Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, and a Disability Agent licensed by the State of Florida. During this period, Respondent was licensed to sell life and health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company, American Guaranty Life Insurance Company, and Old Southern Life Insurance Company. Respondent was employed as an agent by Diversified Health Services, an insurance agency whose office is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. At no time material hereto was Respondent employed by any agency of the State of Florida. As indicated above, there remain viable in the Administrative Complaint ten counts charging Respondent with various violations of provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. For purposes of clarity, the findings of fact with regard to each of those remaining counts will be set forth separately. COUNT I On February 12, 1983, Respondent visited Lucille Shock at her home in Bradenton, Florida. Mrs. Shock had earlier purchased a Medicare supplement policy from National States Insurance Company through another agent, but had decided to cancel that policy. Respondent visited Mrs. Shock's home in response to her notice of cancellation in hopes of persuading her to reinstate coverage. In paragraph three of Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mrs. Shock that he was ". . . authorized by the Florida Department of Insurance to investigate the Diversified Health Agency" when, in fact, he was not employed by any state agency. While it is true that Respondent was not at the time of his visit to Mrs. Shock employed by any state agency, the record in this cause is insufficient to establish the foregoing allegation of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent denies having made any c representation to Mrs. Shock that he was employed by the State of Florida. Further, Mrs. Shock's testimony in this regard is inconsistent and conflicting. In a February 21, 1983, letter to a representative of the Florida Department of Insurance, Mrs. Shock stated that at the time of his visit to her home the Respondent represented that he ". . . was an investigator for the Diversified Health Agency. . . . At final hearing, Mrs. Shock testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for the "insurance department," but also, on cross-examination, testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for Diversified Health. Despite these inconsistencies, it is clear from the record in this proceeding that before the end of Respondent's visit with Mrs. Shock on February 12, 1983, she knew that Respondent was an insurance agent for National States Insurance Company. Because of the inconsistencies in Mrs. Shock's testimony, it is specifically concluded that her testimony concerning Respondent's representation about his employment is unreliable. Other than Mrs. Shock's testimony, there is no other record basis to establish that Respondent represented himself to be an employee of the Department of Insurance as alleged in Count I. Respondent is also charged in paragraph five of Count I of the Administrative Complaint with having "falsely represented the financial condition of several insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida as part of your sales presentation to induce Mrs. Shock to buy insurance policies from you." The record in this cause establishes that Respondent and Mrs. Shock discussed several insurance companies, including Vulcan Insurance Company, Tara Life Insurance Company, and Bankers Life during their visit on February 12, 1983. Respondent reviewed with Mrs. Shock data contained in certain A. M. Best Company reports concerning these insurance companies.Respondent advised Mrs. Shock that Vulcan Insurance Company was "a rather shaky company" and that Tara Life Insurance Company had been experiencing "financial problems." There is, however, nothing of record in this proceeding to establish either that these companies are licensed in Florida or that the representations made by Respondent to Mrs. Shock concerning these insurance companies were false. Accordingly, the allegations contained in paragraph five of Count I have not been established. COUNT II On or about February 10, 1983, Respondent visited Koy B. Cook at his home in Port Orange, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mr. Cook was to dissuade Mr. Cook from cancelling a policy with National States Insurance Company whichir. Cook had previously bought from another agent. After buying the National States policy initially, Mr. Cook had attempted to cancel a preexisting policy with Bankers Life Insurance Company, but had been advised by that company that the policy could not be cancelled. Mr. Cook determined that he could not afford duplicated coverage, so he contacted National States Insurance Company and advised them of his desire to cancel his National States policy. Be was advised, in writing, by National States, that his policy had been cancelled and that his premium had been returned to the insurance agency which had sold him the policy for refund. Sometime prior to January 12, 1983, Respondent contacted Mr. Cook by telephone, identified himself by name, and arranged an appointment to visit with Mr. Cook in his home. Mr. Cook understood from the conversation with Respondent that the purpose of their appointment was to return Mr. Cook's refund check from his cancelled National States policy. Immediately prior to Respondent's arrival at Mr. Cook's home, Mr. Cook had been asleep. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Cook's door, Mr. Cook was still in a "daze," having just awakened. This fact is of significance, because at various times in his testimony Mr. Cook testified that Respondent identified himself as . . . an adjuster with Bill Gunter out of Tallahassee, or . . . an adjuster for the insurance company out of Tallahassee." Mr. Cook also testified that Respondent showed him some identification which bore a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter. This photograph was apparently attached to a document, the contents of which were unknown to Mr. Cook. Respondent denies having represented that he was an employee of the Department of Insurance. During the course of their conversation, Mr. Cook advised Respondent that he preferred the coverage offered under the National States policy to that of the Bankers Life policy, but simply could not afford duplicate coverage. Respondent and Mr. Cook discussed the amount of unearned premium outstanding on the Bankers Life policy as compared to the cost of reinstating the National States policy. Mr. Cook had originally paid $630 for the issuance of the National States policy. Respondent returned to Mr. Cook a check in that amount during the course of their visit. Further, by offering to reinstate the National States policy for a $526 annual premium, Respondent demonstrated to Mr. Cook that he would save approximately the amount that remained in unearned premiums on the Bankers Life policy. Mr. Cook agreed to this proposal, Respondent completed an application form, and Mr. Cook gave Respondent a check for approximately $526 to reinstate the National States policy, with the understand- ing that the National States and Bankers Life policies would overlap for some period of time. Upon leaving Mr. Cook's house, Respondent gave Mr. Cook one of his business cards, which identi- fied Respondent as an agent of National States Insurance Company. In Count II of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mr. Cook that he was an "insurance adjuster working out of Tallahassee" and that he "worked for the Florida Department of Insurance. Respondent is further charged with having told Mr. Cook that he "had a refund check for a cancelled Bankers Life policy when in fact the] had no such check." The testimony of Mr. Cook and Respondent on the issues alleged in Count II are diametrically oooosed. Viewing the transaction between Mr. Cook and Respondent in its totality, it is concluded that Respondent's version of the transaction is the more credible. Mr. Cook's testimony concerning Respondent's representations about his employment status contained several contradictions and inconsistencies. In addition, it is clear that Mr. Cook expected to receive a refund check from National States Insurance Comoany, that Mr. Palesky contacted him by telephone prior to his February 10 visit to advise him that he had his refund check, and that Respondent conducted himself during the entire transaction in a manner which clearly identified him as an insurance salesman. Finally, Respondent furnished Mr. Cook with a business card during the course of their meeting which clearly showed Respondent to be an agent of National States Insurance Company. It is also clear that Mr. Cook was aware during this entire transaction that his Bankers Life policy had not been cancelled, and that as a result of his transaction with Respondent he would be carrying policies with National States and Bankers Life which afforded duclicate coverage, and that he was advised of this fact by Respondent. These facts are clearly inconsistent with Mr. Cook's testimony that Respondent advised him that he had a refund for a cancelled Bankers Life policy in his possession. COUNT IV On or about March 2, 1982, Respondent visited Marjorie Brubaker in her home in Bradenton, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mrs. Brubaker was to dissuade her from cancelling an insurance policy with National States Insurance Company which she had previously purchased through another agent and had subsequently cancelled. Mrs. Brubaker testified that, upon arrival at her home, Respondent represented to her that he was an "investigator for the state" or a "state investigator," looking into her cancellation of her policy with National States Insurance Company. Respondent denies having made that representation. The record is clear, however, that shortly after entering Mrs. Brubaker's home, Respondent showed Mrs. Brubaker materials which clearly identified him as an agent of National States Insurance Company, and that Mrs. Brubaker clearly understood within minutes after his entering her home that he was, in fact, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, it is specifically found that Respondent's testimony concerning his employment status is more credible. If, as is clear from the record, Respondent intended to sell insurance to Mrs. Brubaker, there is little logic to his having represented himself as a state employee at the door to her home, and within minutes clearly divulging to her that that was indeed not the case. Petitioner also alleges in the Administrative Complaint that Respondent displayed a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter to Mrs. Brubaker to establish his position as an investigator for the state. Mrs. Brubaker, however, was unable to identify the person in the photograph displayed to her by Respondent, other than to assert that the person in the photograph was not the Respondent, but instead a clean-shaven person with light hair and fair, reddish complexion. Those facts, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the person in the photograph was, in fact, Mr. Gunter. Respondent is alleged in paragraph twenty of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint of having ". . . . falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in this state in order to induce Mrs. Brubaker to purchase' new insurance policies from you." The only evidence in the record on this issue is Mrs. Brubaker's testimony that Respondent told her that Blue Cross-Blue Shield would soon cease to be the Medicare carrier in Florida, and that there existed a substantial possibility that National States Insurance Company would be designated as the new Medicare carrier in Florida. The record in this cause is absolutely devoid of any evidence that that representation, even if it had been made, was false. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish facts to support the allegations that Respondent has falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in Florida. Finally, paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent falsely told Mrs. Brubaker that her present insurer, Orange State Life Insurance Company, was cancelling its Medicare Supplement policies. . . . It is undisputed that Mrs. Brubaker, at the time she was visited by Respondent, had insurance coverage through Orange State Life Insurance Company. Mrs. Brubaker, it is clear from the record, was under the impression that her policy with Orange State Life Insurance Company was a Medicare supplement policy. Respondent testified that her policy was not a Medicare supplement policy, and, in fact, bore a statement across the top of the policy to the effect that the policy was not a Medicare supplement policy. Petitioner offered no evidence to rebut Respondent's testimony in this regard, and neither party sought to introduce the policy into evidence. The only evidence offered by Petitioner to support the allegation that Respondent's representation that Orange State Life Insurance Company was cancelling its Medicare supplement policv was the fact that Mrs. Brubaker had continued to pay premiums on her policy after the representation was made by Respondent without receiving notice of any cancellation. However, any inference that might be drawn from continued payment of premiums fails if, in fact, the policy held by Mrs. Brubaker was not a Medicare supplement policy. Neither party having offered competent evidence to establish that Mrs. Brubaker's Orange State Life Insurance Company policy was in fact a Medicare supplement policy, the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint are deemed to be without factual support. COUNT VI In Count VI f the Administrative Complaint, it is alleged that Respondent visited the home of Leila Mueller on October 18, 1979. It is further alleged that at that time Respondent told Mrs. Mueller that he was ". . . from Medicare and that [Respondent] had called at one of [Mrs. Mueller's] neighbor's homes to explain the changes in Medicare coverage." It is further alleged that Respondent ". . . misrepresented [his] actual employment in order to induce Mrs. Mueller to buy insurance policies. The record in this cause establishes that on or about October 18, 1979, Mrs. Mueller was visited in her home by two insurance salesmen whom she believed to be in some way affiliated with Medicare. Mrs. Mueller did not recall the names of either of the two men, was not asked to physically identify the Respondent, and could not recall which of the two men led her to believe that they were affiliated with "Medicare." Mrs. Mueller inquired about whether there existed any written material that she could review to decide whether to purchase insurance coverage. One of the men furnished her a brochure which had the name "Palesky" on it. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to establish that Respondent was ever in the home of Mrs. Mueller or that he in any fashion ever represented to her or to anyone else that he was a representative of Medicare. The only testi- mony in this record that in any way connects Respondent with Mrs. Mueller was her testimony that she was given a brochure, which was not introduced into evidence, containing Respondent's name. This fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the factual allegations contained in Count VI of the Adminis- trative Complaint. COUNT XI On or about March 21, 1982, Respondent visited William F. and Winifred M. Bell in their home in Sarasota, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to the Bells was to sell them a Medicare supplement policy. The Bells had previously purchased a policy from Union Fidelity Insurance Company. During the course of Respondent's visit with the Bells, Respondent advised them that Union Fidelity was "not a good company" and that the policy they had with Union Fidelity was "not a good policy." In addition, Respondent advised the Bells that if anything happened to Mr. Bell that Mrs. Bell would not be insured within two months after Mr. Bell's death. Paragraph fifty-five of Count XI of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent told the Bells ". . . that their present insurance coverage was no good" and that if Mr. Bell died, Mrs. Bell would not be insured when in fact [Respondent] knew that both of those statements were false." The record in this cause contains no evidence that the representations set forth above made by Respondent to the Bells were false. The Bells' insurance policy was not received into evidence because Petitioner failed to respond fully to Respondent's Request for Production of Documents, and had further failed to fully exchange exhibits with Respondent, including a copy of the Bells' policy, as required by the Pre-hearing Order entered by the Hearing Officer approximately two months prior to the date set for final hearing in this cause. Accordingly, there are no facts to substantiate the allegations contained in Count XI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XII On or about February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Louise S. Donovan at her home in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in response to her cancellation of a previous policy purchased from National States Insurance Company from another agent on or about November 17, 1982. Soon thereafter, she cancelled that policy but on December 22, 1982, reinstated the policy after having available coverages explained to her by the other agent. Sometime thereafter she again can- called the National States policy. By letter dated January 