The Issue Whether Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc., is owed $2,602.60 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Redland Brokers is an agent for producers of Florida-grown agricultural products. Mo-Bo is a dealer in such products in the normal course of its business and is bonded by Armor. During the period from October 28, 1994, until November 11, 1994, Mo-Bo ordered various agricultural products from Redland Brokers. In accordance with the usual practice of Redland Brokers when doing business with Mo-Bo, the orders were accepted by telephone and the items were loaded onto trucks sent by Mo-Bo to Redland Brokers's warehouse. Redland Brokers sent the following invoices to Mo-Bo for agricultural products order by and delivered to Mo-Bo: November19, 1994 Invoice Number 275 $180.00 November5, 1994 Invoice Number 290 756.00 November11, 1994 Invoice Number 319 793.00 November19, 1994 Invoice Number 334 353.60 November19, 1994 Invoice Number 338 520.00 TOTAL $2,602.60 Payment was due twenty-one days from the date each invoice was mailed. Despite repeated demands, Mo-Bo has not paid any of the amounts reflected in these invoices. As of September 6, 1995, the date of the formal hearing, $2,602.60 remained due and owing to Redland Brokers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order ordering Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., to pay $2,602.60 to Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc., and, if Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., does not pay this amount, ordering Armor Insurance Company to pay this amount, up to its maximum liability under its bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 10th day of October 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank T. Basso, Jr., Owner Amy L. Glasow, Owner Redland Brokers Exchange, Inc. 401 North Redland Road Homestead, Florida 33030 Paul Boris Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. Post Office Box 1899 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Mark J. Albrechta, Esquire Armor Insurance Company Legal Department Post Office Box 15250 Tampa, Florida 33684-5250 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Should the Department of Insurance (now known as the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation) (Department) approve three insurance endorsement forms that State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) filed on November 15, 2001?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: State Farm is a domestic insurance company that the Department has licensed to transact property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate insurers doing business in the State of Florida. State Farm offers five types of homeowners' policies that have been approved for use in Florida, an FP-7921 (HO1), FP-7923 (HO3), FP-7924 (HO4), FP-7925 ( HO5-Extra), and FP-2926 (HO6). The HO1 is a "named perils" policy and provides coverage only for those perils specifically named in the policy. This policy is not offered in other states, and in Florida accounts for less than one percent of all of all policies in force. The HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies are known as "open perils" policies providing coverage for all risks unless specifically excluded by the policy. Although similar to HO3, the HO5 policy provides somewhat broader coverage with respect to settlement provisions. The HO6 policy is specifically geared toward condominium owners and the HO4 policy is the policy form that applies to renters. Of all the policies offered in Florida, the HO3 is the most widely used policy form and will be quoted from and used as the exemplar in this Recommended Order. The HO3 policy contains introductory provisions entitled "Declarations" and "Definitions," and is then divided into two coverage sections, Sections I and II. Section I refers to property coverage and with Section II referring to liability coverage. Section I is divided into a number of subcategories including the following: Coverage A (Dwelling), Coverage B (Personal Property), Section C (Loss of Use), Additional Coverage, Losses Insured, Losses Not Insured, and Conditions. Following the Section II provisions there are additional sections entitled "Section I and II-Conditions" and a section entitled "Optional Provisions." The HO3 policy provides coverage under Coverage A (Dwelling) for all risks of loss unless it is a "loss not insured." As stated in the policy: "We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) However, coverage for personal property (Coverage B) does not provide such "open perils" coverage. Rather, it provides coverage only for 16 named perils, contains a number of limitations on personal property that it does cover, and reflects a number of personal property items that it does not cover. All of State Farm's homeowners' policies currently provide some limited coverage relating to mold. Although the policies exclude mold as a covered peril, they provide some limited coverage for mold-related losses resulting from covered perils, such as a covered water loss that causes mold-related damage. Historically, there have been exclusions in property insurance for ordinance of law, earth movement, flood, war, the neglect of the insured, and nuclear hazard. Mold that resulted from a covered peril has historically not been excluded. On November 15, 2001, State Farm filed three proposed endorsement forms (Fungus (Including Mold) Exclusion Endorsement): (1) FE-5397 for use with HO1 policies; (2) FE- 5398, for use with HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies; and (3) FE-5399 for use with HO4 policies. The homeowners' policies, which the endorsements were to apply, had been previously approved by, and were on file with the Department, in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The goal of the endorsements was to eliminate mold coverage from State Farm's existing homeowners policies in Florida. State Farm's current rates do not include the cost of providing the mold coverage that the endorsements seek to exclude. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that State Farm would need to substantially raise its rates to include those costs. Before filing the mold-exclusion endorsements, State Farm entered into discussions with the Department about giving policyholders the choice of buying back some of the to-be- excluded mold coverage through buy-back endorsements (buy- backs). State Farm filed its buy-backs in June 2002, after failing to work out a solution with the Department that would have allowed for their approval. Although the Department disapproved the buy-backs in December 2002, State Farm has committed itself to provide policyholders with the optional buy-backs, if the exclusions are approved. If the exclusion endorsements are approved along with the buy-back provisions, any cost increase would be restricted to those policyholders who choose to purchase mold coverage through a buy-back. State Farm's filings of mold-exclusion endorsements are consistent with a nationwide effort by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, an affiliate of State Farm to eliminate mold coverage in homeowners policies. In Florida, State Farm's endorsements accomplish the complete elimination of mold coverage chiefly through the addition of a new exclusion for fungus, including mold, within "SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements, when coupled with the underlying policy, state in relevant part as follows: 2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as result of any combination of these: * * * g. Fungus. (Emphasis in the original.) (The text of the endorsement is underlined.) The endorsements delete all references to the term mold found in SECTION 1 - LOSSES INSURED. (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements define fungus as follows: "fungus" means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts produced or released by fungi. (Emphasis furnished.) This total exclusion of mold coverage, using language clearly encompassing all manner of causation and occurrence, replaces the mold exclusions in the existing policies that do not use such broad language. The difference between the post- and pre-endorsement policies can be seen from comparing the above-quoted endorsement as incorporated into HO3 policy on the one hand, with the mold exclusions as they currently exist in the HO3 policy on the other hand. While the endorsements totally exclude coverage for fungus (mold), and deny payment for mold damage historically provided to insureds, the endorsements are not ambiguous, notwithstanding the testimony offered by the Department to the contrary, which lacks credibility. The endorsements do not add coverage. Instead, the endorsements eliminate coverage for mold that currently exists. However, this fact alone does not render the endorsements inconsistent, misleading, or deceptive when the endorsements are read in their entirety along with the remaining provisions of the policies. State Farm's endorsements were initially deemed approved pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, which provides that an endorsement filed with the Department is deemed approved if it is not approved or disapproved within 30 days, or 45 days if there has been an extension, of its filing.. By letter dated June 28, 2002, the Department withdrew its deemed approval of the three endorsements and notified State Farm of its basis for disapproval. The Department's original disapproval letter cites three bases for disapproval. The Department asserts that State Farm's endorsements: (1) contain ambiguities in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; (2) deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract, also in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and (3) deny policyholders the right to obtain "comprehensive coverage" as that term is used in Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is part of the policyholders' bill of rights. On December 4, 2002, the Department moved for leave to amend its original disapproval letter. The motion was granted. The Department's amended disapproval letter, which the Department back-dated to June 28, 2002, reiterates the previously alleged bases for disapproval and cites two additional bases for disapproval: (1) the alleged violation of Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, itself constitutes a violation of Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) the endorsements, because they exclude coverage that "through custom and usage has become a standard or uniform provision" in Florida, violate Section 627.412(2), Florida Statutes. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the provision for mold coverage has, through custom and usage, become a standard or uniform provision. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that there is a "natural association between mold and water." In the fall of 2001, the Department began receiving a large influx of filings seeking to exclude or severely limit coverage for mold. Including State Farm's filing, the Department received between 400 and 450 filings representing between 200 and 250 insurers primarily between October 1, 2001, through the end of 2002. In the face of the inordinate number of filings, the Department sought input from all sectors of the public. The Department met with insurers and other interested persons and held four public forums around the state to determine the impact the filings would have on insurance contracts, the industry, and the market place. In the mean time, the Department routinely sought waivers from the insurers of the statutory review period set forth in Section 627.410(2), Florida Statutes, and additionally requested that insurers withdraw their filings. Insurers were advised by the Department that failure to waive the statutory review period or to withdraw their filings would result in the filing being disapproved. The Department initially approved the endorsements to limit or exclude mold coverage of three insurers: USAA, Maryland Casualty, and American Strategic. However, the Department withdrew its approval for each of these companies in letters dated September 18, 2002. The Department asserts that it does not have a policy to disapprove filings simply because they discuss mold or seek to limit or exclude coverage for claims involving mold damage. The Department admits that it is required to examine all filings based upon the statutory scheme. However, the Department has not approved a single one of the over 450 filings, regardless of the language or structure of the endorsements. The simple fact is that the Department had a policy from the fall of 2001 through December 16, 2002, imposing a moratorium on the exclusion or limitation of mold coverage. The Department altered that policy on December 17, 2002, when it entered into a settlement with Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), wherein Farm Bureau's endorsement was approved allowing a reduction in mold coverage from policy limits to a sub-limit of $10,000.00 per occurrence, $20,000.00 annual aggregate. The Department's previous position that policies offered to Florida's consumers should not be significantly reduced was abandoned at that time. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the $10,000.00 coverage was a reasonable amount of coverage for the vast majority of claims for mold damage. The endorsements seek to limit or exclude coverage for mold that has existed for decades. There is scant Florida experience to support the need for limitations or exclusions on mold coverage. Even so, the Department cannot disapprove endorsement forms without authority to do so. There is no statutory authority mandating mold coverage to the extent of policy limits or otherwise in order for policyholders to have comprehensive coverage. Beginning September 15, 2001, the Department did not approve a single mold endorsement seeking to exclude or limit coverage for mold as a resulting loss from a covered peril until December 17, 2002, when it approved a filing by Farm Bureau as a part of a settlement of an administrative proceeding in which the parties were awaiting ruling after a final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the endorsements filed with the Department by State Farm on November 15, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Ryan Reetz, Esquire Jim Toplin, Esquire Amie Riggle, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire State Farm Florida Insurance Company 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 344 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., is indebted to Other Side Sod, LLC, for the purchase of sod and pallets; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation located in Arcadia, Florida, and at all times relevant hereto was a producer of agricultural products, as defined by section 604.15(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is also a “dealer in agricultural products” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). Respondent, during all times relevant hereto, was a “dealer in agricultural products,” within the meaning of section 604.15(2). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Great American served as surety for Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a customer of Other Side Sod. Respondent purchased sod from Petitioner and thereafter resold and installed the sod to Respondent’s customers. Petitioner sold sod to its customers on wooden pallets. An integral part of each transaction involved the pallets. There are 10 invoices in dispute which cover the period October 14, 2016, through February 10, 2017. For the underlying transactions that relate to the invoices in question, the following language is contained on each field/delivery ticket: Terms of Sale: Payment due upon receipt. All payment[s] applied to pallet balance first. Interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per month will be charged on unpaid invoice amounts after 14 days. Invoices will be charged $0.02 per square foot additional after 30 days. Purchaser agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorney fees, in [the] event it is necessary to institute suit for collection. Venue will be in DeSoto County, Florida. All Sales F.O.B. Shipping Point. On or about October 14, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47293, which showed a balance due of $462 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 83,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,664). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $124.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,664 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 23, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47378, which showed a balance due of $224 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 70,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($1,408). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $105.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($1,408 x 7.50 percent). On or about October 24, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47420, which showed a balance due of $280 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 16,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($320). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $24 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($320 x 7.50 percent). On or about November 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47549, which showed a balance due of $1,526 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 103,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($2,064). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $154.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($2,064 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 6, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 47755, which showed a balance due of $434 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 30,400 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($608). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $45.60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($608 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 8, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48093, which showed a balance due of $1,256 for 12,800 units of Bahia sod, $224 for a pallet deposit, and $72 for sales tax. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 12,800 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($256). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $19.20 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($256 x 7.50 percent). On or about December 13, 2016, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48166, which showed a balance due of $343 for pallets related to the sale of Bahia sod. The invoice remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 163,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($3,264). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $244.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($3,264 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 29, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48285, which showed a balance due of $3,000 for 40,000 units of Bahia sod, $308 for a pallet deposit, and $225 for sales tax (total = $3,533). On February 3, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $3,210.50, which left an unpaid balance of $322.50. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 40,000 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($800). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $60 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($800 x 7.50 percent). On or about January 31, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48301, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $91 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $510.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $468.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92.1/ The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent). On or about February 10, 2017, Petitioner sent Respondent invoice 48409, which showed a balance due of $390 for 5,200 units of Bahia sod, $21 for a pallet deposit, and $29.25 for sales tax (total = $440.25). On February 15, 2017, Respondent submitted to Petitioner partial payment in the amount of $398.33, which left an unpaid balance of $41.92. The balance remained unpaid for more than 30 days and Petitioner, in accordance with the terms of sale, amended the original invoice and added a charge of two cents for each of the 5,200 units of Bahia sod related to the transaction ($104). Petitioner also added to the invoice a charge of $7.80 for sales tax related to the late payment penalty ($104 x 7.50 percent).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the claim of Other Side Sod, LLC, against C. Fullerton and Landscaping Co., Inc., in the amount of $4,981.34. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 7th day of November, 2017.
The Issue Whether respondents owe petitioner money on account of watermelon sales?
