Dorothy Clark, a 73 year old woman, has known and done business with Mr. Best in the insurance area for approximately ten years. In August, 1988, she met with him to discuss her possible purchase of some kind of insurance. She cannot recall what kind of insurance it was. She gave him some money to pay for the insurance in question, which was to be procured from some insurance company, the name of which she could not initially remember, but subsequently recalled to be American Sun Life Insurance Company. The premium payment which she gave to Mr. Best was in the amount of $1,200.00, but she cannot recall whether he was obliged to use that money for the purchase of insurance from that particular company, or whether he had the option to place the insurance with another company. To the best of her limited recollection, Mr. Best did get a policy for her from American Sun Life Insurance Company, but she cannot recall if she kept that policy or if it was changed to another company. She does not recall requesting him to change companies, however, but does recall that she ultimately received a policy issued by United American Life Insurance Company and that Mr. Best was the agent who procured it for her. At hearing she denied ever attempting to cancel the United American policy though she claims she did not want it. She claims that she never received a refund check from United American, however, a check payable to her in the amount of $799.90 was issued to her by that company with address shown as her home of record. The check bears what purports to be her endorsement on the back thereof, followed by the endorsement of Mr. Best's company, but at first she claimed she did not place it there. When shown the check at the hearing, however, she admitted the signature on the endorsement was hers and that she most likely signed it. This check was issued as a result of her unremembered direction to Mr. Best to cancel the policy. She claims she did not authorize Mr. Best to take the money it represented and use it for his purposes. She claims that the check was subsequently deposited by her to her account and that Mr. Best never got possession of it or the money. This is patently wrong, however, inasmuch as Mr. Best admits that he did have the check and placed his company's endorsement on it. He subsequently used the check, with her agreement, to apply toward a policy with another company, and to his recollection, she voluntarily endorsed the check to him. Ms. Clark also purchased a $30,000.00 annuity policy through Mr. Best with another company, the name of which she cannot recall, at about the same time as the first policy mentioned herein. To get this policy she issued a check to Mr. Best in the amount of $30,000.00. When the policy was issued, she requested that it be cancel led because by the time she received it, she had reconsidered and determined that she did not want it. She notified Mr. Best of her desires that the policy be cancelled, but claims she never communicated directly with the company. The company has a letter reputedly from her, however, which complains of Respondent's purported trickery and deceit. It is found that this latter letter was prepared for her signature by someone else. When Ms. Clark told Mr. Best she did not want the policy, and requested him to cancel it, he asked her to wait awhile, for some reason which was unclear to her. Instead, she indicated to him then that she did not want to do so but wanted her money back. Some time after this discussion, but before the policy was cancelled, Mr. Best came to see her and though she cannot recall if he got her to sign anything, she identified her signature on a letter to the company which had issued the annuity policy in question , which indicated that she was satisfied with the policy and withdrawing her request to cancel. She recalls Mr. Best requesting that she sign the letter, but cannot recall what he said at the time. As she remembers, he appeared normal when he came to see her, and she voluntarily signed the letter of her own free will. It is obvious, however, that Ms. Clark did not understand what was being said to her or what she was signing because, she claims, she still wanted the policy cancelled. Her recollection of the incident is shaky - and unsure. She cannot recall if Mr. Best made her sign the letter, and she cannot recall where she signed it. It may have been at her home or at some other location, but she does not know for certain. In addition, she cannot recall if the letter was typed when she signed it, or if the paper was blank. Though she contends Mr. Best tried to keep her from cancelling this annuity policy, at this time she cannot recall what he told her; what reasons he gave her; or why he wanted her to wait. Whenever she dealt with Mr. Best, he was not rude to her. She did not feel she was being forced by him to take out any insurance from him or to do any of the things or sign any of the documentation that she did. Ms. Clark filed the complaint against Mr. Best because she was told by someone that he had forged her name on a check. At the time she signed the complaint, and at the time of the hearing, she did not know whether he did it or not, nor does she know which check he is supposed to have forged. In fact, Ms. Clark finds it difficult to