Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a property and casualty insurance license, life and health insurance license, and life insurance license for the State of Florida. She has held her property and casualty license for about 20 years. In 1976, she was employed as an agent for the Orlando office of Commonwealth insurance agency, which she purchased in 1977 or 1978. She continues to own the Commonwealth agency, which is the agency involved in this case. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. In 1979 or 1980, Respondent was appointed to the board of directors of the Local Independent Agents Association, Central Florida chapter. She has continuously served on the board of directors of the organization ever since. She served as president of the association until September, 1991, when her term expired. During her tenure as president, the local association won the Walter H. Bennett award as the best local association in the country. Since May, 1986, Commonwealth had carried the insurance for the owner of the subject premises, which is a 12,000 square foot commercial block building located at 923 West Church Street in Orlando. In July, 1987, the insurer refused to renew the policy on the grounds of the age of the building. Ruth Blint of Commonwealth assured the owner that she would place the insurance with another insurer. Mrs. Blint is a longtime employee of the agency and is in charge of commercial accounts of this type. Mrs. Blint was a dependable, competent employee on whom Respondent reasonably relied. Mrs. Blint contacted Dana Roehrig and Associates Inc. (Dana Roehrig), which is an insurance wholesaler. Commonwealth had done considerable business with Dana Roehrig in the past. Dealing with a number of property and casualty agents, Dana Roehrig secures insurers for the business solicited by the agents. Dana Roehrig itself is not an insurance agent. In this case, Dana Roehrig served as the issuing agent and agreed to issue the policy on behalf of American Empire Surplus Lines. The annual premium would be $5027, excluding taxes and fees. This premium was for the above- described premises, as well as another building located next door. The policy was issued effective July 21, 1987. It shows that the producing agency is Commonwealth and the producer is Dana Roehrig. The policy was countersigned on August 12, 1987, by a representative of the insurer. On July 21, 1987, the insured gave Mrs. Blint a check in the amount of $1000 payable to Commonwealth. This represented a downpayment on the premium for the American Empire policy. The check was deposited in Commonwealth's checking account and evidently forwarded to Dana Roehrig. On July 31, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued its monthly statement to Commonwealth. The statement, which involves only the subject policy, reflects a balance due of $3700.86. The gross premium is $5027. The commission amount of $502.70 is shown beside the gross commission. Below the gross premium is a $25 policy fee, $151.56 in state tax, and a deduction entered July 31, 1987, for $1000, which represents the premium downpayment. When the commission is deducted from the other entries, the balance is, as indicated, $3700.86. The bottom of the statement reads: "Payment is due in our office by August 14, 1987." No further payments were made by the insured or Commonwealth in August. The August 31, 1987, statement is identical to the July statement except that the bottom reads: "Payment is due in our office by September 14, 1987." On September 2, 1987, the insured gave Commonwealth a check for $2885.16. This payment appears to have been in connection with the insured's decision to delete the coverage on the adjoining building, which is not otherwise related to this case. An endorsement to the policy reflects that, in consideration of a returned premium of $1126 and sales tax of $33.78, all coverages are deleted for the adjoining building. The September 30 statement shows the $3700.86 balance brought forward from the preceding statement and deductions for the returned premium and sales tax totalling $1159.78. After reducing the credit to adjust for the unearned commission of $112.60 (which was part of the original commission of $502.70 for which Commonwealth had already received credit), the net deduction arising from the deleted coverage was $1047.18. Thus, the remaining balance for the subject property was $2653.68. In addition to showing the net sum due of $944.59 on an unrelated policy, the September 30 statement contained the usual notation that payment was due by the 12th of the following month. However, the statement contained a new line showing the aging of the receivable and showing, incorrectly, that $3700.86 was due for more than 90 days. As noted above, the remaining balance was $2653.68, which was first invoiced 90 days previously. Because it has not been paid the remaining balance on the subject policy, Dana Roehrig issued a notice of cancellation sometime during the period of October 16-19, 1987. The notice, which was sent to the insured and Commonwealth, advised that the policy "is hereby cancelled" effective 12:01 a.m. October 29, 1987. It was the policy of Dana Roehrig to send such notices about ten days in advance with two or three days added for mailing. One purpose of the notice is to allow the insured and agency to make the payment before the deadline and avoid cancellation of the policy. However, the policy of Dana Roehrig is not to reinstate policies if payments are received after the effective date of cancellation. Upon receiving the notice of cancellation, the insured immediately contacted Mrs. Blint. She assured him not to be concerned and that all would be taken care of. She told him that the property was still insured. The insured reasonably relied upon this information. The next time that the insured became involved was when the building's ceiling collapsed in June, 1988. He called Mrs. Blint to report the loss. After an adjuster investigated the claim, the insured heard nothing for months. He tried to reach Respondent, but she did not return his calls. Only after hiring an attorney did the insured learn that the cancellation in October, 1987, had taken effect and the property was uninsured. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the policy, the October 31 statement was identical to the September 30 statement except that payment was due by November 12, rather than October 12, and the aging information had been deleted. By check dated November 12, 1987, Commonwealth remitted to Dana Roehrig $3598.27, which was the total amount due on the October 30 statement. Dana Roehrig deposited the check and it cleared. The November 30 statement reflected zero balances due on the subject policy, as well as on the unrelated policy. However, the last entry shows the name of the subject insured and a credit to Commonwealth of $2717 plus sales tax of $81.51 minus a commission readjustment of $271.70 for a net credit of $2526.81. The record does not explain why the net credit does not equal $2653.68, which was the net amount due. It would appear that Dana Roehrig retained the difference of $125.87 plus the downpayment of $1000 for a total of $1125.87. It is possible that this amount is intended to represent the earned premium. Endorsement #1 on the policy states that the minimum earned premium, in the event of cancellation, was $1257. By check dated December 23, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued Commonwealth a check in the amount of $2526.81. The December 31 statement reflected the payment and showed a zero balance due. The record is otherwise silent as to what transpired following the issuance of the notice of cancellation. Neither Mrs. Blint nor Dana Roehrig representatives from Orlando testified. The only direct evidence pertaining to the period between December 31, 1987, and the claim the following summer is a memorandum from a Dana Roehrig representative to Mrs. Blint dated March 24, 1988. The memorandum references the insured and states in its entirety: Per our conversation of today, attached please find the copy of the cancellation notice & also a copy of the cancellation endorsement on the above captioned, which was cancelled effective 10/29/87. If you should have any questions, please call. Regardless of the ambiguity created by the monthly statements, which were not well coordinated with the cancellation procedure, Mrs. Blint was aware in late March, 1988, that there was a problem with the policy. She should have advised the insured, who presumably could have procured other insurance. Regardless whether the June, 1988, claim would have been covered, the ensuing litigation would not have involved coverage questions arising out of the cancellation of the policy if Mrs. Blint had communicated the problem to the insured when she received the March memorandum. Following the discovery that the policy had in fact been cancelled, the insured demanded that Respondent return the previously paid premiums. Based on advice of counsel, Respondent refused to do so until a representative of Petitioner demanded that she return the premiums. At that time, she obtained a cashiers check payable to the insured, dated June 1, 1990, and in the amount of $2526.81. Although this equals the check that Dana Roehrig returned to Commonwealth in December, 1987, the insured actually paid Commonwealth $1000 down and $2885.16 for a total of $3885.16. This discrepancy appears not to have been noticed as neither Petitioner nor the insured has evidently made further demands upon Respondent for return of premiums paid. The insured ultimately commenced a legal action against Commonwealth, Dana Roehrig, and American Empire. At the time of the hearing, the litigation remains pending.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.561(1) and, thus, 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and, pursuant to Sections 626.681(1) and 626.691, Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $1002.70, and placing her insurance licenses on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order. If Respondent fails to pay the entire fine within 30 days of the date of the final order, the final order should provide, pursuant to Section 626.681(3), Florida Statutes, that the probation is automatically replaced by a one-year suspension. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart Division of Legal Affairs Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods Gatlin, Woods, et al. 