Findings Of Fact Last spring, her first working on behalf of respondent McKay & Associates, Inc., Pat Harper nee ' Maddox accompanied Randy Finch, the company president, to Florida to help buy and ship produce. Because petitioner Bubba Hurst had sold watermelons to Ms. Harper season before last, she sought him out again. On Tuesday night, May 28, 1991, Ms. Harper orally agreed on behalf of McKay & Associates, Inc. (after Ruth Neuman, the company's secretary-treasurer, had been consulted by telephone) to pay Mr. Hurst 12 cents a pound for two truckloads of watermelons "as is." (Earlier she had seen the watermelons piled in the smaller trucks in which petitioner's crew had brought them from the fields to the melon yard, after harvesting them that day.) With Wednesday morning came a truck and driver (engaged by Ms. Harper or Mr. Finch) to haul the watermelons from petitioner's melon yard to truck scales some ten miles away, then to a farm in Denton, Georgia, for crating and transshipment to their ultimate intended destinations in Maryland and Pennsylvania. After the first truck left at 4:58 that afternoon, loaded with watermelons aggregating 43,280 pounds, Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, a second truck and driver arrived. Mr. Finch had agreed to pay Mr. Hurst cash for the watermelons, but a complication arose before they could settle that night: Only after the crew had gone home was it discovered that the second truck was overloaded by some 9,000 pounds; and the driver refused to risk the fines he might incur by hauling an overload. As a result, it was not clear exactly how many watermelons McKay & Associates, Inc. would owe petitioner for. After some discussion, Mr. Finch wrote and signed a check in petitioner's favor but left blank the amount; petitioner then endorsed and returned the check. The plan was, once the exact amount was known, for Mr. Finch to complete the check, cash it, and give Mr. Hurst the proceeds. Afterwards it occurred to Mr. Hurst that if the check were made out for more than what he was to be paid for the watermelons, he could have problems with the Internal Revenue Service. Apprehensive, he asked Mr. Finch to void the check, which he did, by writing "VOID" across it. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Later somebody filled in an amount ($5,193.60, which corresponds to the first load, 43,280 pounds at 12 cents per) and wrote "melons no good," perhaps in anticipation of a formal administrative proceeding like the present one. The check was never negotiated. On Thursday, May 30, 1991, while watermelons were being unloaded from the second truck, two men with a brief case full of cash expressed an interest in the lightening truckload. When Ms. Harper told Mr. Hurst, he said the watermelons were hers to do with as she pleased. She then sold the load to the two men for 12 cents a pound cash, and handed the money over to petitioner. The excess watermelons on the second truck had been offloaded onto a third truck. Of like capacity as the first, the third truck was empty when it accompanied the overloaded truck to the melon yard on Thursday morning. With the departure of the second truck, Ms. Harper and Mr. Finch told Mr. Hurst to fill the third truck up and agreed to buy that truckload. For a while, Mr. Finch was actually "in the line" handing some watermelons along for loading in the third truck, and rejecting others. They weighed 20 pounds each on average. Meanwhile, when Ms. Neuman saw the first truckload, after its arrival in Denton, Georgia, on Thursday morning, she exclaimed, "My God! These are sun scald[ed]!" At hearing, she testified she was incredulous Florida would let such watermelons leave the state. Ms. Neuman telephoned Mr. Finch and told him she was sending the first load back, but that she would take the other load if it "meets federal." She also called the trucking company (then reportedly owned by the late Sam Walton), however, and told the trucker not to load any more watermelons. When Evelyn Hurst, Bubba's mother, answered the telephone at the melon yard lunchtime Thursday, she was asked to tell the driver of the third truck to call home because there was an emergency. The driver made a telephone call, after which he told Mrs. Hurst nothing was wrong at his home. Then he made a second telephone call. After that call, he ordered a stop to the loading then in progress. Bubba Hurst was eating when his mother called with word that no more watermelons were being loaded onto the third truck. He then telephoned the motel where Mr. Finch was staying, and inquired. Mr. Finch told him to finish loading the third truck; and later went to the melon yard and told the driver that loading should go forward. Loading resumed. Later Mr. Finch raised with the driver the possibility of taking the load to New York, but the driver declined the suggestion. Around four o'clock Thursday, the renewed efforts to fill the third truck with watermelons came to an abrupt end, about 250 melons shy of a full load, and the driver, who had ordered the halt, drove away. Mr. Hurst called the motel, and spoke to Ms. Harper, in hope of obtaining the cash he had been promised for his watermelons, but to no avail. The next day the first truck returned from Georgia with the watermelons whose presence on the other side of the state line had so surprised Ms. Neuman; and a federal agricultural inspector, a friend of Mr. Hurst's father, arrived at petitioner's melon yard to inspect them. Mr. Hurst told the inspector (who had been called by Ms. Neuman) that he was welcome to inspect but that the whole load had been sold "as is" and that he - Mr. Hurst - would not be paying for the inspection. Hearing this, the inspector left. Disinterested testimony established that inspections by USDA- certified inspectors are routinely called for by shippers when produce is refused by buyers claiming that produce spoiled before reaching them; but that, at least in the environs of Wildwood, Florida, it is not customary to call for a federal inspection at the point from which watermelons are shipped (unless the shipment is to the Government itself.) Of course, these particular watermelons had already been to Georgia and back. After the inspector left, the driver of the first truck asked that the watermelons be removed from his truck. When Mr. Hurst told him he was trespassing and asked him to leave the melon yard, the driver (or Ms. Neuman by long distance telephone call) summoned a Sumter County deputy sheriff. But the deputy sheriff, informed upon his arrival that the melon yard was a good quarter mile on the Marion County side of the county line, left to perform other duties. Still loaded, the first truck eventually left the melon yard a second time.