17, 1983, from the home office of National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Donovan was advised that her refund-check had been returned to her agency for refund to her. On February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in her home. Under direct examination, Mrs. Donovan testified as follows concerning that visit: Q So, you showed [the January 27, 1983] letter to Mr. Palesky; and, how did he respond to the letter? A He said sort of -- it's a little vague now after all these months -- that, oh, well, they didn't pay any attention to those things, or some- thing like that, and that the company would not refund any money on the policy. Q Be made the statement to you that the company was not going to refund? A The company would not -- now, I believe his interpretation of that, but it wasn t clear to me, was that there was a certain clause in that policy that I was not satisfied with and that he would not reissue the same policy under the same conditions. Well, I'm a lay person. I don't know all these fine points. And, I under- stood that he meant that the company would not refund any money to me at all... During the course of their discussions, Mrs. Donovan advised Respondent that she had cancel led the policy because she did not have nursing home coverage. Respondent explained to her that, under those circumstances she would have to either add nursing home coverage to the policy she had cancelled, which he was not sure that he could do for her because the so-called "RS 100 feature" was in the process of being discontinued, or she could take out a separate nursing home policy. Resnondent advised her that in order to keep the RS 100 feature she would have to reinstate the policy which she had cancelled, and take out a separate nursing home policy at a later date. This is the option which Respondent recommended to Mrs. Donovan, and the option that she ultimately chose. Accordingly, Mrs. Donovan opted to fill out an application reinstating the cancelled policy. She had originally paid $659 for the policy she took out on December 22, 982, but premium rates had increased since that time. The application filled out by Mrs. Donovan on February 4, 1983, reflects the premium rate increased to $691. Mrs. Donovan testified that she did not recall endorsing a refund check in the amount of $659 from National States Insurance Company and allowing Respondent to submit the endorsed check to National States along with the application dated February 4, 1983. Respondent testified that she did, in fact, endorse that check, which he forwarded to National States Insurance Company with the February 4, 1983, application. According to Respondent's testimony, which is uncontradicted, he submitted the $659 check to National States, notwithstanding the fact that the premium rate had increased to $691, with the understanding that the company had the option of either reinstating the policy for $659 or insisting upon the increased premium rate. Thereafter, Mrs. Donovan again decided to cancel the coverage she received as a result of the February 4, 1983, application submitted through Respondent. Mrs. Donovan signed a sworn statement on March 30, 1983, which provided, in part, as follows: Mr. Palesky has shown me the com- plaint filed against him by the Department of Insurance. I totally disagree with the accusa- tions in the complaint. My only problem with Mr. Pale sky was a misunderstanding concerning the fact that the RS 100 rider could not be refunded and reissued (as it was being discontinued) [sic] I thought he meant the entire policy could not be refunded. . . . Count XII of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent ". . . refused to return [premium] money to Mrs. Donovan. . ., and that ". . . as a result of your refusal Mrs. Donovan felt pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium." Further, Count XII alleges that ". . . the new policy was written for a higher premium, that [Resoondent] signed a receipt acknowledging receipt of the higher premium, and that Mrs. Donovan gave [Respondent] no money during [the] visit [of] February 4, 1983." The evidence in this cause does not establish that Respondent refused to return premium money to Mrs. Donovan, nor does the evidence establish that Mrs. Donovan was pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium. Finally, the evidence in this cause establishes that Respondent attempted to have National States Insurance Company reinstate Mrs. Donovan's coverage at the premium originally paid in December of 1982, notwithstanding a premium increase that had occurred in the interim, a procedure which has not been shown by the record in this cause to be in any way improper. COUNT XV On or about January 24, 1983, Kenneth E. Fritz bought a National States Insurance Company policy from an agent other than Respondent. On or about February 12, 1983, Mr. Fritz cancelled that policy and asked for a full refund. Mr. Fritz subsequently received a letter dated March 11, 1983, from National States Insurance Company acknowledging his request for cancellation, and advising him that a full refund of his premium was being sent to the agency office which had sold the policy to him, with instructions to deliver the refund to him. On or about March 24, 1983, Respondent visited Mr. Fritz in his home in Largo, Florida, with Mr. Fritz' refund check. In paragraph eighty-eight of Count XV of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having ". told Mr. Fritz that [Respondent was] an `investigator with Florida' and that [Respondent] pointed to an emblem on [Respondent's] jacket which gave [Mr. Fritz] the idea [Respondent was] employed by the State of Florida' when in fact [Respondent was] not and are not employed by the Florida Deoartment of Insurance in any capacity." It is further alleged that Resoondent made this representation to influence Mr. Fritz to buy insurance policies, and that Mr. Fritz did not realize that Respondent was not a government employee until reading a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, concerning the emergency suspension of Respondent's licensed. Respondent denies ever having represented to Mr. Fritz that he was an employee of the State of Florida. Indeed, Mr. Fritz testified on this issue only that: Mr. Palesky came here, and he had a thing on his coat, and he says[sic] you bought some policies from the -- and he mentioned the name of the company in St. Louis, and he says[sic] I'm here to check on that, and he rattles this thing and give [sic] me the impression that he was the--was from the State of Florida checking this. . . . As mentioned above, Respondent is charged with representing to Mr. Fritz that Respondent was an "investigator with Florida." Nothing contained in the record in this cause establishes that Respondent ever made such a representation to Mr. Fritz. Indeed, Mr. Fritz clearly testified that he could not remember exactly what Respondent said to him to give him the "impression" that he was an employee of the State of Florida. It is, however, clear from the record in this cause that the allegation of the Administrative Complaint that Mr. Fritz did not know that Respondent was not a state employee until reading of Respondent's emergency suspension in a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, is false. What is clear is that Respondent made a sales presentation to Mr. Fritz which resulted not only in Mr. Fritz' reinstating the policy he had earlier purchased from another agent and cancelled, but in fact buying another policy from Respondent at the same time. It is also clear that Respondent gave Mr. Fritz a business card during the course of their conversation which clearly identified Respondent as a salesman for National States Insurance Company. In short, this record does not establish that Respondent ever represented himself as an employee of the State of Florida during the course of his sales presentation to Mr. Fritz, nor did Mr. Fritz reinstate his cancelled policy and purchase a second policy based upon any such representation. COUNT XVII On April 15, 1981, Esther Huddleson purchased two Medicare supplement policies issued by National States Insurance Company from agent Michael Frye. On April 16, 1901, she requested a refund on the National States policies. On June 1, 1981, she was visited in her home by Respondent. Count XVII alleges that Respondent falsely advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "insurance investigator" and an "investigator for the State." It is also alleged that Respondent was not an "investigator" for National States Insurance Company and that his status with the company had always been that of a sales representative. Further, it is alleged that Respondent ". . . falsely told Mrs. Huddleson her statutory `free look' had expired and so persuaded her to sign a conservation notice." It is clear from the record in this proceeding that Respondent never advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "investigator for the State" or in any other manner employed by the State of Florida or the Department of Insurance. A sworn statement signed by Mrs. Huddleson upon which she was closely interrogated by counsel and the Bearing Officer during the course of this proceeding clearly reflects that Respondent identified himself either as "an investigator from National States Insurance Company" or "States Insurance Company." Fur ther, there is no evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that this representation by Respondent was in any way false. Finally, the only testimony in the record in this cause concerning Mrs. Huddleson's statutory "free look" period occurred on the direct examination of Mrs. Buddleson as follows: Q Did [Respondent] lead you to believe that your 30-day period had passed? A yes. At least, that was in my mind. Mrs. Buddleson's testimony in this regard is, at best, equivocal, and does not persuasively establish that Respondent did, in fact, advise her that her "free look" period had expired as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. There is, accordingly, insufficient evidence of record in this proceeding to establish the allegations against Respondent contained in Count XVII of the Administrative Complaint. The Bearing Officer feels constrained, further, to note with concern the failure of Petitioner's counsel to deal with both Mrs. Huddleson's sworn statement and direct testimony concerning the fact that Respondent never represented himself to her to be an employee of the State of Florida. In fact, to say that Petitioner's counsel failed to deal with those issues is most charitable. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the proposed findings submitted by Petitioner's counsel on this particular issue have absolutely no factual basis in this record, despite citations to a portion of the transcript purportedly supporting the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXI In December of 1982 Mary Ellen Stapleton purchased a Medicare supplement policy from an agent, other than Respon- dent, representing National States Insurance Company. After reviewing the policy and deciding that she did not want to retain it, Mrs. Stapleton returned the policy on or about February 8, 1983, to National States Insurance Company, and requested a refund of her premium. Through a series of correspondence with National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Stapleton's cancellation request was acknowledged, and she was advised that her premium refund had been returned to the office of the agency selling the policy, with instructions to make immediate delivery to her. On or about March 8, 1983, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home and advised her that he was an investigator for National States Insurance Company and that he was investigating a Mr. Buffer, who had sold Mrs. Stapleton her National States policy. Count XXI, in pertinent part, alleges: That on or about March 8, 1983, you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home in Lakeland, Florida, and told her you were "an investigator for National States and [that you were] investi- gating Mr. Buffer" when in fact you were not and are not an investigator for National States Insurance Company but were and are only a salesman. That at no time did you tell Mrs. Stapleton that you represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. That you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, created the false impression of your employ- ment status in order to induce Mrs. Stapleton to keep the [cancelled] policy. . Respondent did not tell Mrs. Stapleton that he represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent was, on March 8, 1983, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Petitioner has not established by any evidence whatsoever that Respondent was not an investigator for National States Insurance Company with authority to investigate Mr. Buffer. Neither has it been shown in this record that Respondent was under any obligation to identify the insurance agency by whom he was employed after having first clearly identified himself as being affiliated with National States Insurance Company. It is, therefore, specifically concluded that there are no facts of record to establish the violations alleged in Count XXI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXII On September 24, 1980, Respondent visited John Capers Smith and Lillian H. Smith in their home in Bradenton, Florida. Respondent went to the Smiths' home in response to the Smiths having sent a card to National States Insurance Company requesting information concerning Medicare supplement policies. Upon his arrival at the Smiths' home, Respondent was advised by Mrs. Smith initially that she did not wish to speak with him further on that day because her husband had recently undergone surgery and was still recuperating. However, uoon Respondent's insistence, he was admitted to the Smiths' home at approximately 1:00 p.m. Respondent remained in the Smiths' home until approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 24, 1980. When he first arrived in the Smiths' home, Respondent told the Smiths that he worked for the State of Florida and that Bill Gunter was his boss. In the course of discussing National States Insurance Company policies, Respondent advised the Smiths that this type of policy was something that Mr. Gunter was attempting to do to assist elderly Floridians. During the course of his conversation with the Smiths, Respondent displayed a photograph of Mr. Gunter to the Smiths as proof of his affiliation with the State of Florida, and offered to call Mr. Gunter on the telephone to verify his credentials. After a long period of discussion, the Smiths purchased an insurance policy from Respondent, and gave him a check for $694. The Smiths' purchase of the policy was due in large part to Respondent's representation that he was an employee of the State of Florida, and that Mr. Gunter approved of the policy. Respondent denies having made any representation to the Smiths concerning his employment by the State of Florida, but, under the circumstances here present, it is specifically concluded that the Smiths' versions of the transaction occurring on September 24, 1980, are more credible.