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent William J. Hartnett, Sr. was licensed as an ordinary life including disability, general lines, surplus lines and disability insurance agent. He has been in the insurance business since 1942 and was first licensed in 1947. Respondent originally organized the Southern American Fire Insurance Company. For the first year or so, he was its sole employee on a nonsalary basis and was nonsalaried for the first ten years of the company's operation. From 1965 on, respondent did not hold a 220 lines license with Southern American, as he did with other insurance entities. Respondent did not sign policies as agent for Southern American. With Southern American, respondent acted as a general agent and was authorized by the board of directors to receive a five percent override commission on the total volume of business. On or about October 27, 1975, a seizure order was entered by the Circuit Court of Leon County which directed the Florida Department of Insurance to take over the business and financial affairs of Southern American. This company has since gone into liquidation pursuant to Chapter 631, Florida Statutes. The Southern American March 31 and June 30, 1975, quarterly statements were prepared by Mr. R.L. Huard, the then assistant treasurer of Southern American, were signed by the respondent, and were filed with the Department of Insurance. The work papers for those statements had been approved by the respondent. Mr. Huard had been instructed by respondent when he was first hired in 1972 not to show on the quarterly statements the over 90-day old balances because they would all be "cleaned up" at the end of the year. Such balances had, in fact, been paid at the end of each of the two years that Mr. Huard was with the company up until the time the Department took over in 1975. It was the respondent's testimony that had the seizure order not been entered, the agencies' lines of credit would still have been open and that all balances could have been collected through September of 1975. The March 31, 1975, and June 30, 1975, quarterly statements of Southern American filed with the Department of Insurance reflected a substantial amount of agents' balances that at the time of reporting were over 90 days old. The elimination of such balances from those two statements would have left Southern American impaired under usual insurance accounting practices as reflected in the Florida Statutes. The over-90 day old agents' balances were due from agencies in which respondent had an interest as an officer, director or stockholder. In 1969, various officials of the Department of Insurance had discussions with the respondent regarding agents' balances which were over ninety days old. On or about December 28, 1973, respondent did deposit the proceeds of certain reinsurance treaties in the amount of $13,218.98 into the account of Southern American. This findings is determined from the testimony of respondent and from a copy of the check and a deposit slip received into evidence as Exhibit M. The deposit slip illustrates that the $13,218.96 check was one of two checks comprising a total deposit of $30,857.12. As a result of information made available to the parties shortly before the hearing, it was stipulated that there never was a direct reinsurance treaty between Southern American and Cottonbelt Insurance Company. It was further stipulated that Southern American did submit single risk policies on a facultative basis through General Aviation Insurance Brokers for Southern American to D.O. Howell and Company, Ltd., in London, England, which in turn placed policies so submitted with Cottonbelt through other brokers. The Department offered no other evidence concerning the checks amounting to $16,600.00 referred to in Count V. As noted above, respondent was authorized by the board of directors to receive as general agent for Southern American a five percent override on all premiums. He was also authorized to receive an annual salary and certain bonuses. For the years 1974 and 1975, respondent did not receive his total annual salaries. The total premium written in Southern American through North Star Insurance Agency from 1968 through 1975 was approximately $700,000.00. Monies owed Southern American by North Star were paid by checks made payable to the respondent, as agent. In his capacity as general agent of Southern American, respondent did receive funds in the approximate amount of $45,000.00 from subagent North Star in payment of premiums due Southern American on policies of insurance issued by Southern American through North Star. Such funds were not deposited into the account of Southern American by respondent, but were instead retained by respondent as an offset against commissions end salary due him from Southern American. This occurred in 1975. When the seizure order was entered in October of 1975, the monies due Southern American from North Star were carried on the books of Southern American as accounts receivable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of respondent to engage in the business of insurance be suspended for a period of six (6) months. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S. Strom Maxwell, Esquire Department of Insurance Suite 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Kelly, Esquire Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent, Department of Insurance (DOI) and Intervenor, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF) are state agencies charged with the regulation of insurance and banking activities, respectively. Great Northern Insured Annuity Corporation (GNA) is an insurance company and agency operating in Florida and elsewhere in space leased in financial institution lobbies, customer service areas and atriums. From its approximately eighty-four locations in Florida it markets annuities, securities and whole life insurance products. Approximately one-third of its 1992 sales of $130 million was in annuities. GNA's principal profits in Florida are derived from its sale of annuities, which it directly underwrites and services. First Nationwide Bank (FNB) leases space in its lobbies and other common areas to insurance agencies and companies, including Vista Financial Group, (Vista). In 1992 Vista sold approximately $13.5 million in annuities from the locations it leases from FNB. First Union Mortgage Corporation (FUMC) is a financial institution with "grandfathered" insurance activities pursuant to section 626.988(5), F.S. It has also been granted a certificate of authority by DOI as a Third Party Administrator pursuant to section 626.88, F.S. Florida Bankers Association (FBA) is a trade association of the banking industry in Florida. It represents its financial institution members. The Association of Banks in Insurance Inc. (ABI) is a trade association of financial institutions and insurance companies. The Florida Association of Life Underwriters (FALU) is a professional association of life, health and direct writer multi-line insurance agents with approximately 8,900 members. James Mitchell and Co. and its subsidiary, JMC Insurance Services Corporation (JMC) are California corporations involved in marketing financial products, including annuities in Florida. Florida Central Credit Union, Railroad and Industrial Federal Credit Union and GTE Federal Credit Union are state or federally chartered credit unions authorized to do business in Florida. Credit Union Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Federal Credit Union, sells insurance to credit union members. The Florida Association of Insurance Agents (FAIA) is a trade association representing independent insurance agents in Florida. Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A. is a trustee for annuities issued by James Mitchell and Company. Barnett Banks Insurance, Inc. is a Florida licensed insurance company providing credit insurance of various types for credit extended by Barnett Banks throughout Florida. BTI Services, Inc. a subsidiary of Barnett, provides records administration services for insurers. Marketing One, Inc., Liberty Securities Corporation and Compulife, Inc. market annuities to existing and prospective customers of financial institutions. Those marketing activities are conducted from lobbies, atriums or other central areas of the premises of the financial institutions. The Financial Institutions Insurance Association is a California non- profit association of financial institutions and insurance companies with members in Florida who lease space to insurance agency tenants. California Federal Bank is a federal savings bank operating branches in the State of Florida and leasing space to a company selling insurance in that space in bank branch offices. The Statute Although other sections of statutes are cited as "law implemented" in proposed Chapter 4-223, its undeniable focus is section 626.988, F.S., as described in the first rule of the proposed chapter: 4-223.001 Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to implement the provisions of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, and to ensure that customers of financial institutions conduct their business in an atmosphere free from direct or indirect coercion, unfair competition, and unfair or deceptive trade practices, and to implement those statutory provisions which prohibit insurance agents and solicitors who are directly or indirectly associated with, under contract with, or controlled by a financial institution from engaging in insurance agency activities as an employee agent, principal, or agent of a financial institution agency. These rules establish procedures and standards for insurance companies, agencies, agents and solicitors in their relationships and business arrangements with financial institutions. Embodied in Florida's insurance code, a code described as more lengthy than the New Testament, Section 626.988 F.S. enacted in 1974, ". . . generally prohibits banking institutions from engaging in insurance agency activities. . . ." Florida Association of Insurance Agents, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 591 F.2d 334 (U.S. 5th Cir. 1979). The prohibition is accomplished indirectly by forbidding licensed insurance agents or solicitors from engaging in insurance agency activities under certain relationships with financial institutions. There are exceptions to the blanket prohibition, including an amendment in 1990 to permit state chartered banks to sell annuities in the event that federal law permits federal banks to sell annuities. After almost twenty years of attempted enforcement, DOI has described section 626.988, F.S. as "a vague statute with imprecise standards". (Notice of proposed rule, Florida Administrative Weekly, June 26, 1992) The Rules DOI's experience with interpretation and enforcement of Section 626.988, F.S. commenced in earnest in the early 1980's, when insurance companies began to market annuities in the lobbies or public access areas of financial institutions. Many of these companies consulted with the department and obtained guidance as to the applicability of the law to their varied circumstances. In 1985, American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, through its counsel, Edward Kutter, Esquire, inquired of Commissioner Gunter concerning the effect of the law on its operations. American Pioneer Life Insurance Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of American Pioneer Savings Bank. Donald Dowdell, General Counsel of the department, responded by letter dated November 18, 1985. He analyzed the relationships among the insurer, the financial institution, and the insurance agents and determined that there was no significant probability of the financial institution exercising control over the agents: . . . In view of the fact that American Pioneer Savings Bank is the ultimate parent of American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, the specific issue which must be resolved in responding to your inquiry is whether an independent agent appointed by American Pioneer Life is directly or indirectly associated with, or retained, controlled, or employed by American Pioneer Savings Bank. Absent such a relationship, Section 626.988 does not prevent American Pioneer Life and its agents from marketing insurance in this state. . . . These corporate relationships in and of themselves do not create a prohibited relationship between American Pioneer Savings Bank and independent insurance agents appointed by American Pioneer Life. . . . It is recognized that as the corporate parent, American Pioneer Savings Bank may influence or control various corporate activities of its subsidiaries which would not entail control of the solicitation, effectuation and servicing