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order McKay & Associates, Inc. to pay petitioner nine thousand seven hundred eighty seven dollars and twenty cents ($9,787.20) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event McKay & Associates, Inc. fails to pay petitioner nine thousand seven hundred eighty seven dollars and twenty cents ($9,787.20) within fifteen (15) days of the final order, DACS order payment by State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., to the extent necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1991), for disbursal to petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, see findings of fact Nos. 5 and 6. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, petitioner said the load may have been as many as 250 melons light. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the value of the second load established by the evidence is $4,591.60, representing 38,280 pounds at 12 cents a pound. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 3, Ms. Neuman's testimony that she directed her agents to procure federal inspection before the first truck left has not been credited, but she did try to arrange one later. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the second truck load was never rejected. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5 is rejected. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, see paragraphs 5 and 6 of the findings of fact. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is immaterial. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, Mr. Finch agreed to buy the third truckload and ordered that loading go forward even after Ms. Neuman registered her dissatisfaction with the first load. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Julian E. Harrison, Esquire 324 West Dade Avenue Bushnell, Florida 33513 John Sowa, Esquire Robert L. Rehberger, Esquire 5025 North Henry Boulevard Stockbridge, Georgia 30281
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $14,080 on account for vegetables sold and delivered at the request of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, M.O. "Buster" Williams, is an agent for the producers of agricultural products, carrots, red radishes and white corn. Respondent, Dougal M. Buie, III, d/b/a Blue Star Citrus and Vegetables, is a dealer of such products in the normal course of its business activity. Respondent is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and is bonded by First Union National Bank of Florida. Petitioner sold Respondent carrots, red radishes and white corn by the truck load between the period May 19, 1993 and June 14, 1993, and was given a Bill of Lading therefor. Respondent was sent an Invoice for each shipment and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. As of the date of the formal hearing, each invoice for shipments made between May 19 and June 14, 1993 remains due and owing and unpaid. The total amount of indebtedness owed by Respondent, Buie, to Petitioner is $14,080.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $14,080.00 DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 16th day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Robert F. Vason, Jr., Esquire Potter, Vason and Clements 308 East Fifth Avenue Mount Dora, Florida 32757 M.O. Buster Williams 1412 Raintree Lane Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Lewis Stone, Esquire P. O. Box 2048 Eustis, Florida 32727-2048 First Union National Bank of Florida 21 North Grove Street Eustis, Florida 32726
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Holmes Nursery & Gardens Associates, LTD., is a wholesale and retail nursery providing a variety of landscape agricultural products. The east coast regional office for Petitioner is located at 1600 SW 20th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden Landscape and Nursery, Inc., is an agricultural dealer with its office located at 3317 So. Dixie Highways Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Garden of Eden is subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As such, Garden of Eden is obligated to obtain and to post a surety bond to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this requirement, Garden of Eden delivered a certificate of deposit from Sun Bank of Palm Beach County to the Department. On or about April 23, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1770.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of four viburnum odo., five weeping podocarpus and one bottlebrush. On or about April 25, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $420.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of three live oaks. On or about April 28, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $312.50 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of twenty-five viburnum odo. On or about April 29, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $520.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of four laurel oaks. On or about May 5, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $1,130.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of forty-seven crinum lily and six hundred and twenty-two liriope muscari. On or about May 13, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $2,943.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of seven cattley grava, and six paurotes. On or about May 28, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $315.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of one roebelinii single and one roebelinii double. On or about June 19, 1986, Garden of Eden ordered and received delivery of $300.00 worth of agricultural products from Petitioner. This purchase consisted of one paurotis 5 stem. The total amount of the agricultural products purchased by Garden of Eden was $7,710.50. On August 8, 1986, Garden of Eden paid $1060.00 on the account. On September 24, 1986, another $2500.00 was remitted to Holmes Gardens on this account. The balance of indebtedness owed by Garden of Eden to Holmes Gardens for the purchases listed above is $4,150.00. Petitioner claims it is due an additional sum of $436.04 representing interest on the unpaid account since the assessment of interest to an unpaid balance is standard practice in the industry; however, no written agreement or acknowledgment executed by Garden of Eden was presented with regard to the interest claim.