recall much of what had happened and is not sure of any of the facts to which she testified. She does know, and it is found, that all the money she paid to Mr. Best was reimbursed to her and she has lost nothing as a result of her dealing with him. Ms. Clark recalls that about this time, upon the advice of her attorney, Mr. Kanetsky, she engaged in dealings with another insurance agent who advised her to cancel the annuity policy and, in fact, wrote the letter of cancellation to the insurance company for her. Mr. Kanetsky, an attorney practicing in Venice, Florida, has worked with Ms. Clark for approximately ten years, primarily in the area of estate planning for her and her sister. Over the years, he has discussed with Ms. Clark various insurance policies and other financial products, and is aware of the insurance dealings involved in this case which he learned about from his discussions with his client. He claims that in August or September, 1988, Ms. Clark called his office and solicited advice from him as to how she could get rid of an insurance policy she did not want. He advised her to come in with all her papers to discuss it and at their first meeting, found that she had purchased the $30,000.00 annuity on the life of a niece, and also a health policy, from Respondent. The annuity policy was a single premium annuity, and the health policy had a $1,200.00 premium, for both of which, she had written checks. During this discussion Ms. Clark was quite sure that she did not want to keep the annuity policy. She was somewhat confused about the health policy, but was also satisfied that she didn't want it, though she could not elaborate why. Due to Ms. Clark's conditions, both financial and otherwise, Mr. Kanetsky felt she would be better off in a liquid position rather than having such a large annuity outstanding, and since she apparently wanted to cancel both policies, he agreed to help her. To do so, he first contacted an individual in the insurance business who was aware of Mr. Best and his operation. Upon advice of this individual, Mr. Kanetsky then contacted the insurance company on which the annuity policy had been written and requested that it be cancelled. Mr. Kanetsky also referred Ms. Clark to another insurance agent to get the health policy cancelled and a new policy issued. He also contacted Mr. Best to have him refund the $400.20 difference between the $1,200.00 which Ms. Clark had paid in as a premium on the health policy, and the $799.80 which had been refunded to her by the company when the first policy was cancelled. There is some misunderstanding as to how that first $799.80 check was handled. On its face, the check reflects it was sent to Ms. Clark who, in turn, endorsed it over to Mr. Best to be applied toward another policy. Mr. Kanetsky, on the other hand, indicates the check, though addressed to Ms. Clark, was actually sent to Mr. Best, who had Ms. Clark endorse it and who applied it to another policy. In any event, since Ms. Clark wanted that policy cancel led and apparently intended to do no further business with Mr. Best, Mr. Kanetsky requested that Best refund all monies paid. Mr. Best immediately issued his check for $400.20. The insurance company, apparently concluding it had sent the first check to Mr. Best by mistake, issued another check to Ms. Clark in the amount of $799.80, which represents the actual premium cost, with the balance being the agent's legitimate commission. Since Mr. Best had already forwarded his check for $799.80, when the second insurance company check was received it was immediately refunded to Mr. Best. The $30,000.00 paid in for the annuity policy was refunded to Ms. Clark directly by the insurance company. Mr. Kanetsky contends that notwithstanding he had written to Mr. Best to advise him to stay away from Ms. Clark, there is some indication that Best thereafter came to Ms. Clark's residence to discuss the annuity policy with her. Mr. Best does not deny having gone to Ms. Clark's home on several occasions; once to talk to her about the health and accident policy, and another time, to talk about the annuity. In both cases, however, this is a standard practice in the insurance industry, suggested by the company, to attempt to "conserve" the business by making a follow-up call in an effort to dissuade a policy holder from cancelling. It is found that no improper pressure was applied by Mr. Best in his efforts to conserve his sales. Over his years of experience with Ms. Clark, Mr. Kanetsky has found that she confuses easily, and though she is competent, she is extremely limited in business experience and understanding. She does not have a guardian of her property, but is clearly not equipped emotionally to handle many of her financial affairs. It is found that her recollection of the incidents in question here is so poor as to render her testimony almost irrelevant and without merit, and though she is quite sure she did not want the insurance she bought, and attempted to cancel it, she is totally unsure of the circumstances surrounding her relationship with Respondent and the details of any conversations and transactions she may have had with him. Consequently, her testimony, the only direct testimony regarding the issue of what transpired between her and Mr. Best, is, for all