of coverage by insurance agents. If, in fact, American Pioneer Savings Bank does not directly or indirectly control the conduct of insurance activities by American Pioneer Life agents but, instead, the agents sell insurance free of influence from the financial institution, the prohibitions of the statute are inapplicable. (GNA Exhibit No. 8) (emphasis added) Thus, in 1985, the department limited the prohibitions of section 626.988, F.S. to the financial institution's control of, and authority over, an agent's insurance activities. By 1986, other aspects of an association became a concern of the department. Letters responding to inquiries outlined requirements that leased space and insurance sales literature be physically or visually separated from the functions of the financial institution. (GNA Exhibits No. 10, 13 and 16) As a result of the body of opinions being circulated in the form of incipient policy, the department proposed rules implementing section 626.988. These proposed rules were later withdrawn before adoption, but the department continued to use them as guidelines. During this period, DOI received a handful of complaints, mostly from agents. Douglas Shropshire, director of Agent and Agency Services during the relevant period, testified that he could not recall a single consumer complaint with respect to financial institutions engaging in the distribution of insurance products. Gail Connell, identified by Mr. Shropshire as "the Department's person most intimately familiar with field investigation of .988 issues" (Tr. at 760), agreed. (FUMC Exhibit No. 35, at 184-85 See also. FUMC Exhibit No. 36 at 347-50, 353) In 1991, in anticipation of the rule-making mandate of section 120.535, the department reviewed its guidelines. As a part of that review, representatives of the agents' associations, FALU, FAIA and others, were consulted as to the desirability of the rules. In January, 1992, DOI published proposed rules that were substantially similar to the guidelines. Donald Dowdell stated that the proposed rules published at that time represented the department's determination of a reasonable interpretation of the statute, adding, "[T]he line was drawn with the realization of what was happening in the real world today. We could have -- I think the statute prohibits an association, and as I indicated yesterday, if we had wanted to be Draconian about it and make life easier on ourselves, we could have attempted to prohibit any kind of association and see how that would have flown." (FUMC Exhibit No. 36 at 260-261) The rules published in January of 1992 were withdrawn in order to permit the department to correct some perceived inadequacies in the economic impact statement. The rules were presented at a workshop and were republished in June, 1992. The rules were virtually the same as those published in January. A public hearing was held July 12, 1992. On October 6, 1992, DOI published a Notice of Change which materially altered Rules 4-223.003, .004, and .005. According to the Notice of Change, the change was in response to comments received at the public hearing held July 12. More specifically, the amendments were the result of the department's adoption of FALU's position in its petition challenging the June version of the rules. The amendments most significantly provided a definition of "associated" or "associate" and forbade insurance agents from occupying space virtually anywhere within the confines of a financial institution. Mr. Shropshire drafted the amendment to Rules 4-223.003-.005. His source for the definition of "associate" was Webster's Dictionary. Mr. Shropshire testified that the modified proposal resulted from "explosive changes" in the number of banks involved in insurance in this state (Tr. at 793) and information which had come to his knowledge which indicated a need for a more restrictive rule. The two sources of information regarding insurance activities in Florida identified by Mr. Shropshire were the report prepared by investigator Ernest Ulrich in support of the economic impact statement and an ongoing investigation and prosecution of JMC for its marketing of annuities. Both sources predate or were contemporaneous to the June publication of the rules. Mr. Shropshire's reason for the October change was the anticipated difficulty DOI faced in enforcing its rules as originally published. He stated, "So it was getting plain to us that we were going to have to very vigorously and closely and labor-intensively enforce the rule, if it was passed as it was promulgated in June of '92." (tr. at 808) As described by Mr. Shropshire and others, the agency was concerned that insurance activities in financial institutions were not being conducted behind partitions, or even behind planters or other visual separations; and that bank agents were making referrals, taking telephone messages, and setting appointments for insurance agents who covered multiple bank branches on a "circuit-rider" system. Banks leasing space to agents also commonly paid bank employees a bonus for making appointments and referrals of customers to the agents. DOI determined that these leasing arrangements established a strong connection between the bank and the agent, in effect wrapping the insurance program in the bank's colors and presenting it as another bank product. This, to DOI, justified the previously characterized "Draconian" measures. The banks' and other witnesses freely described the economic advantage to a financial institution of having insurance services available at the same location for its customers. Additional amendments to the proposed rules were published in December 1992. Those amendments acknowledge or track the statutory exceptions to the section 626.988(2), F.S. prohibitions. The rules therefore do not apply to mortgage insurance business, credit unions, banks located in cities having a population of less than 5,000, and the sale of annuities when national banks have been authorized to sell such annuities. During the course of the formal hearing, the agency proposed a final change to the rules at issue, clarifying that Chapter 4-223 does not apply to credit life and disability insurance and credit unemployment insurance. (American Banking Insurance Co. Exhibit No. 1) The Economic Impact Dr. Tim Lynch, Director for the Center for Economic Policy Analysis for Florida State University, conducted surveys, collected data and analyzed the economic impact of the June 1992 version of the proposed rules. He prepared the economic impact statement for DOI. Dr. Lynch was consulted by the department about the October changes to the proposed rules and did additional analysis on the impact of the proposed changes. The economic impact statement prepared for the June publication was not amended, but Dr. Lynch's observations are found in his notes, or what he terms a "work in progress". He discussed those observations with department staff and considers the economic impact of prohibiting leases to be at least in the $ millions. The agency did not republish an economic impact statement after the October changes, but plainly considered the impact of those changes as articulated by its consultant, Dr. Lynch. Prohibiting the sale of annuities on bank premises would have a devastating effect on companies engaged in that activity. Banks, also, would be affected, as they recognize a substantial benefit of providing their customers the convenience of an in-house service. Although annuities are defined in Florida law as "life insurance" (See Section 364.602(1), F.S.) they are generally considered investments for future security rather than a cushion against loss. On March 20, 1990, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a formal approval letter stating, among other things, that under controlling Federal banking law, annuities are primarily financial investment instruments that national banks are permitted and authorized to sell. (GNA Exhibit No. 41) A follow-up letter to J. Thomas Caldwell as representative of the Florida Bankers Association specifically concluded that federally chartered banks in Florida were authorized to sell annuities. (GNA Exhibit No. 42) The OCC conclusion with regard to the authority of national banks was upheld in the Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. v. Robert Clarke, et. al., (VALIC) on November 22, 1991, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. H-91-1016, 786 F. Supp. 639. The case is pending on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Clarke, Case No. 92-2010) In the meantime, the OCC continues to issue opinion letters consistent with its earlier opinion. (See 5/10/93 letter filed as supplemental authority on 6/18/93) National banks are presently selling annuities, and the impact of the October 1992 absolute prohibitions is nullified as to annuity products by the December 1992 amendments addressed in paragraph 30, above.
The Issue Whether the licensure and eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida held by Respondent Michael David Garrett should be disciplined based on the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed against him and, if so, the extent of such discipline.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for the regulation of insurance agent conduct and licensure. Respondent is currently eligible for licensure as an insurance agent and is licensed in this state as a life, variable annuity and health agent, life and health agent, and health agent. The Association for Independent Managers (AIM) is an entity that was founded in 1979 for the purpose of providing educational and other services or benefits to a membership base that is comprised primarily of small businesses. In February 2002, Jack Winebrenner, AIM’s chief executive officer, desired to secure health insurance benefits for AIM’s members. On or about February 7, 2002, Winebrenner delivered applications for health insurance and a cashier’s check in the amount of $23,920.77 to Respondent. The pertinent applications were intended to secure health insurance with an entity known as Mutual Service Life Insurance Company and/or an entity known as United States Life Insurance Company. Winebrenner agreed to gather the applications on behalf of AIM and to forward them to Respondent and Respondent’s company, known as Eastwich Re, Inc. Respondent had represented that he was a licensed insurance agent. The identifying number of the $23,920.77 cashier’s check referred to hereinabove that was delivered to Respondent is 381524555. Respondent’s company, Eastwich Re, Inc., had a business checking account at Flagship National Bank (Flagship) in Sarasota, Florida. On February 12, 2002, the $23,920.77 check that Winebrenner had delivered to Respondent was deposited into Eastwich Re’s Flagship account. Respondent was a signatory on Eastwich Re’s Flagship account. Respondent did not secure health insurance from United States Life Insurance Company or Mutual Service Life Insurance Company or any other company for any of the AIM applicants. Respondent did not forward any premium moneys in the year 2002 to United States Life Insurance Company or Mutual Service Life Insurance Company for the purpose of securing health insurance for any of the AIM applicants. Respondent returned only $10,000.00 from the amount that Winebrenner gave to him in the $23,920.77 cashier’s check. Winebrenner testified that he requested several times of Respondent that the full amount ($23,920.77) of the cashier’s check be returned, once it was clear that no health insurance had been secured for any AIM applicants. AIM engaged private counsel to seek return of the entire $23,920.77 amount, but the efforts of private counsel were not successful. No reason was offered for Respondent only returning $10,000.00. On September 19, 1991, Respondent’s licenses and appointments as an insurance agent were surrendered as part of a Consent Order into which he entered with the Department of Insurance. In 1996, Respondent’s application for licensure as an insurance agent was denied. Respondent’s application for licensure was denied based on information “indicating that Respondent transacted insurance in 1992, in violation of the September 19, 1991 Consent Order which resulted in the surrender of all licenses and appointments held by Respondent . . . [and] had the same force and effect as a revocation.” Respondent was again granted a license as an insurance agent in 1997. Respondent was a licensed insurance agent in Florida at the relevant times that are material to the Administrative Complaint that is the basis for the instant action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Michael David Garrett guilty of violating the provisions of Section and Subsections 626.561(1); 626.611(7), (9), (10), and (13); 626.621(6); 626.9521; and 626.9541(1)(o)1., Florida Statutes. As penalty for these violations, it is recommended that Petitioner (1) revoke Respondent's insurance licenses and eligibility for licensure; (2) that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $20,000.00; and (3) that Respondent be required to pay restitution to AIM for the benefit of the defrauded insurance applicants in the amount of $13,920.77. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 28th day of June, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint; and If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent's Licensure Status Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a Florida-licensed life and health insurance agent. Counts I through VI At all times material to the instant case, Peter DeBello, Inc., d/b/a Emery Richardson Insurance (Corporation), a Florida corporation owned by Respondent's father, operated a general lines insurance agency (Emery Richardson Insurance) located in the state of Florida. The Corporation was formed to manage the assets of Emery Richardson, Inc., which assets Respondent's father had obtained through litigation. Respondent's father delegated to Respondent the authority to manage the affairs of the Corporation. The same day (in 1992) that the Corporation took possession of Emery Richardson, Inc.'s assets, it so notified the Department of Insurance (Department) by telephone. Shortly thereafter, Leo Joy, a Florida-licensed property and casualty insurance agent since 1961, was designated on a Department- provided form as the primary agent for Emery Richardson Insurance at its 240 Commercial Boulevard location in Lauderdale By The Sea, Florida, and the completed form was provided to the Department.3 At no time prior to the commencement of the instant administrative proceeding did Respondent himself personally notify the Department of the identity of Emery Richardson Insurance's primary agent. It was Mr. Joy who (in 1992) filled out the primary agent designation form and submitted it to the Department. Mr. Joy, however, did so on behalf of Respondent, who had verbally designated Mr. Joy as Emery Richardson Insurance's primary agent. Neither Respondent, Mr. Joy, nor any one else, has subsequently used the Department's primary agent designation form to advise the Department of Mr. Joy's continuing status as Emery Richardson Insurance's primary agent. In his capacity as president of the Corporation, Respondent, on behalf of the Corporation, in April of 1994, entered into an agreement (Agreement) with Ulico Casualty Company of Washington, D.C. (Ulico), which provided as follows: WHEREAS, the Applicant (Corporation), a licensed insurance agent and/or insurance broker, has heretofore obtained from the COMPANY (Ulico) or is desirous of obtaining from the COMPANY the placement of insurance for the Applicant's customers or principals, and WHEREAS, the COMPANY, using its facilities, has placed insurance for the Applicant or with whom Applicant has requested the placement of such insurance, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. It is mutually AGREED as follows: With reference to the placement of new insurance, Applicant shall submit to the COMPANY a separate application containing the name of each prospective insured, describing the risk to be considered for underwriting and binding. Applicant specifically understands and agrees that Applicant shall have no authority to authorize or write any insurance or bind any risk on behalf of the COMPANY without the prior written approval by a duly authorized representative of the COMPANY. With respect to any insurance heretofore placed with the COMPANY by the Applicant, and with respect to any insurance hereinafter placed by the Applicant, all premiums shall be payable to the COMPANY and such Applicant assumes and agrees to pay the COMPANY premiums on all the policies of insurance heretofore or hereinafter placed by Applicant with the COMPANY in accordance with the current statements rendered to the Applicant by the COMPANY, such payment to be made no later than 30 days after the month of issue of the insurance policy, or due date of any installment if issued on an installment basis, less any credits due to the Applicant for return premium, provided an appropriate credit memorandum therefor has previously been issued by the COMPANY to Applicant. In the absence of such credit memorandum, Applicant shall have no right of counterclaim or setoff with respect to any claimed credits due, but shall be required to establish entitlement to the same in a separate action. Applicant shall have the right, so long as Applicant is not indebted to the COMPANY, to deduct agreed upon commissions on each policy of insurance prior to remitting the remaining premium to the COMPANY. In the event that premiums on behalf of any insured party shall have been financed and refund of financed premiums are required from the COMPANY to the financing institution, Applicant shall forthwith refund and pay to the COMPANY all unearned commissions heretofore received with respect to such financed premiums. In the event that Applicant shall fail to make any payment to the COMPANY which is required to be made pursuant to this Agreement, within the time specified, the COMPANY shall have the right, at any time subsequent to the due date of payment, to cancel any policy on which the premium payments have not been remitted to the COMPANY, without prior notice to the Applicant, by sending notice of cancellation directly to the insured, except that Applicant shall continue to remain liable to the COMPANY for the payment of all premiums earned as of the date of cancellation which are collected by Applicant. Applicant represents that they are duly licensed as an insurance broker or agent for Casualty and Property Insurance as indicated in the States set forth below, and agrees that in the event that any license shall cease, terminate or be cancelled, that the Applicant will promptly notify the COMPANY accordingly. Applicant agrees, where required, to file at Applicant's expense, all necessary affidavits and collect all State or local premium taxes and to pay the same promptly to the respective taxing authorities on all insurance placed with the COMPANY, in accordance with the laws applicable in the State of licensing. No changes or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless such change or modification is subscribed, in writing, by the COMPANY and Applicant. Ulico is one of approximately 47 insurance companies that Emery Richardson Insurance represents. In the past five years, Emery Richardson Insurance has received from clients in excess of seven or eight million dollars in premium payments, which it has deposited in its various checking accounts and then paid over to these insurance companies. Ulico is the only one of these 47 insurance companies to have experienced "problems" in receiving from Emery Richardson Insurance monies due. These "problems" are detailed below. On June 13, 1994, the Corporation opened a checking account (account no. 458-902279-9, hereinafter referred to as the "Account") with Savings of America at the bank's Hollywood, Florida, branch. The Peter Debello described on the signature card for the Account was Respondent's father. Respondent's father, however, through execution of a power of attorney, had authorized Respondent to act on his behalf in connection with the Account. On August 20, 1996, Respondent drafted and signed four checks drawn on the Account, which were made payable to Ulico: check no. 804, in the amount of $1,729.15, for "Teamsters #769, Policy #BOU 907"; check no. 805, in the amount of $1,071.65, for "Sheet Metal Appr. #32, Policy #CLU 668"; check no. 806, in the amount of $700.00, for "Sheet Metal #32, Policy #CLU 682"; and check no. 807, in the amount of $96.05, for "Painters L.U. 160, Policy #CLU 451." (These policies will hereinafter be referred to as the "Subject Policies.") On January 24, 1997, Respondent drafted and signed a check (check no. 882) drawn on the Account, in the amount of $7,500.00, which was also made payable to Ulico. Check nos. 804, 805, 806, 807,4 and 882 were sent to Ulico as payment for monies the Corporation owed Ulico (pursuant to the Agreement) for insurance coverage obtained from Ulico by the Corporation for its clients (as reflected in invoices Ulico sent the Corporation, which hereinafter will be referred to as the "Subject Invoices").5 At the time that he drafted and signed these checks and submitted them to Ulico, Respondent assumed that there were sufficient funds in the Account to cover the amounts of the checks. In drafting and signing these checks and submitting them to Ulico, Respondent did not make any statements or representations that he knew to be false or misleading. All five checks were returned by Savings of America unpaid, with the explanation, "insufficient funds," stamped on each check.6 (These checks will hereinafter be referred to as the "Dishonored Checks.") Ulico's premium collection manager, Gayle Shuler, spoke with Respondent, as well as with Mr. Joy, "many times" concerning the monies the Corporation owed Ulico. At no time did either Respondent or Mr. Joy indicate that they disputed the Subject Invoices7 (although Respondent and Mr. Joy did contest other invoices that they received from Ulico). Although aware that the Dishonored Checks had been returned due to insufficient funds8 and knowing that Ulico desired payment, Respondent failed to act promptly to remedy the situation. It was not until early 1998, after the commencement of the instant administrative proceeding, that Respondent, on behalf of the Corporation, took steps to address the matter. At that time, using Fidelity Express money orders purchased between February 26, 1998, and March 1, 1998, (which Respondent dated August 26, 1996), Respondent paid Ulico a portion ($1,867.70) of the total amount of the Dishonored Checks. The money orders were sent to Ulico by certified mail, along with a cover letter from Respondent. Respondent "backdated" the money orders to reflect "when [the monies owed Ulico] should have been" paid. He did so without any intent to mislead or deceive. There is no clear and convincing evidence that anyone other than Ulico was injured by Respondent's failure to timely pay over to Ulico the monies Emery Richardson Insurance had received from its clients for the Subject Policies (which monies belonged to Ulico). Respondent's failure to timely make such payments, it appears, was the product of isolated instances of carelessness, neglect and inattention on Respondent's part,9 which, when considered in light of the totality of circumstances, including his problem-free dealings with the other insurance companies Emery Richardson Insurance represents, were not so serious as to demonstrate a lack of fitness, trustworthiness or competency to engage in transactions authorized by his license. Count VII In August of 1986, Respondent visited Gary Faske, Esquire, at Mr. Faske's office in Dade County, Florida. The purpose of the visit was to have Mr. Faske complete the paperwork necessary to add Mr. Faske to his new employer's group major medical insurance policy with Union Bankers Insurance Company. After the paperwork was completed, Respondent left Mr. Faske's office with the completed paperwork, as well as a check from Mr. Faske's employer to cover the cost of adding Mr. Faske to the group policy.10 It is unclear what Respondent did with the paperwork and check after he left Mr. Faske's office. In October of that same year (1986), Mr. Faske took ill and had to be hospitalized on an emergency basis. He assumed that he was covered by his employer's group major medical insurance policy, but he subsequently learned that he was wrong and had to pay between $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 in medical bills. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent (as opposed to Union Bankers Insurance Company or some other party) was responsible for Mr. Faske not having such coverage. Mr. Faske thereafter filed suit against Respondent and Union Bankers Insurance Company in Dade County Circuit Court. He settled his claim against the insurance company, but was unable to reach an agreement with Respondent. Respondent's case therefore went to trial, following which, on August 12, 1997, a Final Judgment11 was entered against Respondent in the amount of $40,271.00.12 Count VIII By filing an Address Correction Request, dated January 29, 1992, Respondent notified the Department that his new mailing address was 40 Hendricks Isle, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Department subsequently sent a letter, dated April 14, 1995, to Respondent at this 40 Hendricks Isle address. Respondent, however, "had just moved from that address," and the letter was returned to the Department stamped, "forward expired." In May of 1995, Respondent advised the Department in writing of his new mailing address. It is unclear whether such written notification was given more than, or within, 30 days from the date Respondent had moved to his new address.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations noted in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by suspending his license for 18 months; and (3) dismissing the remaining allegations of misconduct advanced in the First Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of February, 1999.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Respondent's license as a life and health debit agent and a general lines, (fire), agent should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of commercial insurance sales agents and the regulation of the insurance industry and profession in Florida. Respondent, Doyle Carlton Newell, was licensed in Florida as a life and health (debit) agent and a general lines agent limited to industrial fire. On April 26, 1991, Respondent entered into an agency contract with United Insurance Company of America, (United), which authorized him to sell authorized insurance policies for the company in Florida within his assigned territory. The terms of the agency contract obligated Respondent to remit to the company, on a weekly basis, all premium money collected by him on the company's behalf. For reasons not stated, United terminated Respondent from employment on May 11, 1992 by use of company form 38A, and Respondent's agency contract was cancelled immediately. The termination was followed by an audit of Respondent's account because for some time, company management had had some concern as to the condition of those accounts. Respondent had admitted to improperly taking money belonging to the company, and the audit was conducted during the period immediately following his termination in May, 1992 through August, 1992. Either prior to or as a part of the audit, Respondent submitted a list of all discrepancies he could recall. The audit revealed an actual deficiency of $3,731.67. After application of the bond submitted by and on behalf of Respondent, the ultimate shortage was $3,257.67. Respondent had, the day he left employment with the company, indicated he would reimburse it for any shortage when he overcame some personal matters and gambling problems. After the exact amount was determined, he was again asked, both orally and, several times through certified mail, to satisfy the obligation but as of the date of hearing, he had made no payments. All policies written by Respondent were honored by the company regardless of the fact he had not remitted the premiums paid therefor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of all misconduct and violations alleged except that relating to a lack of knowledge or technical competency, and revoking his license as an insurance agent in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0222 Doyle Carlton Newell 8414 Waterford Avenue, T3 Tampa, Florida 33604 Doyle Carlton Newell 2106 Two Lakes Road, Apartment 2T Tampa, Florida 33604 Doyle Carlton Newell 13637 Twin Lakes Lane Tampa, Florida 33624 Doyle Carlton Newell American General Life and Accident Insurance Co. 802 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Highlands has standing to challenge the Department's Emergency Rule 4ER93-20, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, whether Sections 2(d) and 6(a) should be invalidated because they constitute invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Moratorium Statute During Special Session B of 1993 the Florida Legislature passed HB 89- B. The Governor signed the bill into law on June 8, 1993. Now codified as Section 1 of Chapter 93-401, Laws of Florida, the law, in pertinent part, provides as follows: Section 1. Moratorium on cancellation and nonrenewal of residential property coverages.-- * * * (3) MORATORIUM IMPOSED.--Effective May 19, 1993, no insurer authorized to transact insurance in this state shall, until the expiration of this section pursuant to subsection (6), cancel or nonrenew any personal lines property insurance policy in this state, or issue any notice of cancellation or nonrenewal, on the basis of risk of hurricane claims. All cancellations or nonrenewals must be substantiated by underwriting rules filed with and accepted for use by the Depart- ment of Insurance, unless inconsistent with the provisions of this section. The Department of Insurance is hereby granted all necessary power to carry out the provisions of this section. Pursuant to the Moratorium Statute, on an emergency basis, the Department promulgated Emergency Rule 20. The Challenged Sections The sections of Emergency Rule 20 Highlands seeks to have invalidated are 2(d) and 6(a): 4ER93-20 Procedures For Applying for Moratorium Exemption and Required Insurer Corrective Action on Previous Notices of Cancellation or Nonrenewal. * * * (2) General Provisions. * * * (d) House Bill 89-B, as enacted at the May 1993 Special Legaislative (sic) Session, revoked all prior approvals issued by the Department, of insurer plans for programs of onrenewals and cancellations, where the non- renewal or cancellation was not effective as of May 19, 1993, notwithstanding that the notice of nonrenewl or cancellation was issued before May 19, 1993. * * * (6) Required Action On Prior Notices of Cancellation. (a) Any insurer which, prior to May 19, 1993, shall have issued any notice of cancellation or nonrenewal, whether approved by the Department or not, upon the basis of risk of hurricane claims, which cancellation or non- renewal was not yet effective as of May 19, 1993, shall revoke said notice and shall not cancel or nonrenew such policy, or if same has been cancelled or non-renewed subsequent to May 19, 1993, shall immediately reinstate coverage without lapse as if there had been no cancellation or nonrenewal. The insurer shall also, by no later than June 10, 1993, mail by first class mail to every policy holder and agent who was sent such notice or whose policy was so cancelled or non-renewed, written advice that the previous notice is withdrawn, and that the coverage will not be cancelled or nonrenewed, or that the coverage is rein- stated, as the case may be. In the event that the renewal premium has not been received because the insured was operating under the impression that the coverage was not renewable, or a premium is due because the insurer has already refunded the unearned premium, the insurer shall allow the insured a reasonable period after receipt of an invoice from the insurer, in which to forward the required premium, and the insurer shall provide coverage during that reasonable period. Insurance and the parties Insurance is defined in Florida as "a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies." Section 624.02, Florida Statutes. A highly regulated business activity, insurance is regulated primarily at the state level. The Department of Insurance, among other powers and duties, enforces the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code against insurers, including Highlands, defined by the Code as, "those persons engaged as indemnitor, surety or contractor in the business of providing insurance." Section 624.02, Florida Statutes. Highlands Insurance Company, domiciled in Texas, is a stock insurance company admitted to transact insurance in Florida as a foreign insurer. After many years of transacting insurance in Florida, Highlands was issued a "new permanent Certificate of Authority" from the Department by letter dated November 22, 1991. The certificate authorized Highlands to write "Homeowner Multi Peril" and "Commercial Multi Peril" lines of business as well as numerous other lines. Pursuant to its Certificate of Authority the standard homeowner's policy issued in Florida by Highlands allowed for cancellation by the homeowner at any time through notice to the company. It allowed for cancellation by Highlands under limited circumstances. And it allowed for non- renewal by written notice within a certain number of days before the policy's expiration date. Reinsurance From the early 1960s through June 30, 1993, Highlands wrote its Florida property and casualty insurance, through a reinsurance facility ("SU Reinsurance Facility") made available by Southern Underwriters, Inc. ("Southern"). Under the terms of the SU Reinsurance Facility, 93.5 percent of homeowners and commercial risks insured by Highlands are reinsured to a large group of reinsurers. Highlands retains only 6.5 percent of its homeowners and commercial lines risks. The SU Reinsurance Facility consists of two principal reinsurance agreements, which, in the aggregate, reinsure 93.5 percent of the liabilities of the homeowners and commercial lines insurance written in Florida by Highlands and its wholly owned subsidiary, Highlands Underwriters Insurance Company ("HUIC"). One agreement is the Quota Share agreement, the other is the Obligatory Surplus agreement. For each homeowners or commercial policy, the risks are ceded pro-rata under the two agreements, 25 percent to the Quota Share and 75 percent to the Obligatory Surplus. Highlands and HUIC retain 16 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively of the 25 