The Issue Whether Respondent's insurance agent’s license should be disciplined for the alleged violations of the Florida Insurance Code as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and monitoring the business activities of insurance agents to assure statutory compliance with the Florida Insurance Code. The Respondent, Duane Alexander Zolnoski, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a general line insurance agent, and was so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. The Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer has jurisdiction of Respondent’s licenses and appointments. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to herein, Respondent was an officer and an insurance agent of Citi Insurance Services, a Florida corporation, doing business in Lakeland, Florida. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to herein Respondent was the president, agent of record, and owner of Citi Insurance Services. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to herein, in the applicable regular course of business, the normal processing time for Citi Insurance Services to forward insurance applications and insurance premium down payments to insurance companies is three (3) business days. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referred to herein, in the applicable regular course of business, the normal processing time for Citi Insurance Services to forward insurance applications and insurance premium down payments to financial companies is five (5) business days. On or about February 4, 1995, an insurance application was completed and signed by Julio Rojas and Respondent. On or about February 4, 195, Rojas purchased an automobile insurance policy with Old Dominion Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Old Dominion) from Respondent. On or about February 4, 1995, Respondent explained to Rojas that he would mail the insurance application and insurance premium down payment to Old Dominion and that Old Dominion would send him his policy and schedule of payments within 15 to 20 days. In accordance with the agreement between Old Dominion and Citi Insurance Services, the insurance agency and the agents of the insurance agency do not have binding authority. The agency and the agents can only submit business that will be bound by Old Dominion. Under the Old Dominion underwriting procedures, Respondent should have either immediately requested a binder number from Old Dominion, marked the binder number on the application or faxed the application as soon as it was signed. Old Dominion would assign a binder number, enter it in the binder log and the policy would become effective. Respondent failed to fax Rojas’ insurance application until February 6, 1995, two days after the insurance transaction with Rojas. Rojas’ insurance application was not bound on the day he purchased it. Under Old Dominion underwriting procedures, and the contract between Old Dominion and Citi Insurance Services, Respondent was required to mail the original application and the insurance premium down payment within seventy-two (72) hours of receipt of the insurance premium down payment and the original insurance application. The agents are sometimes permitted to send the original insurance application ten (10) to fourteen (14) days after the effective date of the policy to Old Dominion. Respondent did not mail the original insurance application or Rojas’ insurance premium down payment to Old Dominion within seventy-two hours of the application being signed. Respondent did not send the original insurance application or Rojas’ insurance premium down payment to Old Dominion within 10 to 14 days after the application was completed. Rojas’ original application was not mailed to the company at all. Therefore, Old Dominion never received the original insurance application from Respondent. Old Dominion mailed out a notice of cancellation of the binder to Rojas on February 24, 1995 stating that his insurance with Old Dominion would be canceled March 3, 1995, because no money and no application had been received. Old Dominion also mailed out a notice of cancellation of the binder to Citi Insurance Services. Respondent drafted a check to Old Dominion for Rojas’ insurance premium down payment of eighty ($80.00) dollars on March 8, 1995. This was after the insurance was canceled by Old Dominion and thirty-one days after Respondent received the money from Rojas. Old Dominion received the check Respondent sent for Rojas’ insurance premium down payment on March 13, 1995. The billing department of Old Dominion processed the check that was sent by Respondent for Rojas as a payment because there was no other information sent to Old Dominion with this payment. Respondent did not resolve the underwriting problem between Rojas and Old Dominion. In February and March 1995, Rojas did not receive his insurance policy nor the schedule of payment from Old Dominion. On or about August 7, 1995, Rojas called Old Dominion and was informed that Old Dominion had no records of any insurance policy owned by him. On or about August 8, 1995, Rojas spoke to Respondent about the insurance policy with Old Dominion, and Respondent sought to have Rojas to fill out another insurance application so that Respondent could write another policy. On or about August 13, 1995, approximately six (6) months after Rojas transacted insurance with Respondent, Citi Insurance Services refunded the insurance down payment to Rojas by a check that was signed by Respondent. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Rojas did not have insurance coverage for his automobile for a six month period of time due to the negligence of Respondent. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Rojas’ driver’s license was placed in jeopardy of suspension or revocation. On or about August 12, 1995, Kenny Bingle purchased a 1991 Ford Mustang from T. Thomas Chevrolet. On or about August 12, 1995, Bingle called Respondent to inquire about an insurance policy and requested changes to existing insurance coverage. Bingle requested that his insurance coverage be upgraded to full coverage, with his insurer, American Southern Insurance Company, to cover the purchase of a used 1991 Ford Mustang which he was financing through the dealership. Respondent’s binding authority with American Southern Insurance Company had been terminated prior to August 12, 1995, because he bounced checks to them and the insurance company had received complaints about lack of service from Citi Insurance Services. Respondent did not inform Bingle of this fact. On or about August 15, 1995, Bingle received a telephone call from T. Thomas Chevrolet advising him that they had not received any paperwork from Citi Insurance Services pertaining to the insurance coverage for his newly purchased automobile. On or about August 12, 1995, Respondent had failed to make Bingle’s requested changes. On or about August 15, 1995 Bingle contacted Respondent and asked him to forward the information about his insurance coverage with American Southern Insurance Company to T. Thomas Chevrolet. T. Thomas Chevrolet then received a facsimile transmission of Bingle’s insurance coverage for the 1991 Ford Mustang and the automobile was released into the possession of Bingle. On or about August 25, 1995, Bingle’s 1991 Ford Mustang was stolen. On or about August 25, 1995, Bingle contacted Respondent to inform him of the theft of his car. On or about August 26, 1995, Respondent went to Bingle’s place of business, filled out an insurance application with Transport Insurance Company that was not dated nor signed by Respondent or Bingle. Respondent left only the front page of the application with Bingle. Respondent mailed the insurance application to Transport Insurance Company, dated August 22, 1995, a date prior to the theft of Bingle’s car. The postmark on the envelope that the insurance application was mailed in was dated August 26, 1995. An inspection form also had to be sent in by the agent or the insurance policy would be canceled. The inspection form for the 1991 Ford Mustang that was filled out, signed and dated August 22, 1995, by Respondent, was sent to Transport Insurance Company by Respondent without an inspection of the 1991 Ford Mustang. Bingle filed a claim for his stolen car with Transport Insurance Company. This claim was denied when it was determined that the application was completed after the theft of the car. As a result of Respondent’s negligent and fraudulent actions, Bingle was without insurance at the time of the theft of his newly purchased car, and he received no money from any insurance company for the car being stolen. On or about November 7, 1995, Rosa Ortiz went to Citi Insurance Services and paid the October 25, 1995 insurance premium payment of sixty dollars and eighty-five cents ($60.85). Ortiz went into Citi Insurance Services because her insurance premium payment was late. Ortiz had been told that she could pay the payment at Respondent’s office and it would be forwarded to Gold Coast Finance, Inc. On or about November 7, 1995, Ortiz received a receipt from Citi Insurance Services that was signed by Respondent for the premium payment. The insurance premium payment of sixty dollars and eighty-five cents ($60.85) should have been forwarded to Gold Coast Finance, Inc. within five to seven days in the applicable regular course of business. Ortiz’s insurance policy was canceled on or about November 15, 1995, due to non-payment of insurance premium. An insurance premium payment for Ortiz was received by Gold Coast Finance, Inc. on December 13, 1995, thirty-five days after Ortiz made her payment to Respondent. On or about December 21, 1995, the check Respondent sent to Gold Coast Finance, Inc. was returned by the bank as an insufficient (NSF) funds check. Gold Coast Finance, Inc. sent out a notice of cancellation of the insurance policy to the agency and the insured. The insured, Ortiz, disregarded the notice of cancellation because Citi Insurance Services assured her that everything would be taken care of. On or about February 21, 1996, Gold Coast Finance, Inc. forwarded to Respondent a check in the amount of one hundred twenty-five dollars and seventy-five ($125.75) that was to be returned to Ortiz. Ortiz did not receive her refund check until January 29, 1997, approximately eleven (11) months after Citi Insurance Services, Inc. received the refund check from Gold Coast Finance, Inc. As a result of Respondent’s failure to forward her insurance premium payment to Gold Coast Finance, Inc., Ortiz’s insurance policy was canceled, and she was without insurance at the time her car was vandalized. On or about August 30, 1995, Respondent sold Bobby Joe Davis, Jr. full insurance coverage on his 1986 automobile. Davis paid Respondent a down payment of one hundred forty-nine dollars ($149.00) Davis expected to receive a payment booklet from the finance company and an insurance policy from the insurance company. On or about November 3, 1995, Davis received a ten day notice of intent to cancel his insurance policy because he was late on his October 1995 payment. Citi Insurance also received a ten day notice of intent to cancel Davis’ insurance policy from the finance company, Gold Coast Finance, Inc. On or about November 9, 1995, Davis was instructed to bring the late payment to Citi Insurance and Citi Insurance would forward it to the finance company immediately. The payment was not forwarded to the finance company until on or about November 17, 1995. In the meantime, Davis was advised that his insurance coverage would be canceled due to nonpayment of the October insurance premium. On or about November 17, 1995, Davis did receive a notice of reinstatement from the finance company concerning his insurance policy. The notice of reinstatement states in part, “Dear insured . . . we are extending you the courtesy of requesting a reinstatement of your policy by your insurance company. However, the decision to do so is entirely theirs. You might not currently have insurance coverage and we strongly suggest that you contact your agent immediately for his advice and instruction.” Pursuant to the notice of reinstatement from the finance company, Davis did contact Citi Insurance Services, the insurance agency, and was advised that he was reinstated. On or about December 7, 1995, Davis sent in another insurance premium payment to the finance company. On or about December 9, 1995, Davis was involved in an automobile accident. Upon notification of the accident to the insurance company, he was informed that his insurance policy had been canceled for non-payment of the October premium. As a result of Respondent’s inaction, Davis’ insurance premium payment was not forwarded in the applicable regular course of business. This failure to timely forward the insurance premium payment caused the cancellation of Davis’ insurance policy. As a result of Respondent’s action, David did not have insurance coverage at the time his car was damaged in an accident. On or about February 14, 1996, Michael Anthony purchased full insurance coverage from Respondent for his 1986 Mercury Cougar, which included rental car reimbursement coverage. On or about February 14, 1996, Michael Anthony gave Respondent an insurance premium down payment of one hundred seventeen dollars ($117.00). Anthony was assured that his insurance coverage included rental car reimbursement coverage. Approximately three weeks later, Anthony contacted Respondent because he had no record that he had insurance coverage. Several weeks later, Anthony came to Citi Insurance Service at Respondent’s request, and signed his name several times on one page of an insurance application. On or about April 10,1996, Respondent changed Michael Anthony’s insurance coverage to another insurance company, Delta Casualty Insurance Company, without his knowledge or consent. In April 1996, Anthony’s car was in an automobile accident. After Anthony notified Respondent of the accident, Respondent advised Anthony to go to a rental agency and rent a car. When Anthony went to rent a car, he was informed that he had no rental car reimbursement coverage. Anthony rented the car anyway because he needed transportation, but he could only afford to rent the car for three days. Anthony could not afford to keep the rental car the entire time his car was being repaired, so he paid someone ten dollars ($10.00) a day to bring him back and forth to work. Respondent contributed ten dollars ($10.00) a day to Anthony for two weeks for his transportation expenses. Delta Insurance Company subsequently canceled Anthony’s insurance coverage. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Anthony did not have insurance coverage on or after February 14, 1996 for his newly purchased car. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Anthony did not have rental car reimbursement coverage at the time he needed to rent a car. On or about February 17, 1996, Michael Landress purchased a 1987 Honda Accord and the salesman referred him to Respondent for automobile insurance. Respondent came to the car lot where Landress purchased his car and sold Landress full insurance coverage through Federated National Insurance Company. On or about February 17, 1996, Respondent gave Landress the front page of a Federated National Insurance application without a binder number. Landress paid Respondent an insurance premium payment of one hundred twenty dollars ($120.00.). His monthly insurance premium was quoted as seventy-one dollars ($71.00). When an insurance agent fills out an insurance application with Federated National Insurance Company for a consumer, the insurance agent is required to call the office immediately to get a binder number for the insurance policy. After the insurance agent gets the binder number from the office, the insurance agent is then to write the binder number on the application and send the application to Federated National Insurance Company. If the insured finances the contract, the agent should fill out a draft and send the net amount, which is less the agent’s commission, along with a copy of the application, a copy of the premium finance contract, and whatever is needed for the application to be processed within seventy-two hours (72) hours. On or about February 17, 1996, Federated National Insurance Company (Assurance Managing General Agents) did not receive Landress’ insurance application nor the insurance premium down payment from Respondent. On or about February 17, 1996, Federated National Insurance Company did not give Respondent a binder number for Landress’ insurance application. The binder number at the top of Landress’ insurance application is not a Federated National Insurance Company binder number. On March 18, 1996, Landress made an insurance premium payment of seventy-one dollars and ten cents ($71.10) to Citi Insurance Services. During April 1996, a hailstorm occurred and caused damage to Landress’ automobile. Landress called Respondent to inform Respondent of the damage to his automobile, and Respondent advised him to get three estimates for the repair of the automobile and bring it to him at Citi Insurance Services. Landress brought the estimates to Respondent. Respondent could not locate the file and Landress was told that he was not in the binder book. Landress was told that when his insurance file was found that he would be contacted. Respondent did not contact Landress regarding his insurance policy. After Landress could not get any information from Citi Insurance Services on his insurance policy, he contacted the Department of Insurance. Respondent has no record of any insurance transaction with Landress. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Landress did not have insurance at the time his automobile was damaged. Under the agreement between Respondent and Victoria Insurance Company granting Respondent binding authority, Respondent is required to submit insurance applications and insurance premium down payments within three (3) business days of receipt. In the summer of 1996, Respondent, the agent of record and an officer of Citi Insurance Services, was sending Victoria Insurance Company insurance applications which exceeded his binding authority. In the summer of 1996, Respondent was sending Victoria Insurance Company insufficient (NSF) checks when processing insureds’ insurance applications and premium payments. Respondent was not timely forwarding insurance applications or insurance premium down payments to Victoria Insurance Company. Respondent filled out an insurance application for Willie Wright on August 14, 1996, which should have been the effective date of the insurance policy. This application was kept in Citi Insurance Services files but was not forwarded to Victoria Insurance Company; the insurance application that was forwarded to Victoria Insurance Company was dated of August 29, 1996, which became the effective date of the insurance policy. Respondent filled out an insurance application for Christina Smith on August 2, 1996, this date should have been the effective date of Smith’s insurance policy. This application was kept in Citi Insurance Services files; however, the insurance application that was forwarded to Victoria Insurance Company was dated August 31, 1996, which became the effective date of the insurance policy. Respondent filled out an insurance application for James Taylor on August 16, 1996, this date should have been the effective date of Taylor’s insurance policy. This application was kept in Citi Insurance Services files; however, the insurance application that was forwarded to Victoria Insurance Company was dated September 28, 1996, which became the effective date of the insurance policy. Victoria Insurance Company terminated their contract with Respondent on October 2, 1996; however, Respondent continued to represent to consumers that he was affiliated with Victoria Insurance Company and attempted to transact business on behalf of the company. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Victoria Insurance Company did not receive approximately thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000) in premium payments that was paid to Respondent by insureds and were never forwarded to Victoria Insurance Company. As a result of Respondent’s actions, Victoria Insurance Company received approximately fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) worth of insufficient funds (NSF) checks from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Respondent, Duane Alexander Zolnoski, be found guilty on Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII, of the First Amended Administrative Complaint, of violations Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(4), (7), (8), (9), (10), (13), 626.621(2) and (6), and 626.954(1)(a)1 and (k), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Rules 4-231.080 and 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent's licenses be REVOKED. In view of the multiple violations of Section 626.9521, Florida Statutes, which carry with them monetary penalties which are to be imposed “in addition to any other applicable penalty”, impose an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 per count. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mechele R. McBride, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley & Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Duane A. Zolnoski 2448 U. S. 92 East Lakeland, Florida 33801 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of alleged violations set forth in a one-count Administrative Complaint. It is alleged that the Respondent has violated numerous specified provisions of Chapters 626 and 631, Florida Statutes, by failing to satisfy a judgment entered against him in favor of the Department in its capacity as receiver for an insurance company.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Peter Alicino, has been licensed to engage in the insurance business in the State of Florida. On or about December 21, 1993, a Consent Order was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, appointing the Florida Department of Insurance as Receiver for General Insurance Company. On or about August 12, 1996, a Final Judgment was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, in the amount of $2,377.40 in favor of the Department of Insurance as Receiver for General Insurance Company, and against Stephen Peter Alicino and Budget Insurance, jointly and severally. The judgment was for unearned insurance commissions retained by the Respondent and owed to General Insurance Company. On or about May 12, 1997, the Department of Insurance sent a certified letter to the Respondent demanding payment of the judgment described above. The Respondent received the letter on or about May 15, 1997. The judgment remains outstanding and unpaid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 22nd day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Stephen Peter Alicino 634 Castilla Lane Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed insurance agent licensed in the State of Florida as a general lines agent. He was the primary agent of Emerald Coast Insurance Agencies, Inc. (Agency) for Pensacola, Florida. The agency at all times pertinent to the events and times treated in the Amended Administrative Complaint was a general lines insurance agency incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and licensing the entry of insurance agents into the profession of insurance and regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida, including the imposition of disciplinary measures. The Respondent had been an insurance agent, as of the time of the hearing, for approximately four years. During that time, he has typically written 50-60 applications for automobile insurance and related coverage per week. The owner of the Agency would not allow the Respondent to issue checks from the Respondent's own office. All processing of insurance application files was completed at the Tallahassee, Florida office. The files with client information for insurance applicants, whose business was initiated by the Respondent, was sent by UPS to the Tallahassee, Florida office on the morning following the taking of the applications. The forms, which the Respondent was required to have completed and asked customers to sign, were pre-printed and issued from the Tallahassee, Florida office. The Respondent had no part in the creation of these forms as to content, format, and the disclosures depicted on their face. The Respondent inquired of the Department's local office as to whether the forms comported with pertinent statutes and regulations, and the Department expressed no objection to them. Indeed, the forms in question do make disclosures of the coverage or products which the customer is purchasing and contain an acknowledgment, which the customer is required to sign, indicating that the coverage has been explained to the customer. In particular, the motor club product is depicted on the relevant form as being an optional product and that it has been explained to the customer, with a blank after that pertinent statement for the customer to sign an acknowledgment of that fact. The issue in this case does not involve whether the customer paid for such a product without executing any consent but, rather, whether the customer was misled or whether the products sold were actually, in fact, explained fully to them; whether they were misled in making a decision to buy such coverage in the belief that it was required in order to obtain the insurance they knew they needed. THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE No evidence was submitted as to Count I, concerning Cheryl Ginsterblum nor Count VIII, concerning Joseph Shelton. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made and these counts should be dismissed. Pam Shivers of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance coverage for her 1988 Dodge Caravan. Because the van was still financed with a lender, "full coverage" was required, that is, she needed personal injury protection (PIP), property damage (PD) coverage, comprehensive risk coverage, and collision damage coverage. On March 8, 1993, she went to the Respondent's Agency, and the Respondent handled the requested insurance transaction. She requested "full coverage", and the transaction was handled while she was standing at the counter, in just a few minutes. PIP and PD insurance was placed with Security Insurance Company of Hartford (Security). Comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Florida International Indemnity Company (FIIC). The premium for Security was $350.00, and the premium for FIIC was $399.00. The purchase of this coverage was financed so that Ms. Shivers would not have to pay the entire $749.00 premium for all of the coverage at one time. In return for the premium financing arrangement, a $187.00 down payment was required for the insurance coverage. During the transaction, Ms. Shivers was quickly presented with approximately six documents to sign. Included in those documents was a document containing a disclosure that the motor club product which she purchased was optional, that is, not required by law; that she had been offered to purchase automobile insurance by the Agency without an optional motor club and chose to purchase that optional coverage of her own free will at an additional cost of $150.00; that she examined the benefits being offered, and that it was her decision to request enrollment as a member of the motor club association. It is true that Ms. Shivers signed these acknowledgments and disclosures, which on their face, would indicate that she had been informed about the nature of the motor club product or coverage and its cost, including the fact that it was not required by law and was optional. In fact, however, her apparent consent was not an actual, knowing and informed consent. She was presented with the six documents to sign hurriedly, with the places to sign simply marked for her to make quick signatures. She did not, in the course of the transaction, have significant time to read the documents or reflect on what she was signing, what her signatures obligated her for, and what specific products she was purchasing. She was not, in actual fact, informed that she was purchasing a motor club membership. She did not request that product, and the Respondent did not give her any actual explanation about it. She was not informed that she had any choice in whether or not to take that product. She later discovered that the product was optional and that it was, therefore, not an integral, unseverable part of the insurance coverage she did want to purchase. Moreover, Ms. Shivers was confused about the $749.00 premium quote and the amount she was actually required to pay. Her confusion involved the $749.00 premium for insurance quoted to her because of the fact that she was actually required to pay an $899.00 purported "premium". The receipt issued at the end of the purchase transaction indicated a total "premium" of $899.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of the insurance was $749.00. The additional $150.00 was for a motor club membership which was hidden in the receipt amount and what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $337.00 quoted to her was also deceptive because actually, only $187.00 of that was the down payment on the actual insurance coverage premium. This is shown by the premium finance agreement in evidence. The Respondent had concealed the cost of the motor club membership within what was purported to be the total insurance premium amount reflected on the receipt and included the entire $150.00 charge for that membership within the down payment, simply and misleadingly calling the down payment of $337.00 as the down payment on insurance coverage. Thereafter, on March 21, 1993, Ms. Shivers went back to the Agency to cancel her insurance, related to the fact that her vehicle had been involved in an accident. Upon doing that, she left thinking that her insurance had been effectively cancelled. Later, she received notices from the premium finance company but was told by the Respondent to ignore them. On May 7, 1993, however, the Respondent informed her that she had to come back to the Agency and fill out a cancellation request. Thus, 47 days after she had attempted to cancel her coverage, her request was finally processed by the Agency. In the meantime, she was apparently being charged for premiums on the coverage she thought she had cancelled. Thus, from January 21, 1994, the premium finance company turned an amount it claimed was due of $43.26 over to its attorney for collection purposes, which impinged on Ms. Shivers' credit standing. She had already paid the Respondent $190.00 in premiums under the premium financing agreement, with her down payment, but did not receive any returned unearned premium representing the period after she thought she had cancelled her policy but, instead, was billed the additional $43.26 directly due to the Respondent's 47-day delay in processing her cancellation request. Count III In June, 1993, Laura O'Donohue of Pensacola, Florida, purchased her first vehicle, a 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier. The automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle, gave her a card for the Respondent's insurance agency. Therefore, never having established a relationship with an insurance agency, she went to that Agency to purchase insurance. Her mother, Lynn O'Donohue, accompanied her to the Agency. Before coming to the Agency while at the automobile dealership, she had received a quote for the insurance she wanted from the Agency. When she arrived at the Agency, she informed Donald Grubb, an employee of the Agency and the Respondent, that she just wanted "basic coverage". This was the first time she had purchased insurance, and she relied entirely for her decisions regarding that upon the representations of the Respondent and his colleague. Therefore, in a transaction, which took approximately 20 minutes, the Respondent and/or Mr. Grubb assisted her in filling out the paperwork required to place the insurance coverage she requested. During the course of the brief insurance purchase transaction, Ms. O'Donohue learned that she would be required to pay a higher premium amount than the quote she had received from the Agency while she was at the automobile dealership earlier that day. This is consistent with the Agency's custom and practice, established by former agent, James Self's, testimony to the effect that motor club coverage was typically added to the normal insurance coverage requested by customers, which resulted in higher purported "premium" quotes and charges than had initially been quoted to the customer, typically by telephone, before a customer came to the Agency office. When Ms. O'Donohue and her mother arrived at the Agency after having received the lower quote earlier, they were thus not prepared to pay the higher amount of the so-called premium. Ms. O'Donohue did not need a motor club because, through her mother, she was covered by AAA Motor Club for towing and other benefits. She had no knowledge that she had purchased a motor club product from the Respondent. All of the documents were presented to her, in response to her request for just basic insurance coverage, in the context that this was what the law required her to have and what she needed. She totally relied, as did her mother, upon the representations of the Respondent and his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, concerning what the law required and what she needed in the way of insurance coverage. The testimony of Ms. O'Donohue's mother, Lynn O'Donohue, confirms the fact that they had no intent to purchase towing coverage or "auto club" because they already had a membership with AAA and wanted to pay nothing extra other than the basic insurance coverage. The Respondent or his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, indicated, as shown on page 91 of the transcript, that "towing was all part of it", that is, they meant that the basic insurance package sought by Ms. O'Donohue included towing as part of its coverage. In fact, that was not the case, and the motor club product was clearly optional, at extra cost, and not legally required. Ms. O'Donohue purchased it unknowingly, based upon the representations and business practice used by the Respondent in connection with her transaction, in spite of the presence of her signatures on the disclosure portion of the application documents for the reasons referenced with regard to the Shivers transaction. The insurance requested was placed with two insurance companies. The PIP and PD were issued by Security at a premium of $223.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with General Insurance Company (General) at a premium of $411.00. Thus, the premiums for actual insurance coverage, which is all Ms. O'Donohue wanted, totaled $634.00. That was financed by the ETI Premium Finance Company (ETI) on periodic installment payments, with a required down payment of $127.00. The Respondent, however, required Ms. O'Donohue to make a down payment of $277.00 on a purported total premium due of $784.00. This amount, unbeknownst to Ms. O'Donohue, happened to include a motor club purchase (Atlantic Travel Association), which cost $150.00, thus, the difference between the $634.00 actual insurance premium and the $784.00 purported premium due. The $150.00 fee for motor club benefits was concealed in the "total premium" amount falsely represented to the customer by the Respondent. The deceptive and misleading nature of this transaction is further pointed out by the form of the receipt issued to Ms. O'Donohue upon consummating the transaction. That receipt indicates that the "total premium" is $784.