purposes here, worthless. Mr. Best denies threatening Ms. Clark or attempting to coerce her into purchasing insurance from him. When he saw her in August, 1988, it was the first time he had seen her for a while and had, in fact, forgotten about her until she came into his office to file a claim. At that point, he made an appointment with her for a review of her policy status. At that time Ms. Clark had no Medicare coverage, (she does now), and he offered to attempt to get her medical coverage, to which she agreed. She wrote a check for a policy to be issued by American Sun Life Insurance Company which, subsequently, rejected her. When the rejection came through, Mr. Best immediately notified her of that fact and told her then he would convert to another company, to which she agreed. Mr. Best is satisfied Ms. Clark understood he would apply the refund check he received from American Sun to the second policy issued by United American Life, and he did this. She thereafter cancelled that policy. After Mr. Best received notice of the cancellation, he went to her home to explain everything to her. At no time, however, did he threaten her, a fact to which she agrees. He claims she had received the initial refund from united American for $799.80, which she agreed he could apply toward a policy with another company, and she voluntarily endorsed the check over to him. She also cancelled this second policy. With regard to the annuity policy, when she notified the company that she was cancelling it, he received notice of this from the home office which suggested he do what he could to conserve the business. When he went to see her about it, she agreed, he claims, that she would keep the policy. At that time he wrote out, by hand, a note to be signed by her indicating her satisfaction with the policy and her desire it be maintained. When the company thereafter indicated it preferred a typed statement to that effect, he went to her with a typed notice which said the same thing, and which Ms. Clark signed. No threats were made, and Ms. Clark agrees to this. Mr. Best also sold an insurance policy to an Ann Ward, which she cancelled for a reason totally unrelated to the Respondent. When Mr. Best found out she had cancelled the policy, he went to see her to inquire as to her reasons. At that time, as in all her dealings with him over a period of time, he was not, and she has never found him to be, overbearing, unprofessional, or coercive. In all their transactions together, he has always fully explained his product, and on the basis of their relationship, she would be happy to deal with him again. When Ms. Ward cancelled her policy, the company wrote to Mr. Best and advised him of this fact and that he must refund a portion of the premium which it had paid to him as a commission. When he received this letter, he called the company and authorized it to withhold from the amount owed to him for renewal commissions, any amount the company claimed as reimbursement. He claims to have believed this procedure, a standard action within the industry, satisfied his obligation to the company. He was, therefore, quite surprised when the company complained and he immediately wrote a check to the company to cover the balance due it which is now paid in full. However, the evidence of record shows he was sent several notices of delinquency, even several for the balance after he authorized the company to take his earned commissions, without his taking any action and the company ultimately, on December 22, 1988, terminated his agency. His failure to pay over is found to be more negligent than willful, however. Mr. Best has been in the insurance business since 1979 and claims he has had no prior administrative complaints filed against him since that time. The Department showed none.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint relating to the Respondent, Michael Eugene Best, be dismissed; and that as to Count III, he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Best's applications to represent World Insurance Company, Travellers Life Insurance Company, and American Integrity Insurance Company be denied, such denial to be without prejudice to re-filing of the applications at a later time to be set by the Department. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, as to all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. FOR THE PETITIONER; 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. -10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15.&16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted and incorporated herein, with the understanding that the failure to deal with American Sun Life was not due to any misconduct of Respondent but because of the Company's rejection of Ms. Clark. 18.-20. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 21.-24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25.-27. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 28.-31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32.&34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Christopher Anderson, III, Esquire Office of Legal Services Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Michael E. Sweeting, Esquire Pflaum, Dannheisser and Sweeting, P. A. 100 Wallace Avenue, Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