The Issue The issue is whether Boyer Produce, Inc. and its surety, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, owe petitioner $1,751.80 as alleged in the complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In July 1993, petitioner, Patricia Thomas, was given authority by her brother to sell all remaining watermelons on his farm located in Citra, Florida. This amounted to approximately one truckload. She eventually sold them to respondent, Boyer Produce, Inc., a dealer (broker) in agricultural products located in Williston, Florida. Its owner and president is Kennedy Boyer (Boyer), who represented his firm in this proceeding. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and is in the amount of $75,000.00. Although the parties had never had business dealings before this transaction, through a mutual acquaintance, Randy Rowe, respondent learned that petitioner was interested in selling her watermelons. After Boyer visited the field and examined three watermelons which he described as "good," Boyer offered to purchase a truckload for 4 per pound if all melons were of the same quality. Thomas declined and counteroffered with a price of 5 per pound. The parties then agreed to split the difference and arrived at a sales price of 4 per pound. During the negotiations, Rowe acted as an intermediary between the parties and observed the formation of the contract as well as the loading of the goods onto the truck. Although the matter is in dispute, it is found that both parties agreed that Thomas would be paid 4 per pound for "good" watermelons delivered. This meant that petitioner would not be paid unless and until the watermelons were delivered to their final destination in "good" condition. In the trade, being in "good condition" meant that the watermelons would meet U. S. Grade No. 1 standards. Respondent also agreed to provide a truck and driver at petitioner's field and to transport the produce to Brooklyn, New York, the final destination. At the same time, petitioner was given the responsibility of loading the watermelons on the truck. To assist petitioner in meeting her up- front labor costs, respondent advanced $500.00 as partial payment for the shipment. Winston Smith was hired by respondent to transport the melons to New York. He arrived at petitioner's field on Saturday, July 16, 1993, and remained there while approximately 46,000 pounds of melons were loaded on an open top flat bed trailer. One of the loaders said the melons were "packed real tight," and four bales of straw were used in packing. According to Rowe, who observed the loading, the watermelons packed that day were in "good" condition, and any nonconforming watermelons were "kicked" off the truck. Also, by way of admission, the driver, as agent for Boyer, acknowledged to Rowe that the melons loaded were in "good" condition. Late that afternoon, a thunderstorm came through the area and, due to lightening, no further loading could be performed. Since around 46,000 pounds had already been loaded, petitioner desired for the truck to be sent on its way north. Smith, however, told petitioner he wanted 50,000 pounds in order to make his trip to New York worthwhile and he would not go with anything less. Acceding to his wishes, petitioner agreed to meet Smith the next morning and load an additional two hundred watermelons, or 4,000 pounds, on the truck. Smith then drove the loaded truck to a nearby motel where he spent the night. That evening it rained, and this resulted in the uncovered watermelons and straw getting wet. The next morning, Smith telephoned petitioner and advised her to meet him at 9:00 a. m. at a local Starvin' Marvin store, which had a weight scale that could certify the weight of the shipment. Petitioner carried two hundred watermelons to the store at 9:00 a. m., but Smith did not arrive. Around noon, she received a call from Smith advising that his truck was broken down at the motel and would not start. The watermelons were then taken to the motel and loaded onto the trailer. In all, 50,040 pounds were loaded. Smith's truck would still not start after the watermelons were loaded, and Smith refused to spend any money out of his own pocket to repair the truck. Not wanting to delay the shipment any longer, petitioner gave Smith $35.00 to have someone assist him in starting the vehicle. In order for the repairs to be made, the loaded trailer had to be jacked up and the truck unhooked from and later rehooked to the trailer. This was accomplished only with great difficulty, and Smith was forced to "jostle" the trailer with the power unit for some two hours altogether. According to Rowe, he warned Smith that such jostling could bruise the melons and "mess them up." Smith was also cautioned early on that he should make the necessary repairs as soon as possible so that the load of watermelons would not continue to sit uncovered in the sun. The truck eventually departed around 9:00 p. m., Sunday evening after the uncovered trailer had sat in the sun all day. The shipment was delivered to Brooklyn on the following Tuesday afternoon or evening, and it was inspected by a government inspector on Wednesday morning. According to the inspection report, which has been received in evidence, the load was split evenly between crimson and jubilee melons, and 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of the two types of melons failed to meet grade. No greater than a 12 percent "margin" is allowed on government inspections. Almost all of the defects cited in the report were attributable to the melons being "over-ripe." The buyer in New York rejected the entire shipment as not meeting standards. Respondent then sold the shipment for only $1350.00 resulting in a loss of $350.00 on the transaction. In addition, respondent says the driver (Smith) accepted $1200.00 instead of the $2,000.00 he would have normally charged to transport a load to New York. When petitioner asked for her money a few weeks later, respondent declined, saying the goods had not met specification when delivered to their destination, and if she had any remedy at all, it was against Smith, the driver. If petitioner had been paid 4 per pound for the entire shipment, she would have been entitled to an additional $1,751.80, or a total of $2,251.80. Petitioner contends that the melons failed to meet grade because of the negligence of the driver. More specifically, she says the loaded melons sat in the sun for almost two days, including all day Sunday after being soaked from the Saturday evening rain. If wet melons are exposed to the hot sun for any length of time, they run the risk of "wet burning," which causes decay. But even if this occurred, only 1 percent of the shipment was found to have "decay" by the government inspector. Petitioner also says that by being jostled for two hours on Sunday, the melons were bruised. Again, however, the melons were rejected primarily because they were over-ripe, not bruised. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the inspection report, it is found that the jostling and wet burning did not have a material impact on the quality of the melons. Respondent contended the melons were close to being fully ripened when they were picked and loaded. In this regard, Charles Strange, Sr. agreed that if the melons sat in the field for another four or five days, they would have started "going bad." By this, it may be reasonably inferred that, unless the melons were loaded and delivered in a timely manner, they would have become over-ripe and would not meet grade within a matter of days. Therefore, a timely delivery of the melons was extremely important, and to the extent respondent's agent, Smith, experienced at least a twenty-four hour delay in delivering the melons through no fault of petitioner, this contributed in part to their failure to meet grade. Petitioner is accordingly entitled to some additional compensation, a fair allocation of which is one-half of the value of the shipment, or $1125.90, less the $500.00 already paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioner $625.90 within thirty days from date of the agency's final order. In the event such payment is not timely made, the surety should be liable for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Post Office Box 1985 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1985 Patricia Thomas Post Office Box 522 Archer, Florida 32618 Kennedy Boyer 15A South West 2nd Avenue Williston, Florida 32696
The Issue Whether the Respondent is indebted to Petitioner as alleged in the Complaint filed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Findings Of Fact Robert Sepos is the comptroller for Ben-Bud Growers, Inc. As such Mr. Sepos maintains the company records which document amounts owed to it by others. As to this case, Mr. Sepos presented the invoices and statements due and owing from the Respondent. Based upon the unpaid invoices, Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $2,626.00. Respondent acknowledged that the sum of $2,626.00 is owed but claimed that such amount was not for the purchase of agricultural products as contemplated by Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Towell the bulk of the debt owed to Petitioner is for packaging and shipping fees for produce from growers represented by Fantastic Produce. Mr. Towell maintains that packing and shipping fees are not encompassed within Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Mr. Sepos could not verify what sum, if any, of the total amount claimed was for agricultural products (versus packing or shipping). Based upon the admissions made by Mr. Towell, Respondent owes the Petitioner for agricultural products the sum of $347.25 in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's claim in the amount of $347.25 and disallowing the remainder. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ben Litowich, President Ben-Bud Growers, Inc. 6261 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 George Towell, President George Towell Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Fantastic Produce Post Office Box 159 Belle Glade, Florida 33430 American Southern Insurance Company Legal Department 3715 Northside Parkway, 8th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30327
Findings Of Fact C & W Sales, Inc., was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products under license No. 1367 and was so licensed at all times here relevant. At the time of the incorporation of C & W Sales, Inc., Henry T. Watson was listed as an officer (President) and director of the company. The company was run by Philip A. Roberts, the brother-in-law of Watson. Roberts applied on behalf of C & W Sales, Inc., to FFB for an agriculture bond in the amount of $20,000 for the period 5/19/79 until 5/19/80 (Exhibit 1) . As a condition for issuing this bond FFB required and obtained a general agreement of indemnity from Roberts and Watson and their wives (Exhibit 2) which was executed on 2 May 1979. In addition to agreeing to save Florida Farm Bureau harmless from all claims arising out of the bond paragraph 14 provided: That this indemnity is continuing and will apply to any and all bonds, as provided in the opening paragraph of this Agreement which the Company may have executed or procured the execution of from time to time, and over an indefinite period of years; however, any Indemnitor may by written notice to the Company at its Home Office, Gainesville, Florida disavow his liability as to bond(s) which may be executed by the Company subsequent to fifteen days after receipt by the Company of such notice. Agriculture bond (Exhibit 4) was issued on 5/19/79 for one year and upon expiration on 5/19/80 the bond was renewed for an additional period of one year (Exhibit 5). Subsequent to the expiration of the 1979-80 bond (Exhibit 4) and reissuance of the 1980-81 bond (Exhibit 5) but within the prescribed time for submitting a claim against the agriculture dealer and his bond, John T. Brantley, Jr., filed a claim against C & W Sales in the amount of $8,317.05 for payment owed on a transaction which occurred during the 1979-80 period. When C & W Sales failed to pay or respond to the Commissioner of Agriculture's demands for payment, claim was made on the 1979-80 bond and FFB remitted to the Commissioner of Agriculture a check for the Brantley claim (Exhibit 6). Around February 1980 Watson became disenchanted with Roberts' running of C & W Sales, Inc. and wanted out. He told Roberts to get someone to buy his (Watson) stock and to get his name out of the company. Roberts said he would. Watson never advised FFB that he would no longer be an indemnitor under the bond. During the period covered by the bond year beginning 5/19/80 claims against C & W Sales, Inc., were submitted to the Commissioner of Agriculture by Henry L. Watson in the amount of $32,326.50; Hugh D. Martin in the amount of $1,932.80; Jesse J. Wilson in the amount of $1,490.00; John T. Brantley, Jr., in the amount of $15,024.40; and Philip Dean and Willie Bass in the amount of $4,919.13, for a total of $55,692.83. The Commissioner of Agriculture notified C & W Sales of these claims and advised them of the opportunity to contest the validity of the claims. No response was received from C & W Sales and Roberts appears to have departed the area to parts unknown. An order demanding payment was submitted to C & W Sales and when payment of these claims was not made, FFB, as surety on the bond, was notified by the department of its surety on the bond, was notified by the department of its obligation under the bond and a demand for payment of $20,000 to the department was made. There is no dispute regarding the accuracy or validly of the claims against C & W Sales contained in Finding 7 above. Nor does FFB contest its liability under the agriculture bond it issued for the 1980-81 bond year. However, FFB claimed an equitable setoff for the percentage of the $20,000 that would go to Watson. This setoff is claimed by virtue of Watson's indemnity agreement. By the stipulation the parties have agreed that the FFB is entitled to the pro rata share of the $20,000 to Watson.