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $634.00, as referenced above, and the additional $150.00 of that purported total premium amount was the motor club fee. Likewise, the down payment quoted to her of $277.00 was deceptive because only $127.00 of that was applied to the actual insurance coverage. The remaining amount was the motor club fee which the agent collected in its entirety at the beginning of the transaction, as part of the down payment, while the insurance premiums, in excess of the $127.00 actual down payment for insurance, were financed through ETI. The Respondent did this because, by collecting all of the motor club fee in a lump sum at the outset of the transaction, he could get his entire commission immediately. His motor club sales commission was at a considerably higher rate than the commission he earned on the sale of insurance itself. In fact, his commission was 90 percent of the $150.00 motor club fee. Since Ms. O'Donohue did not have the entire $277.00 at the time of the transaction, because she had been relying on the lower quote for the insurance given to her over the telephone, she only paid $200.00 down payment at the time of the transaction, with a balance owed of $79.00, as reflected on her receipt. Her mother had reservations concerning the purchase of this insurance from the Respondent and told her daughter that she thought that because the insurance she purchased involved financing the premium, she could save money by going to GEICO insurance company. Therefore, the following day, she went to GEICO and secured new coverage at a lower premium rate and then called the Respondent's Agency to confirm that she could cancel her policy, with no penalty. They replied that she could cancel her policy just so long as she brought them proof that she had secured new insurance, since the law presently does not allow them to cancel the coverage until they are shown proof that the insured has obtained other coverage. Ms. O'Donohue, therefore, went to GEICO, purchased new insurance for her vehicle, and then brought proof to the Agency and requested that the Respondent cancel her insurance. This request was made on June 19, 1993. At that time, she requested a refund of the $200.00 down payment which she had made two days before and was assured that she would receive it within 60 days. In fact, she never received a refund and continued to receive past-due and delinquency notices from ETI, the premium finance company. She notified the Agency of this problem on numerous occasions to no satisfaction. Due to ETI's belief that her coverage was still in force and that they were still owed the premium payments, her credit was endangered. This was all directly related to the Respondent's failure to properly and timely process her cancellation request. On June 20, 1993, Terre Thompson of Pensacola, Florida, also went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for her 1993 GEO Metro automobile. The Respondent met her at the automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle. He had already prepared documents for the purchase of insurance to be underwritten by Security and General, along with a premium financing agreement and other documents. He had marked X's where Ms. Thompson was supposed to sign all contracts and disclosure forms. The Respondent filled out all of the information on the documents and merely told her, in effect, to "sign here, here and here". The transaction was conducted very quickly and with little or no explanation of coverage or benefits. Although Ms. Thompson needed full coverage for her vehicle, because it was financed, she did not want towing and rental benefits. The Respondent, however, gave her to understand that it was required in the coverage package she purchased. Accordingly, on June 20, 1993, she made a down payment of $100.00, with an additional amount due of $51.00 by June 27, 1993. Although the receipt was dated June 20, 1993, Ms. Thompson did not actually receive it until June 27, 1993, when she returned to the Respondent's Agency to pay the $51.00 owed. The receipt falsely depicts that the "total premium" was $834.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $754.00. The additional $80.00 was for a motor club product, although the $80.00 was buried in and represented to be part of the total insurance premium for the transaction. The down payment of $231.00 quoted, likewise, was deceptive because only $151.00 of that was actually applied to insurance coverage, which was all of the coverage that Ms. Thompson had requested. The Respondent collected the $100.00 on June 20, 1993 and entered into a financing arrangement with the customer, Ms. Thompson, for the $51.00 to be paid on June 27, 1993. In fact, this was only enough to cover the down payment for the actual insurance coverage because the Respondent forgot to include the fee for the motor club coverage on the "front end" or in the down payment, as was his normal practice. This is why Ms. Thompson became upset when she learned she owed an additional $71.00 when she returned on June 27, 1993, when she thought she had only owed approximately $60.00. In any event, the receipt finally received by her reflected payments of $100.00, $60.00, and $71.00, which totals $231.00. This amount includes the $151.00 down payment for actual insurance coverage and the remaining $80.00 for motor club membership, which Ms. Thompson did not know she had purchased at the time and did not desire to purchase. Indeed, Ms. Thompson, and the other customers referenced in the Amended Administrative Complaint, who testified, signed the disclosure in the standard package of documents presented to them by the Respondent. It indicated that they acknowledged that the motor club benefit or the "nations safe driver" medical benefit was an optional coverage, not required by law and that, after explanation of it, they had elected to purchase it. In fact, they signed those documents, albeit imprudently, without actual knowledge that they were obtaining that coverage and without explanation that it was not legally required. No disclosure was made to them that the purported "total premium" amount actually included payment for the motor club benefit, which was not actually part of the insurance premium and which, at least in the case of those customers with AAA memberships, was totally unnecessary. Timothy Malden of Jacksonville, Florida, purchased a vehicle on or about August 31, 1993. He needed full coverage because the vehicle was financed, that is, he needed PIP, PD, comprehensive coverage, and collision coverage. He went to the Respondent's Agency on that date to purchase coverage on his 1986 Pontiac Fiero. During the course of the transaction, handled by the Respondent, Mr. Malden was asked if he had motor club coverage or benefits and he told the Respondent that he had AAA membership and showed the Respondent his AAA card. The Respondent and Mr. Malden entered into a transaction to sell Mr. Malden insurance. The transaction involved approximately seven different documents and took a total of about 15 to 20 minutes. Mr. Malden merely signed the documents. The Respondent told him that he just needed his signature on the documents and the Respondent did not explain the coverage. The procedure seemed rushed or hurried to Mr. Malden. Although Mr. Malden signed the disclosure (inadvertently, because apparently he did not read it) stating, in effect, that the motor club coverage was optional, not required and that after having it explained to him, he had decided to purchase it, he, in fact, did not know at the time that he had purchased the motor club coverage and it had not been explained to him. Moreover, as stated above, he had explained to the Respondent that he did not need it because he already had AAA motor club coverage. Nevertheless, the Respondent, knowing that Mr. Malden had AAA, still sold him the motor club coverage with the Atlantic Travel Association for an additional fee of $150.00. Mr. Malden made no informed consent to purchase that benefit. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with Security at a premium of $395.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Continental American Insurance Company (Continental) for a premium of $525.00. The total premium for "insurance" was $920.00, with a $230.00 down payment. The premiums were financed by ETI. Mr. Malden, however, was required to pay a "down payment" of $380.00. The receipt issued to him reveals a "total premium" of $1,070.00. The actual cost of insurance was only $920.00. The additional $150.00 was for motor club coverage, and the charge for that was hidden in what was represented on the receipt as "total premium". Likewise, the down payment of $380.00 was deceptive in nature because only $230.00 of it was actually a down payment for insurance coverage. The remainder of it, as explained above with regard to the other customers, was actually full payment for the unnecessary, unwanted motor club benefit. On March 8, 1994, Karen Sigler of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Agency to purchase automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymough Voyager. She stated to the Respondent that she only wanted the minimum automobile insurance required by Florida law. She told the Respondent that she needed new insurance because her previous insurance company had gone out of business. The Respondent handled the transaction for her and she specified that she wanted only that coverage which the State of Florida required. Ms. Sigler had been originally quoted a $324.00 premium amount. When she actually entered into the insurance transaction, however, an additional $65.00 was added on to that amount because the Respondent sold her an additional "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc." enrollment. This is not an insurance product but, rather, is a form of supplemental medical benefit. Ms. Sigler had not requested this and did not understand the nature of it, believing that it was unnecessary because she was already qualified as a "safe driver" based upon her driver's record. She was given no explanation as to what that enrollment form, and benefit was nor that there was an extra charge for it. Even as reflected on the enrollment form, Ms. Sigler merely thought that the Nations Safe Drivers membership was a part of the required insurance purchase package. This is not true, in fact, since only PIP and PD coverages are required by law. Ms. Sigler was thus sold a product she did not request, which was not required by law and which was not explained to her. The entire transaction took approximately one- half hour. The receipt issued to Ms. Sigler shows that the "total premium" was $324.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of insurance was a $259.00 premium. The additional $65.00 of the $324.00 amount was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership, which was hidden in what was represented as a "total premium". Moreover, the down payment she paid of $98.00 was deceptive because only a part of it was applied to automobile insurance coverage and the remainder was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership. The Respondent's business practice in this regard resultingly misled Ms. Sigler into believing that Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. was required by State law and that it was an insurance product, which it was not. Here, again, in spite of the disclosure she signed and the documents that she was hurriedly urged to execute by the Respondent, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she did not actually, knowingly consent to purchase the extra non-insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's business practice, the way he represented the nature of her insurance coverage and in the manner in which he conducted the transaction did not involve an actual explanation of the non-insurance product he misled her into purchasing. Thus, there was no informed consent to purchase that product. Rosa Johnson went to the Respondent's Agency on March 21, 1994. She wanted to purchase the "minimum" automobile insurance required by State law for her 1971 Plymouth. She dealt with the Respondent and another gentleman who worked under the Respondent's direction and control. She told them she only wanted the basic, legally-required coverage. PIP and PD coverage was issued through Security. Ms. Johnson was also sold the Nations Safe Drivers product. This product was not actually explained to her, in spite of the fact that she may have signed a written disclosure that it had been, including the fact that it was an optional benefit and not part of the legally-required insurance coverage. She did not request this product nor was it explained to her so that its meaning and coverage was understood by her. Upon conclusion of the transaction, Ms. Johnson had purchased PIP and PD coverage from Security for a premium of $248.00, plus an unrequested enrollment in Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. for a fee of $35.00. All of this amount was financed by ETI. Here, again, as with the other customers, the receipt furnished to Ms. Johnson indicates a total "premium" of $283.00. The actual cost of insurance or true premium was $248.00. The additional $35.00 of the $283.00 amount was the cost of the Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. product, which was hidden in what was represented to her on the receipt as the "total premium". Likewise, the purported down payment of $85.00 was deceptive in the manner in which it was presented and required of Ms. Johnson, because only part of it was applied to insurance coverage, the remainder being the $35.00 fee for the added non- insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's authority to bind coverage with Security Insurance Company had been terminated on March 14, 1994 due to excessive late submissions of insurance applications to the carrier. The problem was later alleviated and his authority to bind insurance for Security was restored by that company. However, during the period of time his binding authority had been terminated, the Respondent kept taking applications and binding policies. This caused the insureds to believe that they had coverage when, in fact, they did not, because the carrier, Security, through its managing agent, U.S. Underwriters, did not, for a period of time, allow the Respondent to obligate that company for coverage. Accordingly, in due course, Ms. Johnson was notified by U.S. Underwriters, on behalf of Security, that she had no coverage. She became upset and filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner because she had understood that as soon as the transaction with the Respondent was completed, her coverage had been bound and timely filed and processed with the underwriting insurance carrier. Charles Meadows of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance on his 1986 Chrysler LeBaron. He wanted to purchase the minimum amount of legally- required coverage and went to the Respondent's Agency for that purpose on May 17, 1994. He needed the minimum amount of legally-required insurance so that he could obtain a tag for his automobile from the county tag office. He was in a hurry because he had taken leave from work and needed to get his insurance transaction consummated, as well as to obtain his automobile tag before 4:30 p.m. He conferred with a lady who was employed by the Respondent at the Agency who handled his transaction. She completed all of the documents, spread them across the counter, and marked and told him the places to sign to effect the binder of the coverage that day. The transaction occurred quickly, lasting only approximately 15 minutes. He received no effective explanation of any of the coverages. Rather, he relied on her representations that he was getting what he had asked for, that is, the minimum legally-required Florida insurance coverage. The coverage he obtained was placed with Security as to the PIP and PD coverage. The premium for that coverage was $321.00. The total premium quoted to him was $421.00, which included a $100.00 membership in the Gulf Coast Travel Association, a motor or travel club. Mr. Meadows was not aware that he had this extra amount of coverage or membership until he conferred with Mr. Spencer of the Department at a later time, who informed him of such. If he had known that the agreements he was signing during the hurried, unexplained transaction with the Respondent's employee included the motor club coverage, he would have declined it because his wife already had coverage with AAA for towing and related benefits. Mr. Meadows made a down payment of $190.00 on May 17, 1994. The receipt issued to him revealed a "total premium" of $421.00. The actual cost of insurance was $321.00, with the additional $100.00 being for the motor club, although the total amount was represented as "total premium". Additionally, the down payment of $190.00, which he paid, was deceptive in that only $90.00 was actually applied to insurance coverage and the remaining $100.00 was the total up-front fee for the motor club coverage, although it was represented to Mr. Meadows as being the $190.00 down payment on the insurance premium itself. Later, Mr. Meadows learned that he had the motor club benefits which he did not want or need and so he demanded a refund of his money from the Respondent. He spoke to the Respondent personally about this but did not receive immediate satisfaction. There was a substantial delay in receiving his refund after the Respondent told him that he would receive one. The Respondent justified this by stating to him that it had to come from "another office" and that it would not come from his Agency itself. Dorothy Weber of Pensacola, Florida, required automobile insurance for her 1986 Chevrolet Blazer and a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice. She went to the Respondent's Agency on June 15, 1994 and indicated to one of his employees that she was interested in the cheapest coverage available. She wanted nothing extra, except that required by law. She received very little explanation of the coverages and benefits, other than in response to questions she asked. The transaction of insurance was conducted in a similar manner to those referenced earlier in these Findings of Fact. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association. It carried a premium of $787.00. Despite Ms. Weber's request for only the minimum, legally-required insurance, she was also sold a motor club (Gulf Coast Travel Association) unbeknownst to her at the time at an additional fee of $150.00. In spite of the fact that Ms. Weber signed the disclosure concerning the optional nature of the motor club and related fee and so forth, as described in further detail in the above Findings of Fact, in actual fact, it was not explained to her. The fact that the fee for it was separate from the insurance premium for the insurance coverage was not explained to her and she effectively was not informed that she was purchasing that product. During the transaction, she was informed that if her vehicle broke down, she could obtain wrecker service. Nothing was mentioned to her, however, about Gulf Coast Travel Association or that the $150.00 was an extra fee. She merely had all of the forms presented to her in rapid fashion and was asked to sign them. The explanation simply was that the "total policy" cost $937.00, and there was a down payment of $318.00 supposedly for premium only. The entire transaction took approximately one-half hour. Later, Ms. Weber discovered that she had been misinformed and complained to the Department and the Respondent's Agency, specifically indicating that she had not been informed that the $150.00 for the motor club was separate nor that she had purchased motor club coverage. The receipt furnished to Ms. Weber concerning the amounts she paid to secure her coverage is misleading. It indicates a total premium of $937.00, when the actual cost of the insurance was $787.00. The additional $150.00 was for the undisclosed motor club coverage hidden in what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $308.00 was deceptive or misleading in that only $158.00 of it was actually a down payment on insurance coverage. Barry and Deeana Walker of Pensacola, Florida, needed automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymouth Laser. They wanted the cheapest coverage legally required and available to them. The Respondent dealt with the Walkers and was their agent of record. Mr. Walker remembers nothing being mentioned about a motor club, but Mrs. Walker remembers that the agent mentioned "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc."; however, she specifically informed him that she did not want it. In fact, Nations Safe Drivers is a non-insurance membership plan which includes a medical supplement coverage benefit. It is not a motor club. The PIP and PD and bodily injury coverages were placed with Underwriters Guaranty Insurance Company (UGIC) for a premium of $641.00. The premium was originally financed by Underwriters Financial. Also executed on May 4, 1994 was another premium finance agreement with ETI. It provided for an insurance premium of $441.00 for a policy issued by UGIC and the financing of a Nations Safe Drivers enrollment for $100.00. This document was not signed by the Walkers. On May 4, 1994, the Walkers paid $150.00 by check and were required to pay an additional $143.00 by May 20, 1994. The $143.00 was paid; and subsequently, the Walkers received a notice of additional premium of $190.00 due and they paid an additional down payment of $76.00. The Walkers made payments on the ETI premium financing agreement up until October, 1994, even though it had never actually been signed. They made down payments of $369.00 and monthly payments totaling $333.63, for a total of $702.63. Sometime in October of 1994, they received a letter from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Drivers Licenses in Tallahassee, Florida, stating that Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended because his insurance had been cancelled, effective July 16, 1994. The Walkers had received a notice from the insurance company of cancellation (because apparently that company would not insure co-owned vehicles) and had gone to the Respondent to see what to do about that problem. The Respondent told them to fill out a form which he gave them and that everything would be taken care of. They filled out the form at his behest so as to indicate that Mr. Walker's father, the co-owner, would not be a driver of the vehicle. Accepting the Respondent's representation, they believed that that would take care of the cancellation of coverage problem, and they continued to make their monthly payments on their premium financing agreement until October of 1994 based upon what the Respondent told them. In fact, the coverage was cancelled effective July 16, 1994; and soon thereafter, Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended due to failure to carry valid insurance on his automobile. If the Respondent had acted with promptness in correcting the underwriting error, upon being apprised of the situation by the Walkers, the lapse in coverage and suspension of the driver's license need not have occurred and the payments on the original coverage need not have been made until October 11, 1994, when new coverage was finally obtained by the Respondent at the Walkers' behest. Although, on November 11, 1994, ETI credited the Respondent and the Walkers for $169.41 of unearned premium, the damage had already been done by that point in terms of the lapse of coverage and the suspension of Mr. Walker's driver's license, with attendant financial risk and inconvenience to Mr. Walker. Moreover, the receipt issued to the Walkers in the original insurance transaction indicates a total premium of $741.00. As in the other situations, the actual insurance cost was $641.00, and the additional $100.00 was for the Nations Safe Drivers non-insurance medical payment product, wrapped up in what was represented as "total premium". The down payment of $293.00 was similarly misleading because only $193.00 of that applied to actual insurance coverage. The Respondent received his fee of $100.00 for the added-on product mentioned above entirely out of the up-front, down payment amount. Thus, the Respondent received the entire fee for the Nations Safe Drivers product within a purported "premium receipt" amount described to the customer as an insurance down payment. On January 26, 1995, Ms. Betty Cook of Walnut Hill, Florida, needed to purchase insurance for her 1994 Thunderbird and her 1993 Chevrolet C1500 pickup truck. She went to the Respondent's Agency to accomplish her insurance renewal transaction. A lady by the name of Sonya handled the transaction for her that day. The Cooks' insurance was placed with UGIC for a premium of $1,123.00. The premium was financed through Underwriters Financial of Florida, Inc. The transaction was initiated on January 26, 1995 but ultimately concluded on January 28, 1995, after Mrs. Cook had received and signed all of the paperwork. Mrs. Cook made a premium down payment of $339.00 and mailed her first payment when it was due. She thereupon was sent a notice stating that no policy existed. She called the Agency to see what was wrong and someone at the Agency indicated to her that it would taken care of immediately. A lienholder on the pickup truck sent a notice to her that they had not been notified that the insurance had been renewed. Mrs. Cook became very concerned and the Respondent offered to refund her premium; however, three months had evidently elapsed since she first renewed her insurance or thought she had. Thus, Mrs. Cook, without knowing at the time, was driving her automobiles without insurance coverage for approximately a three-month period. Mrs. Cook contacted the Department and got her insurance reinstated and placed with another servicing agent. The policy was issued by UGIC, without requiring the payment of a premium down payment by the Respondent. The Respondent had still not forwarded the $339.00 down payment originally received from Mrs. Cook as of April 19, 1995. This lapse or failure to forward the insurance down payment obviously resulted in the coverage never being bound with the company. Therefore, the company had not issued and had no record of coverage for Mrs. Cook's vehicles. The agent for this company was required to account for and promptly forward insurance premium down payments, such as this, to the insurer he represented and on behalf of the insured he also represented in the transaction. Christopher Camus of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for a 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass. He went to the agency on August 25, 1993, and the Respondent placed his coverage with Security. The total premium was quoted as $274.00. Mr. Camus signed an application on that date and paid the full amount to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to forward the application and premium to the insurance carrier, and the policy of insurance was not actually issued until November 30, 1993. Mr. Camus was thus left without coverage for approximately two months. He made repeated telephone calls to the Agency to no avail. Agency personnel maintained that the problem was occurring with the insurance company itself and was not the fault of the Respondent's Agency. The Respondent deposited Mr. Camus' check in August of 1993, but the application for his insurance was never received by Security until December 23, 1993. The Respondent thus did not promptly and appropriately handle the insurance premium funds in question and forward the application so as to promptly bind the coverage for the customer. Indeed, it is noteworthy that this company revoked the Respondent's authority to bind coverage for customers on March 14, 1994 due to an excessive amount of such late submissions of insurance applications and premiums. In 1993, of the 1,299 applications taken by the Respondent and his Agency, only 58 percent reached the insurer's office within the required time period. In summary, the evidence presented in this case indicates that the Respondent engaged in the general business practice of selling ancillary products to insureds without truly obtaining "informed consent" of those insureds. The pattern running through the testimony of the above-described witnesses, none of whom were shown to have any motive to falsify their testimony, was that, although they signed the various disclosures on the insurance underwriting or binding documents, indicating that they understood that the ancillary products were optional, were not insurance, and were not required to be purchased. They did not receive any significant explanation of the optional nature of those products concerning the advisability of their purchase (particularly as to those customers who had AAA coverage), nor the extra cost attributable to those products. Each insured witness consistently maintained that he or she had not read the numerous documents presented to them. Certainly, they should have, in an abundance of caution, read the documents and attempted to understand them. Their failure to do so, however, does not absolve the Respondent of his duty to specifically explain to each customer the exact nature of the coverage being offered, whether or not it was legally optional, particularly, as to those customers who stated definitely that they only wanted the bare minimum coverage required by law, and the fact that it was optional at an extra cost, and was not included in the basic insurance coverage being sold. It is clear from these witnesses' testimony that none had requested motor club benefits or any other ancillary product and yet, in effect, these were automatically added to the policies involved in this proceeding in each transaction and were clearly not explained to the customers. The general business practice of the Respondent involved in the sale of the motor club and ancillary products belies the existence of "informed consent" on the part of the customers. Mr. James Self is a former agent for the Respondent, who testified regarding the Respondent's business practices. He was trained by the Respondent and worked for the Agency from August, 1993 to June, 1994. The Agency had a policy of giving telephone quotes for insurance premiums, without including the amount represented by motor club or other add-on optional products. The Agency would then add such products to the insurance package when the customer came in to purchase insurance. According to Mr. Self, any sort of explanation or disclosure of these add-on products to the customer would be merely to the effect that the insurance "quote" included towing or rental. There was little else explained about it. In many of the situations with witnesses in this case, the insureds only requested the minimum coverage and, therefore, no optional or ancillary products were justified without full explanation to the customer. Mr. Self described how the Respondent specifically trained him in "clubbing", which meant adding motor club coverage to the insurance coverage requested by customers. The Respondent's own testimony shows the economic necessity for the pervasive sale of such motor club benefits to as many customers as possible, when he stated: It's really the only way to exist . . . Q: So you're telling me that the only way for you to exist is to sell motor clubs? A: Financially, it's -- really for most businesses in this market it's the only way to be able to survive. Transcript, page 175. The Respondent further acknowledged the pecuniary interest he had in selling travel or motor clubs since he described his average commission as being 90 percent of the fee for writing that coverage, which is higher than the commission on insurance products. Moreover, he recovered all of that money from the down payment the customers were making, supposedly for their insurance coverages. Therefore, his incentive was multiplied because he was getting the high commission percentage rate, plus he was getting all of it in cash on the initial portion of the transaction, the down payment. Mr. Self also explained that salesmen would never tell the insured exactly how much the motor club cost. On occasions, when Mr. Self would try to partially disclose the motor club, the Respondent would tell him to "hurry up", that he was taking too much time in effecting the transaction. It was Mr. Self's experience that approximately 99 percent of the customers coming into the Agency for insurance left having purchased motor club benefits. Eventually, Mr. Self was terminated because he did not sell enough motor club products. The overall gravamen of his testimony shows that he attempted to make some disclosure or explanation of the motor club and other ancillary products but was discouraged from doing so by the Respondent, with the implication being that this ultimately resulted in his termination from employment with the Respondent's Agency. The evidence thus establishes that, for the most part, the insureds in question did not really know what "minimum coverage" or "full coverage" really consisted of when they came in to purchase such insurance. In making this lay description of the coverage they desired, they then relied on the agent, the Respondent or his employees, to sell them coverage which comported with their wishes and needs, since they were not schooled in the insurance business and related laws themselves. Since they were not so schooled, they almost totally relied on any explanation given to them by the Respondent or his agents or employees. In spite of the signing of the disclosure documents referenced in the above Findings of Fact, the reality of the situation, as a continuing, consistent pattern throughout the testimony adduced from these insureds, and from Mr. Self, reveals that no regular business practice of obtaining an informed consent from customers, such as these, was carried out by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Daniel Lee Alison, be found guilty of the violations set forth and discussed above, that his license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be revoked for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $9,000.00, within a time to be set by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-2690 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-35. Accepted, except to the extent that they do not comport with the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on these subject matters to which they are subordinate. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and because of the editorial comment. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected, as to the editorial comment. 39-40. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-44. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate and somewhat contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive to the issues presented for resolution in this case. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 19-25. Accepted, but not themselves materially dispositive to the resolution of the issues presented to the Administrative Law Judge. 26. Accepted. 27-29. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 30-32. Accepted. 33-36. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as to the overall material import and as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-43. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as immaterial. 44. Accepted, as technically correct, but witness Self, a former employee and a witness who purchased insurance, did establish in his testimony that purchase of an ancillary product was a pre-condition to premium financing by Agency policy. 45-47. Accepted, in part, but otherwise rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 48. Accepted. 49-52. Accepted, but not in and of themselves dispositive of the material issues presented concerning this witness' transaction(s). Rejected, as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley & Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Bill Nelson Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in this state by the Petitioner as an insurance agent. Respondent was licensed, pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code (Chapter 626, Florida Statutes) as a general lines agent, a health insurance agent, and a residential property and casualty joint underwriting association representative. In February 1990, Maria del Carmen Comas, who was subsequently known as Maria del Carmen Diaz (hereinafter referred to as Maria Diaz), was licensed by Petitioner as an insurance agent. By Final Order entered September 20, 1994, the licensure of Ms. Diaz was revoked by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent and Ms. Diaz maintained a close personal and professional relationship. On October 12, 1990, an entity known as The First Assurance, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as FIRST) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of FIRST, which is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. FIRST operated out of offices located at 10680 Coral Way, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Coral Way location) until June 1994, when Respondent moved the office of FIRST to 8780 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida. On September 21, 1993, an entity known as The First Assurance of Miami, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as FIRST OF MIAMI) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida by Respondent and Maria Diaz. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of FIRST OF MIAMI, a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency doing business at 8780 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Sunset Drive location). Respondent and Ms. Diaz were equal owners of FIRST OF MIAMI until that corporation ceased its operation in February 1995. On August 26, 1994, an entity known as Marlin Insurance Agency, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as MARLIN) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent was the sole incorporator of MARLIN. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of MARLIN, a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency doing business at the Sunset Drive location where Respondent operated FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI. MARLIN was originally incorporated for the purpose of purchasing the business of Rodal Insurance Agency in Hialeah, Florida. After the purchase of Rodal was rescinded by court order, MARLIN remained dormant until February 1995, when MARLIN began operating as a general lines insurance agency at the Sunset Drive location. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the supervising agent of MARLIN. As long as FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI maintained separate offices, Respondent managed the day to day affairs of FIRST and Ms. Diaz managed the day to day affairs of FIRST OF MIAMI. After FIRST moved its offices into those of FIRST OF MIAMI, the separation of management became less distinct. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Carlos Gonzalez was an employee of FIRST or of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Gonzalez was hired and trained by Respondent and worked under his direct supervision. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Mr. Gonzalez hold any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Alvaro Alcivar was an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI or of MARLIN. Mr. Alcivar acted under the supervision of either Maria Diaz or of Respondent. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Mr. Alcivar hold any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had sole signatory authority of the FIRST's account number Number33080870-10 (the FIRST expense account) and of FIRST's account Number0303043975-10, both maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had joint signatory authority with Maria Diaz of the FIRST's account number Number33095150-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had joint signatory authority with Maria Diaz of the FIRST OF MIAMI's account number Number33095630-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had sole signatory authority of the FIRST OF MIAMI's account number Number0303116492-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. All premiums, return premiums and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under his license were and remain trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. Respondent obtained a power of attorney from his customers as a routine business practice. Respondent has repeatedly issued checks in payment of fiduciary funds that have subsequently been dishonored by the bank because the account on which the checks were drawn had insufficient funds. ARCAMONTE TRANSACTION (COUNT ONE) On or about July 14, 1993, Susan Arcamonte of Miami, Florida, purchased a new car. Susan Arcamonte needed insurance for this automobile and discussed that need with Carlos Gonzalez, who was employed by FIRST. As a result of her discussions with Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Arcamonte agreed to purchase a policy of insurance that would be issued by Eagle Insurance Company. The annual premium quoted by Mr. Gonzalez for this policy totaled $1,618.00. Mr. Gonzalez advised her that there would be additional charges if the premium was paid by a premium finance company. Because she did not have the funds to pay the lump sum annual premium and did not want to finance the premium, she had her parents, Edmond and Nancy Arcamonte, pay the annual premium. As instructed by Carlos Gonzalez, this check was in the amount of $1,618.00 and was made payable to "The First Assurance, Inc." This check was in full payment of the annual premium for the automobile insurance policy that was to be issued by Eagle Insurance Company. After receiving the check from Mr. and Mrs. Arcamonte, Mr. Gonzalez issued to Susan Arcamonte an insurance card containing the name "The First Assurance, Inc." and binder numbers 12873 and 931374 written across the top. Mr. Gonzalez represented to Ms. Arcamonte that this was a binder of the coverage they had discussed. Mr. Gonzalez thereafter delivered the check and the completed application for insurance to FIRST. Respondent reviewed the application for insurance and signed the application. The Arcamontes' check was thereafter deposited by Respondent into the FIRST expense account at Ready State Bank, Hialeah, Florida. In July 1993, Respondent or some person in his employ at FIRST and acting with his knowledge under his direct supervision and control, affixed the signature of Susan Arcamonte to a Century Premium Insurance Finance Co., Inc. (Century PFC) premium finance agreement and, in the space provided for her address, filled in the office address of FIRST. Ms. Arcamonte's signature was affixed to this agreement without her knowledge or consent. Respondent personally signed the premium fiance agreement that was sent to Century PFC. Because the address of FIRST was inserted on the premium finance agreement, Ms. Arcamonte did not receive payment coupons, cancellation notices, and other correspondence from Century PFC. Consequently, the existence of the premium finance agreement was concealed from Ms. Arcamonte. The original application for insurance signed by Susan Arcamonte contained a power of attorney purporting to grant Respondent the authority to sign Ms. Arcamonte's name to "applications or similar papers including premium finance contracts". There was no disclosure that the signature on the premium finance agreement was not that of Ms. Arcamonte or that FIRST was executing her signature pursuant to a power of attorney. Respondent contends that the premium finance agreement was executed pursuant to the power of attorney because the check from Mr. and Mrs. Arcamonte was inadvertently separated from her application for payment and erroneously deposited into the FIRST expense account. This contention lacks credibility and is rejected. The fact that Respondent deposited the check in his expense account, that the paperwork for the premium finance agreement contained the FIRST address, that Respondent took no action to rectify this alleged error even after receiving correspondence from the finance company, and that Ms. Arcamonte's signature was forged on the application belie Respondent's contention that this was an innocent mistake. On or about September 20, 1993, the Eagle Insurance policy that Ms. Arcamonte purchased was cancelled for nonpayment of premiums because Respondent, or persons acting under his direct supervision and control, failed to make a regular installment payment on the premium finance agreement. Ms. Arcamonte never received the 10 Day Notice of Cancellation Notices that Century PFC mailed to FIRST's address. It was not until October 1993 when she received a Notice of Cancellation from Eagle mailed September 27, 1993, that she learned that her policy had been cancelled effective September 20, 1993. As a result of Respondent's actions and those of Carlos Gonzalez, Susan Arcamonte failed to timely receive automobile insurance, suffered a finance charge for automobile insurance without her knowledge or consent, had her automobile insurance cancelled, and incurred higher premium charges for subsequent coverage because of a gap in her coverage. Following a criminal complaint filed against him by Ms. Arcamonte, Respondent was arrested and placed in a pretrial intervention program. It was only after this action was taken that Respondent made restitution to the Arcamontes for the $1,618.00 premium they paid. At no time during the transaction, did the Arcamontes deal with anyone from the FIRST other than Carlos Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent during this transaction. Specifically, Carlos Gonzalez did the following: Was introduced to the Arcamontes as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Interviewed Susan Arcamonte to gather the information necessary to determine level of coverage and to quote a premium for that coverage. Discussed coverage options and requirements including whether Ms. Arcamonte needed personal injury protection. Discussed deductible options and answered general questions about insurance. Selected an insurer for Ms. Arcamonte, quoted a premium for that coverage, and made representations as to the quality of the insurer. Offered to bind insurance coverage for the automobile Ms. Arcamonte was in the process of purchasing and sent a binder to her at the automobile dealership via fax. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including binder numbers, as proof of insurance, and presented the identification card to Ms. Arcamonte. Presented Ms. Arcamonte with a business card that identified himself as a representative of FIRST. Respondent knew or should have known of the acts of Carlos Gonzalez. Respondent received from Mr. Gonzalez the application for insurance he had completed for Ms. Arcamonte so that all Respondent had to do was sign it. JOHNSON - MOREL TRANSACTION (COUNT TWO) On May 31, 1993, Linda E. Johnson and her husband, Miguel Morel, visited the residence of Wilfreido Cordeiro, an employee of FIRST who was acting on behalf of FIRST. As a result of their conversation with Mr. Cordeiro about their insurance needs, Mr. Morel and Ms. Johnson completed an application for automobile insurance from Armor Insurance Company (Armor) to be issued through FIRST. Mr. Cordeiro, who was not licensed by Petitioner for any purpose, held himself out to be an agent. He represented to these consumers that coverage with Armor was bound and gave them an identification card with the FIRST name on it that purported to be a binder of coverage. The FIRST insurance identification card was issued without authorization from Armor and in violation of the established policies and practices of Armor. Because Mr. Cordeiro was unlicensed, Respondent acted as the agent of record for this transaction. On or about May 31, 1993, Mrs. Linda E. Johnson tendered to Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to FIRST as a premium down payment for the automobile insurance from Armor. On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, deposited Mrs. Johnson's check in the FIRST expense account at the Ready State Bank. On or about June 29, 1993, Mrs. Johnson was contacted by her bank and informed that she had no automobile insurance. She immediately contacted Respondent who provided the bank with a certificate of insurance indicating coverage was placed with American Skyhawk Insurance (American Skyhawk) effective June 1, 1993. No authority to bind coverage had been extended by American Skyhawk prior to the submission of the application two and one-half months after the coverage effective date indicated on the certificate of insurance. On or about August 18, 1993, Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, completed a Century PFC and affixed thereto the signature of Mr. Morel without his knowledge or consent. This agreement reflected that Mr. Morel had paid the sum of $400.00 as a downpayment, despite the fact that Mrs. Johnson's check, in the amount of $500.00, had been received and deposited in the Respondent expense account. As a result of Respondent's action, Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Morel failed to timely receive automobile coverage; suffered a finance charge for automobile insurance without their knowledge or consent; and suffered the loss in at least the amount of $100.00. At no time during the transaction with FIRST did Mr. Morel or Mrs. Johnson knowingly execute a power of attorney. HWANG TRANSACTION (COUNT THREE) On August 29, 1992, Mr. Show Ming Hwang of Miami, Florida, purchased via telephone a policy of insurance for a car he was purchasing. Mr. Hwang called from a car dealership and spoke to an employee of FIRST who was acting under Respondent's direct supervision. Mr. Hwang tendered to FIRST a check in the amount of $869.00 as the full premium for this insurance, which was to be issued by an insurer named Security National. Respondent was the agen t of record for this transaction. Security National issued policy NumberSN00127048 providing insurance coverage for Mr. Hwang effective August 29, 1992. On December 22, 1992, Mr. Hwang asked FIRST to cancel his policy with Security National because he had moved and had secured other coverage. On January 15, 1993, Security National cancelled insurance policy NumberSN00127048 in response to Mr. Hwang's request. On January 26, 1993, Security National sent to Respondent its check Number216878 in the sum of $366.35 payable to Mr. Hwang. This check was a refund of the unearned premium for the cancelled policy. In addition to the unearned premium, Mr. Hwang was also entitled to a refund of the unearned commission from FIRST. The amount of the unearned commission was $64.55 and should have been paid by FIRST directly to Mr. Hwang. On February 8, 1993, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST acting under his direct supervision, endorsed the check from Security National in the name of Mr. Hwang and deposited that check in the FIRST expense account at Ready State Bank. Mr. Hwang was unaware that his name had been endorsed on the check and had not authorized such endorsement. This endorsement was not pursuant to a validly executed power of attorney. Mr. Hwang made repeated attempts to obtain the refunds to which he was entitled. Finally, he secured the intervention of the Petitioner. After that intervention, Respondent issued a FIRST check on December 17, 1993, payable to Mr. Hwang in the amount of $431.00 as payment of the refunds. Less than a month later, this check was dishonored because there were insufficient funds in the account on which it was drawn. After further intervention by the Petitioner, Respondent issued a cashier's check in the amount of $431.00 payable to Mr. Hwang. This check, dated March 22, 1994, was thereafter received and deposited by Mr. Hwang. Respondent failed to return the refunds to Mr. Hwang in the applicable regular course of business and converted the refund from Security National to his own use until the intervention of the Petitioner. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mr. Hwang failed to timely receive these refunds. MARIA DIAZ (COUNT FOUR) On September 20, 1994, the Petitioner entered a Final Order that revoked all licenses that it had previously issued to Maria Diaz (who was at that time known as Maria del Carmen Comas). In September 1994, Ms. Diaz, accompanied by Respondent, visited the Petitioner's office in Miami where she was told that the revocation of her license was forthcoming. After that information was given to them, Respondent and Ms. Diaz knew or should have known that the revocation of her licensure was imminent. There was insufficient evidence to establish when Ms. Diaz received a written copy of the order revoking her licensure. Ms. Diaz and Respondent assert that they did not know about the revocation until the end of January, 1995. The order entered in September 1994 prohibited Ms. Diaz from engaging in or attempting to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or appointment is required under the Insurance Code or directly owning, controlling, or being employed in any manner by any insurance agent or agency. After Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told that the revocation of her licensure was imminent, Ms. Diaz engaged in transactions requiring licensure and acting in violation of the order revoking her licensure. This activity included applying to Seminole Insurance Company (Seminole) in December 1994 seeking appointment as a general lines insurance agent by Seminole, the submission of a large number of applications to Seminole, and the mishandling of an insurance transaction with Johannah Rexach in July and August 1995. Ms. Diaz began a business as a travel agent at the MARLIN office and continued to be present in the MARLIN office long after she had received written notice of the revocation of her licensure by Petitioner. At least on one occasion in May 1995, Ms. Diaz answered the MARLIN telephone by saying "insurance". Ms. Diaz continued to greet her former insurance customers and mailed out renewal notices after both she and Respondent had actual knowledge of the revocation of her licensure. Respondent knew or should have known of Ms. Diaz's activities. While there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Diaz was formally on MARLIN's payroll, the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent permitted Ms. Diaz to share office space while she attempted to develop her travel agency and that, in return, Ms. Diaz helped out at the MARLIN office. Respondent employed the services of Ms. Diaz and he placed her in a position to engage in transactions that required licensure after he knew or should have known that her licensure had been revoked. MARTINEZ TRANSACTION (COUNT FIVE) On April 23, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Santiago Martinez of Miami, Florida, completed applications for automobile insurance from Fortune Insurance Company (Fortune) and Aries Insurance Company (Aries). The record is unclear as to whether the insurance was to be issued through FIRST or FIRST OF MIAMI. The individual with whom Mr. and Mrs. Martinez dealt was Alvaro Alcivar. This was during the time that FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI maintained separate offices and it was before Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told that her licensure was about to be revoked. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Alcivar was, at that time, an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI and that he was working under the supervision of Maria Diaz. Succinctly stated, premiums paid by Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were deposited into a FIRST OF MIAMI bank account that showed First Assurance of Miami, Inc., d/b/a Complete Insurance as the owner of the account. The premium payment was not forwarded to the insurer. Because of this failure, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez did not receive insurance coverage for which they had paid. While Petitioner established that Mr. Alcivar and whoever was his supervising agent mishandled this transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was aware of this transaction until Mr. and Mrs. Martinez demanded a refund of the premium they had paid. At that juncture, he attempted to resolve the problem. Consequently, it is found that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent was responsible for these violations of the Florida Insurance Code. ZAFRANI TRANSACTION (COUNT SIX) In July 1992, Mr. Issac Zafrani and his son, Ramon, of Miami, Florida, purchased automobile insurance with Oak Casualty Insurance Company (Oak) after dealing with Carlos Gonzalez. The various documents associated with this transaction refer to the agency issuing this policy as FIRST, FIRST OF MIAMI, or Rodal Insurance Agency. Mr. Gonzalez was an employee of FIRST and operated under the direct supervision of Respondent. The entire transaction was completed by Mr. Gonzalez at the automobile dealership where Mr. Zafrani was purchasing an automobile. All subsequent dealings by Mr. Zafrani was through Mr. Gonzalez by telephone or at locations other than the offices of FIRST. Mr. Gonzalez held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent during this transaction. Specifically, Carlos Gonzalez did the following: Was introduced to the Zafranis as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options. Selected an insurer for the Zafranis, deter- mined the premium for the coverage, and accepted the payment for the premium. Personally completed an insurance identifi- cation card, including what purported to be proof of insurance, and presented the identification card to the Zafranis. Presented the Zafranis with a business card that identified himself as a representative of FIRST. The Zafranis paid for the renewal of their policy through FIRST each year on an annual basis. On September 1, 1994, the Zafranis tendered to Mr. Gonzalez their check in the amount of $1,748.00 as payment in full of the annual premium for the policy year 1994-95. This check was made payable to FIRST OF MIAMI and was deposited in the FIRST Expense Account at Ready State Bank ( Number0303080870- 10). Respondent was the only person with authority to sign on this account. On September 30, 1994, an employee of FIRST completed a premium finance agreement that purported to finance the Zafranis' premium for the Oak Casualty insurance and forged Issac Zafrani's signature to that agreement. This false document reflected that the total premium was $1,748.00 and that the Zafranis had made a downpayment of $524.00 and had an unpaid balance of $1,224.00. This action was taken without Issac Zafrani's knowledge or consent. Mr. Zafrani had not executed a power of attorney to authorize these acts. Respondent knew or should have known of this act. On September 30, 1994, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST working under his direct supervision, issued a premium finance draft from Artic to Oak in the amount of $1,485.80 based upon this false application. A few weeks after they paid the renewal premium, the Zafranis complained to Mr. Gonzalez that they had not received their renewal policy from Oak. Mr. Gonzalez advised them that the company had cancelled their policy in error. He promised that he would investigate the matter and take corrective action. On December 23, 1994, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST acting under his direct supervision, submitted an automobile insurance application to Seminole Insurance Company indicating that coverage had been bound for Issac Zafrani. On December 23, 1994, Respondent issued FIRST check Number1196 payable to Seminole in the amount of $1,681.65 in payment of the policy he was attempting to secure on behalf of the Zafranis. On or about December 27 1994, Mr. Gonzalez issued to the Zafranis a FIRST card with what purported to be a binder number from Seminole Insurance Company. No authorization to bind that coverage had been issued by Seminole. On January 3, 1995, Artic issued a cancellation notice on the Oak Casualty policy because of missed payments on the premium finance agreement. The Zafranis did not know about this premium finance agreement and Respondent failed to make the payments. In January 1995, FIRST check Number1196 that had been tendered to Seminole was dishonored by Respondent's bank because the account on which the check was drawn had insufficient funds to pay the check. As a result of these actions, the Zafranis failed to timely receive automobile insurance for which they had fully paid and suffered the loss of the sum of $1,748.00. Respondent knew or should have known of these actions. DEBT TO WORLD PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY (COUNT SEVEN) On August 29, 1995, a final judgment was entered in a Dade County Court action brought by World Premium Finance Co., Inc. (World PFC) against FIRST OF MIAMI and the Respondent, individually, as defendants. This final judgment awarded damages against FIRST OF MIAMI in the sum of $7,203.03 and awarded damages against both defendants in the sum of $15,000 plus attorney's fees of $1,000. The World PFC complaint was based on worthless checks FIRST OF MIAMI and Respondent had issued in connection with premium finance contracts and included debts for unpaid downpayments and unearned commissions on premium finance contracts that had been cancelled. Respondent's assertion that these debts were the responsibility of Maria Diaz is rejected. While Ms. Diaz initially made the arrangements for FIRST OF MIAMI to finance through World PFC and was the agent responsible for some of these transactions, it is clear that Respondent was the agent for many of these underlying transactions. Further, some, if not all, of these worthless checks were drawn on accounts for which Respondent was the only person with signatory authority. The downpayments and unearned commissions constitute fiduciary funds for which Respondent is responsible. Respondent has failed to pay these fiduciary funds to World PFC after repeated demands for payments. GUTIERREZ TRANSACTION (COUNT EIGHT) On October 11, 1993, Ms. Madalina N. Gutierrez of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance. Aries Insurance Company was the insurer for this policy and FIRST was the insurance agency. The premium for this policy was to have been $574.00. The person with whom Ms. Gutierrez dealt with was Carmen "Mela" Babacarris, an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI. Ms. Babacarris has never held any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. Ms. Gutierrez paid to FIRST the sum of $287.00 on October 11, 1993, when she applied for this insurance. On that date, Ms. Babacarris gave to Ms. Gutierrez an insurance card that purported to bind coverage with Aries. She returned on November 1, 1993, and paid to FIRST the balance owed of $287.00. Both of these payments were tendered to and received by Ms. Babacarris on behalf of FIRST. The sums paid by Ms. Gutierrez for this insurance coverage were not remitted by the FIRST to Aries or to any other insurer. As a consequence, Ms. Gutierrez did not receive the insurance coverage for which she had paid. Ms. Gutierrez was unable to obtain a refund of the sums that she had paid to FIRST. Respondent knew or should have known of the acts pertaining to this transaction by Ms. Babacarris since the transaction was processed through the FIRST, the agency for which Respondent was the sole supervising agent. RICO TRANSACTION (COUNT NINE) On June 27, 1994, Mr. Rafael Rico of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance from Aries Insurance. It is unclear from the documents whether this insurance was to be issued through FIRST or through FIRST OF MIAMI. This confusion in the record is attributable to the fact that the persons involved in this transaction and associated with these two agencies made little distinction between the two agencies. This application was completed at the automobile dealership from which Mr. Rico was purchasing the vehicle to be insured. The individual with whom Mr. Rico dealt was Alvaro Alcivar. At all times during the transaction with Mr. Rico, Mr. Alcivar held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent. Specifically, Mr. Alcivar did the following: Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options and answered Mr. Rico's general insurance questions. Selected the insurer for Mr. Rico's coverage. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including a policy number, as proof of insurance and provided it to Mr. Rico. Indicated that coverage was bound immediately and gave to him a card that purported to be a Florida Automobile Insurance Identification Card indicating that Mr. Rico had insurance coverage through Aries. Developed the premium and downpayment. Accepted payment from Mr. Rico. Presented Mr. Rico with a business card identifying himself as a representative of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Alcivar was the only representative of the FIRST or of the FIRST OF MIAMI with whom Mr. Rico dealt. On June 27, 1994, Mr. Rico tendered to Mr. Alcivar the sum of $947.00 as payment for this insurance with the sum of $500.00 being paid in cash and the balance being charged to Mr. Rico's Mastercard. This Mastercard entry was processed through the account of the FIRST, not that of the FIRST OF MIAMI. Despite the payments by Mr. Rico, the premium to which Aries was entitled for this coverage was not remitted by FIRST or by FIRST OF MIAMI. As a result of this failure, Aries cancelled the binder that had been issued to Mr. Rico. Mr. Rico was damaged as a result of this failure. He lost the premium he had paid and the lending institution that financed his vehicle placed insurance on the vehicle at a higher premium than that charged by Aries. Based on the relationship between FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI, the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Diaz, the repeated references to FIRST in the documentation of this transaction, and the deposit of at least $447.00 in the Mastercard account of FIRST, it is concluded that Respondent knew or should have known about this transaction. CHERI TRANSACTION (COUNT ELEVEN) On November 19, 1994, Mr. Dieuseul Cheri of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance that was to be issued by Seminole Insurance Company as the insurer. The application for insurance reflects that Maria Diaz was the agent for this transaction, but the name of the agency is FIRST, not FIRST OF MIAMI. Likewise, the premium finance agreement pertaining to this transaction reflects that FIRST is the producing agency. The entire transaction was handled by Alvaro Alcivar at an automobile dealership where Mr. Cheri was purchasing a vehicle and occurred after Ms. Diaz had been told in September that the revocation of her licensure was imminent. Mr. Cheri gave to Mr. Alcivar the sum of $205.00 in cash as the downpayment for the premium for this Seminole policy. At all times Mr. Alcivar held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent. Specifically, Mr. Alcivar: Was introduced to Mr. Cheri as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options and answered Mr. Cheri's general insurance questions. Selected the insurer for Mr. Cheri's coverage. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including a policy number, as proof of insurance and provided it to Mr. Cheri. Completed a named driver exclusion agreement for Mr. Cheri's policy, which had a significant effect on the coverage provided under the policy, and completed a vehicle inspection. Developed the premium and downpayment. Accepted payment from Mr. Cheri on behalf of FIRST OF MIAMI. Presented Mr. Cheri with a business card identifying himself as a representative of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Alcivar was the only representative of the FIRST or of the FIRST OF MIAMI with whom Mr. Cheri dealt. FIRST OF MIAMI failed to bind coverage with Seminole on Mr. Cheri's behalf until November 22, 1994. As a result, there was a lapse in Mr. Cheri's coverage from November 17 until November 22, 1994. On November 19, 1994, FIRST OF MIAMI submitted a premium finance agreement on Mr. Cheri's insurance policy to World Premium Finance Co., Inc. (World PFC). The World PFC contract as well as the application were signed by Maria Diaz. Ms. Diaz never met Mr. Cheri. The premium finance agreement submitted to World PFC by FIRST OF MIAMI indicated that he had made a premium downpayment of only $105.00 despite the fact that Mr. Cheri had made a downpayment of $205.00. The evidence is not clear that Respondent knew or should have known of this transaction because of the involvement of Ms. Diaz. Instead, this is an example of the Respondent permitting Ms. Diaz to continue to participate in insurance transactions that require licensure after Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told in September 1994 that revocation was imminent. ALVARO ALCIVAR (COUNT TWELVE) Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Alvaro Alcivar performed acts and made representations to consumers that require licensure pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code. Petitioner also established that Respondent knew or should have known of these acts and that he aided and abetted these violations by Mr. Alcivar. CARLOS GONZALEZ (COUNT THIRTEEN) Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Carlos Gonzalez performed acts and made representations to consumers that require licensure pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code. Petitioner also established that Respondent knew or should have known of these acts and that he aided and abetted these violations by Mr. Gonzalez.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner revoke all licensure and appointment held by Respondent pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code and that it impose against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 April 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0317 The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 139, 140, 141, and 142 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The testimony at the formal hearing that the office was moved in June 1994. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 17, and 81 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26, 32, 72, 74, 75, 76, 83, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137, 143, and 144 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 46, 61, 82, and 124 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 77, 78, 79, 80, 128, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 64, 72, and 73 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected in part since Respondent moved the offices of the FIRST from Coral Way to Sunset Drive at a time pertinent to this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 and 52 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 11, 21 and 27 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by credible evidence. The evidence that supports these proposed findings lacks credibility. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 31 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent the proposed findings mischaracterize the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the finding that they knew that the revocation of Ms. Diaz's licensure was imminent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 25, 28, 30, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 29 and 57 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 31 are rejected since they contain an inference that Respondent told Ms. Diaz to move as soon as he knew of her interaction with insurance customers. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 42 are rejected as being a mischaracterization of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 48, 63, 68, and 70 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Dunphy, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley and Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