percent of total risk attributable to the Quota Share agreement for a total of 5.375 percent of total risk. Highlands retains 1.5 percent of the 75 percent of total risk attributable to the Obligatory Surplus agreement or 1.125 percent of total risk. Highlands exposure to total risk, therefore, is 6.5 percent. The total risk for each policy attributable to Quota Share is 19.625 percent and to Obligatory Surplus 73.875 percent which equals, together, 93.5 percent of total risk. Hurricane Andrew and Claims against Highlands Hurricane Andrew struck Florida on August 24, 1992. The most costly civil disaster in the history of the United States, it caused over 16 billion dollars ($16,000,000,000) in insured losses, alone. As a result of the hurricane, Highlands incurred claims totalling approximately 337.3 million dollars ($337,300,000) under its homeowner and commercial lines policies. Highlands' 6.5 percent share of the losses on these claims was 21.9 million dollars ($21,900,000). The reinsurers' 93.5 percent share of the losses on the claims was 315.4 million dollars ($315,400,000). Highland's 1992 year-end policyholder surplus was 255.4 million dollars ($255,400,000). Thus, the claims incurred by Highlands as the result of Andrew exceeded its 1992 surplus by more than 80 million dollars ($80,000,000). Quota Share Reinsurance Cancellation By letter dated January 15, 1993, Highlands was formally notified that its reinsurers had terminated the Quota Share Facility for policies to be written or renewed on and after July 1, 1993. Highlands was unable to secure reinsurance to replace the terminated reinsurance. Highlands Response to Reinsurance Loss Based on the loss of the Quota Share reinsurance, Highlands notified the Department by letter dated January 22, 1993 (one week after the date of the letter by which Highlands received formal notice of the termination of the Quota Share reinsurance) that it would cease to write "Dwelling and Homeowner's insurance effective May 1, 1993 and after," Pet.'s Ex. 4., that is, that it would "discontinue" the writing of the "Multi Peril Homeowner's" line of insurance, one of the many lines authorized by the Certificate of Authority as shown on the certificate face. The January 22 "Discontinuance" letter was sent, in the words of Highlands' Vice-President for Reinsurance Jose Ferrer, because, "the magnitude of our involvement in Florida especially with Hurricane Andrew was such that we were losing our reinsurance protection, we had to take immediate action to protect our company." (Tr. 36) On January 22, 1993, discontinuance by an insurer from transacting any line of insurance in Florida was governed by Section 624.430, Florida Statutes and Emergency Rule 4ER92-11. Section 624.430, F.S., bears the catchline "Withdrawal of insurer or discontinuance of writing certain classes of insurance." With regard to the action taken by the January 22 letter, (notice of discontinuance of a line), the statute provides, in pertinent part: Any insurer desiring to ... discontinue the writing of any one or multiple kinds or lines of insurance in this state shall give 90 days' notice in writing to the department setting forth its reasons for such action. Rule 4ER92-11, (the "Withdrawal" Rule) entitled "Withdrawal of Insurers From the State," includes discontinuances of any line of property insurance as well as the complete cessation of writing any insurance business in an expansive definition of withdrawal: ... to cease substantially all writing of new or renewal business in this state, or to cease writing substantially all new or renewal business in any line of property insurance in this state; or in either of the two preceding instances, to cut back on new or renewal writings so substantially as to have the effects of a withdrawal. Section (2)(b), 18 Fla. Admin. Weekly 7318 (Nov. 25, 1992). The Withdrawal Rule goes on to interpret Section 624.430 as "authorizing the Department to evaluate the sufficiency of the reasons" for withdrawal (or as in the case of Highlands for discontinuance of one or more lines) and to "impose reasonable terms and conditions regarding withdrawal [including discontinuance] as are necessary to prevent or reasonably ameliorate such adverse consequences." Id. Section 3(c). At no time after Highlands' Notice was received by the Department and before May 1, 1993 did the Department provide a written response, request a meeting, impose conditions upon discontinuance, or otherwise object to or deny Highlands' Notice. In addition to mailing a notice that it would cease to write Homeowner's and Dwelling lines effective May 1, 1993, Highlands began sending out non-renewal notices. Some were sent after May 19, 1993, the effective date of the Moratorium Statute. Highlands began sending non-renewal notices because of the loss of reinsurance and because of its position that the moratorium did not apply to Highlands. It did not matter to Highlands whether Andrew had occurred or not. If the reinsurance had been cancelled without a hurricane, Highlands would have taken exactly the same steps. On the other hand, if the reinsurance had remained in place in the wake of Andrew, Highlands would be writing the same lines and policies it did before Andrew. Mr. Ferrer believed the reinsurance was cancelled, not because of the risk of future hurricane loss, but "as the result of the massive loss from Hurricane Andrew." (Tr. 51) While the obvious inference to be drawn from his belief is that the reinsurer fears the risk of future hurricane loss, that is not the only inference that could be drawn. Massive losses could render a reinsurer incapable of providing any reinsurance to any party under any circumstances, regardless of the risk of future hurricane claims. Nonetheless, Mr. Ferrer testified that if there were no risk of future hurricane loss to homeowners, Highland would continue to write policies it is now refusing to renew: Q ... If there were no risk of hurricane loss, would you write the business? A Yes, if we can include wind on all policies. HEARING OFFICER MALONEY: Could you repeat that answer ... ? A The answer is, if there is no windstorm ability, hurricane ability, we will have no problem writing the policies. (Tr. 54) Thus, Highlands began sending 45-day notices of nonrenewals to its homeowners policy holders, on the basis of its position that it had withdrawn the line in Florida and because it had lost its reinsurance. But Highlands is also not renewing policies which expire during the moratorium because of risk of future hurricane loss. Insurance Crisis in the Aftermath of Andrew The immensity of Andrew's impact to insurers doing business in Florida created an extremely serious situation for the Florida property insurance market. The Legislature described the situation this way: Hurricane Andrew ... has reinforced the need of consumers to have reliable homeowner's insurance coverage; however, the enormous monetary impact to insurers of Hurricane Andrew claims has prompted insurers to propose substantial cancellation or non- renewal of their homeowner's policyholders. ... [T]he massive cancellations and non- renewals announced, proposed, or contemplated by certain insurers constitute a significant danger to the public health, safety and welfare, especially in the context of a new hurricane season, and destabilize the insurance market. (Ch. 93-401, Laws of Florida, Section 1., Pet.'s Ex. 15). Between Hurricane Andrew and May 1993, the Department received notices from 38 insurers seeking to withdraw from homeowners insurance or reduce their exposure for homeowners insurance in the state. Twenty of these insurers filed notices of total withdrawal from the homeowners line. Eighteen sought to impose restrictions on new or renewal homeowners' business. Together the 38 insurers comprise approximately 40 percent of the Florida homeowners market. Of the 18 insurers seeking to impose restrictions, the greatest single source of impact on the Florida market came from the changes proposed by Allstate Insurance Company. Allstate proposed to nonrenew 300,000 homeowners policies in certain coastal counties. The Department scheduled two days of public hearing on Allstate's notice of intent to restrict writings. The first was scheduled to take place in Clearwater on May 17. The second, held in Plantation on May 18, was attended by "[p]robably close to a thousand [people] -- in excess of 500 hundred anyway. There was a lot of people." (Testimony of Witness Kummer, Tr. 148). Complaints from citizens were received expressing that "it was inappropriate for Allstate to be able to cancel their policies and that something should be done to assist in that." Id. at 150. The Department's Response On May 19, 1993, the Department promulgated Emergency Rule 4ER93-18, imposing a moratorium on the cancellation and nonrenewal of personal lines policies including homeowners, as follows: (3)90 Day Moratorium Imposed. As of the effective date of this rule, no insurer authorized to transact insurance in this state shall, for a period of 90 days, cancel or non- renew any personal lines property insurance policy in this state, or issue any notice of cancellation or nonrenewal, on the basis of risk of hurricane claims. All cancellations or nonrewals (sic) must be substantiated by underwriting rules established and in effect on August 23, 1992. The State's Response to the Insurance Crisis a. The Governor's Proclamation and Call for a Special Session. On May 25, 1993, Governor Chiles issued a Proclamation. Addressed "To the Honorable Members of the Florida Senate and Florida House of Representatives," it contains the following pertinent "Whereas" clauses: WHEREAS, the damage resulting from Hurricane Andrew has prompted the insurance industry in Florida to propose substantial cancellation or nonrenewals of homeowner insurance policies, and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to provide a moratorium period to protect Florida's home- owners while a study is conducted to assess the effect of these extraordinary events on the insurance industry which occurred as a result of Hurricane Andrew, and WHEREAS, a study of the commercial viability and competitiveness of the property insurance and re-insurance industry in Florida would provide the Governor and the Legislature with the information needed to assess whether current regulatory statutes should be amended, and WHEREAS, certain additional statutory amend- ments are required to make necessary insurance coverage available to provide fundamental protection to the citizens of this state, and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to amend the pro- clamation of May 13, 1993, to add to the matters considered by the Florida Legislature convened in special session, the implementa- tion of a moratorium on personal lines property insurance cancellations or non- renewals, ... (Pet.'s Ex. 24). The Proclamation convenes the Legislature for the purpose of considering: (a) Legislation to implement and, if necessary extend for [a] period not to exceed 90 additional days, the emergency rule promulgated by the Insurance Commissioner, 4ER93-18. 