Findings Of Fact On August 6, 1986, an indemnity bond was executed between RAINMAKER as principal and FIDELITY as surety. The effective dates of the bond were from October 21, 1986, to October 20, 1987. The bond was required under Sections 604.15-604.30, Florida Statutes, in order for RAINMAKER to become licensed as a dealer in agricultural products in Florida. The purpose of the bond is to secure the faithful accounting for a payment to producers or their agents or representatives of the proceeds of all agricultural products handled or purchased by RAINMAKER. The Petitioner, SHAN-RON, is a corporation whose address is 276 Cypress Street, La Belle, Florida. Its purpose is to conduct business by finding buyers for sod located on acreage owned by various cattle ranchers in Lee County, Florida. This practice is commonly known as "bird dogging" in the agricultural trade. The way the business is conducted is as follows: SHAN-RON is contracted by sod installers to whom it sells sod in specific quantities for a fixed price. Once the oral agreement is made, SHAN-RON tells the sod installer where a sod field is located. At this point in the business transaction, the sod installer sends independent truck drivers to the designated sod field. If the sod installer is unable to locate truckers, he telephones a SHAN-RON field foreman. The foreman, as a courtesy, will check to see if any of the independent truckers currently as the sod field can haul a load for the sod installer. Once a trucker is located, employees from SHAN-RON mow the grass, cut the sod, and load it onto pallets owned by SHAN-RON. The truck is loaded with pallets by SHAN-RON employees and the driver is given two copies of the load ticket, one for him and one for the sod installer. The driver delivers the sod and pallets to the address placed upon the load tickets. Upon delivery, the driver has the responsibility to deliver the load ticket to the business office of the sod installer. If he does not deliver the ticket, he does not get paid for hauling the sod. Employees of the sod installer are usually at the delivery site. The sod is laid and the empty pallets are returned to the sod field by the truckers. Every Friday, a representative of SHAN-RON personally delivers a weekly bill to the sod installer in order to collect is owed. When the money is collected, the funds are divided between the rancher whose sod was sold and SHAN-RON. The accountability system used within the sod industry leaves room for a high margin of error at various stages. The SHAN-RON employees occasionally short pallet loads or two layers of sod. The truck drivers occasionally misnamed the sod installer to whom the sod is to be delivered. The truck drivers also occasionally do not take empty pallets under their control back to SHAN-RON. They sell the pallets and pocket the money. The sod installer is financially responsible for the pallet costs. RAINMAKER is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 7385, Ft. Myers, Florida. The company is primarily in the business of installing sod. It transacted business with SHAN-RON between November 11, 1986, and January 8, 1987. At the time of these transactions, RAINMAKER was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products supported by surety bond number 974 52 23 in the amount of $13,500.00. SHAN-RON, through testimony and the introduction of its business records, proved a prima facie case that RAINMAKER owes $12,964.00 for the purchase of sod between November 11, 1986, and January 8, 1987. Both parties Stipulated that $4,000.00 has been paid on the balance of the account which should be deducted from the balance owed SHAN-RON. In rebuttal to SHAN-RON's presentation, RAINMAKER presented testimony and a business record summary which revealed that six invoices were improperly charged, against its account in the amount of $1,260.00. The record summary was based upon a comparison of load tickets against production records during the time period involved. In addition, RAINMAKER's records reveal that the two drivers, Stormy and Fred Bower, were not paid for delivering the sod to RAINMAKER under the load ticket presentation to the sod installer which was previously described as an accounting method within the business. Because RAINMAKER set forth the issue of delivery discrepancies in its answer to the complaint and competent evidence was presented, $1,260.00 should be deducted from the `balance owed. SHAN-RON presented testimony that it is customary for the company to spray the sod for pest control. RAINMAKER received defective sod from SHAN-RON which contained "Creeping Charlie" weeds during the time of the deliveries in dispute. SHAN-RON was timely notified of the problem, and toad RAINMAKER to have the sod sprayed. A copy of the invoice for $300.00 was sent to SHAN-RON and has not been paid. Although the issue was not raised in RAINMAKER's answer to the complaint, it is properly before the Hearing Officer because of RAINMAKER's timely notification and cure of the defect in the product. The $300.00 should be deducted from the amount owed. Testimony relating to possible sod shortages was rejected as no evidence was presented that shortages occurred in the orders for which SHAN-RON seeks payment. The customary procedure In the sod business for handling credits for shortages requires the buyer to notify the seller within a responsible length of time of the shortages. Such notification did not take place as to the orders in dispute. The amount owed to SHAN-RON by RAINMAKER is $7,404.00. It is officially noticed that SHAN-RON's complaint was originally filed with the department on June 19, 1987, within nine months from the date of sale.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture enter a final order requiring the Respondent RAINMAKER to make payment to the petitioner SHAN-RON in the amount of $7,404.00. In the event that RAINMAKER does not comply with the department's order within fifteen days from the date it final, FIDELITY should be ordered to provide payment and the conditions and provisions of the bond furnished to RAINMAKER. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Clinton H. Coutler, JR., Esquire Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Shan Ron Sod, Inc. 276 Cypress Street LaBELLE, FLORIDA 33935 Rainmaker Sod, Inc. 2290 Bruner Lane, South East Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 1227 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert Chastain General Counsel Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