1993 Special Session B Pursuant to the Governor's May 25, 1993 Proclamation and a May 13, 1993 Proclamation, the 1993 Florida Legislature was called into special session, Special Session B. Finding the public necessity for an orderly property insurance market to be overwhelming, the 1993 Legislature imposed, "for a limited time," a moratorium on cancellation or nonrenewal of personal lines residential property insurance policies, beginning May 19, 1993. Id. The moratorium applies to personal lines residential property insurance. It does not apply to commercial coverages or passenger auto coverages, whether commercial or private. The Legislature allowed an exception from the moratorium for those insurers which "affirmatively demonstrate to the department that the proposed cancellation or nonrenewal is necessary for the insurer to avoid an unreasonable risk of insolvency." Section 1(4), Ch. 93-401, Laws of Florida. If the department determines that the exception affects more than 1 percent of any class of business within the personal lines residential property market, then the department may set a schedule for nonrenewals, cancellation or withdrawal that avoids market disruption. Presumably, the moratorium will cover the 1993 hurricane season. The section of Ch. 93-401, Laws of Florida, that imposes the moratorium is repealed on November 14, 1993. Promulgation of Emergency Rule 20 On June 4, 1993, the Department promulgated Emergency Rule 20, effective the same date. According to the testimony of Hugo John Kummer, Deputy Insurance Commissioner, Emergency Rule 20 embodies three aims: first, to set a procedure for applying for a moratorium exemption allowed by the Moratorium Statute, [set forth in the rule outside Sections 2(d) and 6(a)]; second, to require a notice to update consumers who had received notices of cancellation or nonrenewal with the information that the earlier notices had been rendered temporarily ineffective under the moratorium, [Section 6(a)], and; third, to inform insurers who had entered consent orders with the Department governing the method with which the insurers were with- drawing from the State or restricting coverage, that the approvals by the Department found in the consent orders were overridden by the Moratorium Statute, [Section 2(d)]. (Tr. 136) On this last point, Mr. Kummer's testimony is consistent with the testimony of Douglas Shropshire, Director of the Department's Division of Insurer Regulation, one of two drafters of Emergency Rule 20 and the drafter of Section 2(d). Mr. Shropshire testified that the rule "simply reiterates the statute and provides the procedures for implementing [the Moratorium Statute]." Resp.'s Ex. 11, p. 25. With regard to Section 2(d), Mr. Shropshire testified as follows: Q Now, could you please direct your attention specifically to just the words, "Revoked all prior approvals issued by the Department," and explain how this implements the statute. A It simply repeats what the statute provides. It, basically, reiterates the statute. That moratorium statute, 89-B, essentially freezes all cancellation or nonrenewal action during the pendency of the 89-B moratorium. Q What would be the status of the moratorium, subsequent to November 14th, 1993, as you understand it? A Assuming that no other legislation is enacted that affects the subject at the special session, then prior approvals would be, again, effective, and companies could again being (sic) acting -- they could, basically, pick up where they had left off when the moratorium began. Q All right. What, if any, additional restrictions does the language place upon insurers above the requirements of the statute? A Absolutely, none. It is apparent, therefore, that if the Department's silence in response to Highlands' January 22, 1993 "Discontinuance" Letter constituted an "Approval," it was not the intent of the Department through the promulgation of Section 2(d) of Emergency Rule 20 to revoke that approval. The goal of the Department in promulgating the section was simply to inform parties to Consent Orders that any Department approval contained in the Consent Order had been revoked. Moreover, the Department's intent in using the term "revoke" was not "revoke" in the legal sense of rendered null and void and forever ineffective but more akin to "suspend" in a temporal sense. It was the Department's intent that any prior approval by the Department of a withdrawal or imposition of restrictions by an insurer was simply suspended by the Moratorium Statute temporarily, that is, for the life of moratorium - until November 14, 1993. Likewise, if the Department's silence following the January 22 Discontinuance Letter constituted an "approval," it would be the Department's intent that Section 2(d) would have no effect other than suspending the approval until the repeal of the Moratorium Statute on November 14, 1993. The import of the Department's intent in promulgating Emergency Rule 20 is dependent on whether the rule is ambiguous or plain on its face as concluded below in this order's Conclusions of Law.
The Issue Did Mr. Carter violate sections 627.4554(4)(a), 627.4554(4)(c)2., 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2006, 2009, 2010); section 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2006, 2010); sections 626.9541(1)(k)2., 626.9541(1)(l), and 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2009, 2010); section 626.621(9), Florida Statutes (2010); and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-215.210? If so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Legislature has vested the Department with the authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. § 20.121(2)(g) and (h)1.d., Fla. Stat. (2011). At all times material to his proceeding, Mr. Carter was licensed by the Department as a Florida life (including variable annuity) agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life insurance agent (2-16) and life and health agent (2-18). He has been appointed as an agent for several different life insurance companies, including Allianz, EquiTrust and Great American, but not RiverSource. Counts I through V--W.K. and J.K. 2006, J.K. and W.K., and the MasterDex 10 J.K. was born in 1937 in Madrid Spain, where she finished high school. Spanish is J.K.'s native tongue. She cannot write in English and does not speak or understand English well. When J.K. was 17, she met W.K., a member of the United States' armed services. They married in Spain. Six months after the marriage, the newlyweds moved to Brooklyn, New York, W.K.'s home. They later relocated to Florida. W. K. constructed a mall in New Port Richey containing 18 stores that included a restaurant and a frame shop. J.K. ran the frame shop. Wal-Mart eventually bought the mall. By 2006, J.K. and W.K. had accumulated approximately two million dollars in brokerage investments. Until the decline of his health and mental faculties in 2008, W.K. handled all financial matters for the couple. J.K. did not understand them or have any interest in them. In 2006, J.K. and W.K. met Mr. Carter, who began marketing annuities to them. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact, combined with the fact that W.K. had died several years before the hearing, limit the ability to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to J.K. and W.K. or what information or instructions they gave him. On July 25, 2006, W.K. applied for a MasterDex 10 annuity policy from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. He paid an initial premium of $603,470.34 for the policy. W.K. was 73 years old at the time. W.K. obtained the money to fund the policy from the couple's Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Carter knew this. As part of the annuity application process, Mr. Carter submitted an Allianz "Product Suitability Form" for W.K. Completion of the form is a prerequisite to processing the application and issuing the policy. The stated purpose of the form is "to confirm that your [the applicant's] annuity purchase suits your current financial situation and long-term goals." The form, signed by W.K. and Mr. Carter, stated that an annuity was the source of the funds for payment of the annuity's premium. This statement was not accurate. Mr. Carter knew that it was not accurate. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a willful deception by Mr. Carter with regard to the policy. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a dishonest practice in his conduct of the business of insurance. The suitability form also indicated that W.K. expected the annuity to provide him a steady stream of income in six to nine years. Allianz accepted the application and issued the policy. Mr. Carter received a commission of $66,381.73. The MasterDex 10 is a complex financial product with many difficult to understand restrictions, conditions, interest options, bonuses, penalties, and limitations. The MasterDex 10 that W.K. and J.K. purchased paid interest linked to the performance of the Standard and Poors 500 stock market index. It also guaranteed interest of at least one percent. A "Nursing Home Benefit" was one of the options the MasterDex 10 provided. The "benefit" permitted the policy holder to receive payments of the full "annuitization" value of the policy over a period of five years or more if the holder was confined to a nursing home for 30 out of 35 consecutive days. The "annuitization value" is the maximum value that the policy can reach. It is the total of all payments that would be made to the holder if he either (1) let the premium and interest earned accumulate for a minimum of five contract years and then took ten years of interest only payments, followed by a lump sum payment of the annuitization value or (2) equal payments of principal and interest over ten or more years. Policy holders could make additional premium payments to increase the policy value. The policy also permitted limited withdrawals without penalty. After holding the policy for 12 months after the most recent premium payment, a holder could, without penalty, withdraw up to ten percent of the premium paid once a year until a maximum of 50 percent of the premium had been withdrawn. This meant that after one year passed, W.K. could make five annual withdrawals of $60,347.03. The policy also provided for loans on the annuity. In the years following this transaction, Mr. Carter maintained contact with W.K. and J.K. by periodically asking them to join him at a restaurant for lunch. Decline of W.K.'s Health While visiting his mother in Greece in 2008, W.K. fell and hit his head. Afterwards his health declined. On June 3, 2008, W.K. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and determined to be unable to make sound financial and medical decisions. From June 2008, forward, J.K. was very worried about W.K.'s health, caring for him, and making him as comfortable as possible. On November 5, 2008, W.K., at Mr. Carter's suggestion, executed a Durable Power of Attorney, prepared for her by a lawyer, giving J.K. broad authority to act on his behalf in financial matters. At some point, W.K. was admitted to the Bear Creek Skilled Nursing Center and resided there for a period of time. On April 4, 2010, he was discharged from Bear Creek. W.K. resided in Bear Creek for a period of time. Although there is some hearsay evidence about when W.K. entered Bear Creek, the evidence does not corroborate direct evidence or hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection in circuit court, sufficient to prove when W.K. entered Bear Creek. Consequently, the evidence does not establish the length of time that W.K. spent in the facility and does not establish that W.K. would have been eligible for the "Nursing Home Benefit" described in paragraph 16. After W.K. returned home in April, J.K. engaged an enterprise called "Granny Nannies" to provide caretakers at home. The services cost approximately $12,000 per month. During this period J.K.'s health also declined markedly. Among other things, she had appendicitis and breast cancer. Treatment of the cancer required chemotherapy, which left her in pain and exhausted. During this time Mr. Carter obtained a copy of the power of attorney executed by W.K. in favor of J.K. On June 18, 2010, the court appointed Paula Rego as guardian for W.K and J.K. with authority to act on their behalf in all matters affecting property rights. On November 26, 2010, W.K. died in hospice care after a short hospital stay. The Events of 2010 In December 2009, J.K. met with insurance sales agents and sisters Kimberly Trotter and Chandra Valdez. J.K. had responded to a mail solicitation by them. During the meeting, J.K. and Mss. Trotter and Valdez realized that J.K. knew them because J.K. and W.K. had rented space to the sisters' parents. Capitalizing on the connection and J.K.'s concerns about paying the monthly costs of care for W.K., Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez began providing financial advice and marketing annuity products that they sold. They advocated liquidating W.K.'s and J.K.'s existing annuities, including the MasterDex 10. In December 2009, Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez sold W.K. and J.K. two annuities with Great American for approximately $661,098. On January 28, 2010, W.K. authorized J.K. and Ms. Trotter to access policy information. In January 2010, Ms. Trotter attempted to liquidate the MasterDex 10 policy and transfer the funds to Great American. Allianz notified Mr. Carter of this in February 2010. He intervened to stop the transfer. On March 3, 2010, Allianz received another request to liquidate the MasterDex 10 from J.K. Allianz sent her what it calls a "conservation letter." The purpose of the letter is to "conserve" the business with the company. The letter also identified needed information, including a copy of J.K.'s power of attorney for W.K. On March 4, 2010, Allianz notified Mr. Carter of the liquidation request. He contacted J.K. and began a successful effort to obtain a letter asking to reverse the liquidation. On March 17, 2010, Ms. Trotter or Ms. Valdez again convinced J.K. to liquidate the MasterDex 10 funds and transfer them to Great American. Again Mr. Carter acted to stop the liquidation. On March 23, 2010, J.K. signed a letter written by Mr. Carter asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to RiverSource, a company that issued another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was. She only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. On March 26, 2010, J.K. submitted a liquidation request form for the MasterDex 10 signing it on behalf of herself and W.K. J.K. submitted the request at the urging of Ms. Trotter and/or Ms. Valdez. Allianz received the request on March 31, 2010. It began processing the full liquidation of the annuity policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent Allianz a letter saying that J.K. did not want to liquidate W.K.'s MasterDex 10 policy. The letter claimed that this was the second time that competing agents had tried to cancel the policy. Allianz reinstated the policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent a handwritten letter to Great American stating that J.K. did not want the MasterDex 10 policy canceled. The letter refers to having previously provided the power of attorney. Mr. Carter signed the letter. J.K. signed the letter on behalf of W.K. and herself. On April 7, 2010, Great American received a typewritten letter addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" stating that J.K. and W.K. wanted to transfer their funds to Great American since "December and January" and that J.K. did not see Mr. Carter on April 1 and did not sign a letter that he sent. On April 9, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote and sent a letter, signed by J.K. at his request, asking Great American to cancel the policies sold by Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez and waive all surrender charges. The letter states that J.K. is fighting cancer and that the agents forced her to sign the policy documents. Mr. Carter included with the letter a Withdrawal/Surrender Request Form completed by him and signed by J.K. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote a letter to Allianz stating that J.K. needed more than ten percent of the value of the MasterDex 10 policy (the penalty-free withdrawal permitted) to provide the funds needed to take care of W.K. The letter states that W.K. and J.K. wished to change ownership of the policy to J.K. only and then to fully surrender the policy. Mr. Carter's letter is signed by J.K. on her behalf and on behalf of W.K. Mr. Carter enclosed forms with the same date, which he prepared for J.K.'s signature, requesting the change of ownership and liquidation. Allianz sent J.K. a letter, with a copy to Mr. Carter, on April 29, 2010, identifying alternatives to liquidating MasterDex 10 for getting the money needed to care for W.K. The Allianz letter also disclosed that liquidating the policy would result in a substantial loss of money. In part, the letter stated: We understand you wish to surrender your annuity policy. As we review your request, we want to be certain you are aware of all the alternatives that are available to you. This information can help you make an informed decision based on your best financial interests. It is possible for you to access a portion of your policy's value while your policy remains in deferral. This would allow its value to continue to grow tax-deferred, and still provide the cash you need. Your annuity may permit you to take a free withdrawal, policy loan, or partial surrender. Finally, it's important to realize exactly how much you will be giving up should you decide to fully surrender your policy. Your policy's current Accumulation Value is $751,566.07 and its Surrender Value is $585,014.49. By surrendering your policy now, you are giving up the difference between these two values [$166,551.58]. Any one of these options could provide you with needed cash while allowing you to receive your full accumulation value in cash after your policy's 10-year surrender charge period. The letter provided a ten-day period, called a conservation period, during which J.K. could withdraw her request to liquidate the policy. Mr. Carter called Allianz on April 30, 2010, and spoke to Amber Hendrickson. In the recording of the conversation, Mr. Carter sounds agitated and speaks forcefully. J.K. participated in the telephone call. She is quiet and deferential. In the call, J.K. waives the ten-day "conservation" period. Mr. Carter insists that Allianz process the surrender swiftly. Allianz processed the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 on April 30, 2010. It wired funds from the liquidated annuity to J.K.'s Regions Bank account the same day. On April 30, 2010, J.K. signed a check for $475,000 to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company to purchase an annuity. Mr. Carter wrote the check. Also on April 30, 2010, J.K. signed an EquiTrust annuity application completed by Mr. Carter. The form indicates that the policy is not replacing an existing annuity contract. This is not an accurate representation. On April 30, 2010, Mr. Carter also completed an Annuity Suitability Questionnaire for J.K. to sign and submit with the EquiTrust application. He indicated that J.K. had income from a pension. Mr. Carter knew that this was not accurate. Mr. Carter also indicated that J.K.'s income was adequate to cover all expenses, including medical. He knew this was not accurate because he was fully aware of the cost of W.K.'s caregivers and J.K.'s concern about them. The form, as completed by Mr. Carter, is misleading about the source of the funds for purchase of the annuity. He made the technically correct representation that the funds come from a checking account. But the funds were from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 and were placed in the checking account the same day the application was completed. The funds were actually from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. The form also stated that the proposed annuity would not replace any product. Mr. Carter knew this was not accurate also. He knew that the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10, albeit in a lower amount, because J.K. kept some cash and lost a good deal of money in surrender costs. A letter Mr. Carter sent to EquiTrust on August 16, 2010, when it was investigating complaints about J.K.'s purchase of the annuity, demonstrates that he knew the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter's letter described the surrender and purchase this way: "An amount of $475,000 was placed into the EquiTrust Annuity (Market Power Bonus Index's Fixed account), the remaining balance of $110,038.75 was sent to her checking account, plus two other accounts valued at $50,000 that were closed, and a Jefferson National check that wasn't cashed for $3,500." Also, on April 23, 2010, J.K. signed, on behalf of herself and W.K., a Surrender/Withdrawal Request to RiverSource asking for the full withdrawal of the net accumulation value of their annuity contract with RiverSource. RiverSource sent J.K. a check for $26,430.07. It deducted $2,158.32 for a withdrawal charge and $295.98 for a "rider charge" from the full value of $28,884.37. On May 5, 2010, EquiTrust received J.K.'s policy application documents and check. EquiTrust required additional documents including a financial needs analysis form. Mr. Carter sought an exception to the requirement for a financial needs analysis form. He did not receive the exception. On May 6, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust the required financial needs analysis form. He completed the form for J.K., who was 72 at the time. J.K. also signed this form. The form repeats some of the incorrect statements of the previous forms. It is also includes additional incorrect statements. The instructions for the section about "Replacements" states, "complete if an existing life insurance policy or annuity contract will be used to fund this product." Mr. Carter checked "no" as the response to the question: "Is the agent assisting you with this annuity purchase the same agent on the life insurance policy or annuity contract being replaced?" This indicates he is aware that the policy replaces the MasterDex 10. The response was also a representation that he knew to be false, because he was the agent on the policy being replaced. Mr. Carter also indicated on the needs analysis form that the source of funds for the EquiTrust annuity purchase was "Stocks/Bonds/Mutual Funds." Mr. Carter knew that this representation was not correct. It was also inconsistent with the statement on the suitability questionnaire that the funds came from a checking account. On May 18, 2010, J.K. signed a letter, written by Mr. Carter, asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to Genworth, a company holding another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. J.K. signed a letter, dated May 20, 2010, instructing EquiTrust to cancel the annuity she had with it. On May 23, 2010, Mr. Pearson submitted a form, signed by J.K., using the power of attorney, asking Genworth to liquidate an annuity held for W.K. On May 26, 2010, EquiTrust received the request to cancel J.K.'s policy and advised Mr. Carter. On May 31, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust a letter saying that J.K. did not want to cancel and enclosed a letter he prepared, dated May 26, 2010, and signed by J.K. asking EquiTrust to withdraw the cancelation request. The letter also stated that an agent who provided her untruthful information initiated the request. On June 2, 2010, at Mr. Carter's urging, J.K. sent EquiTrust a letter saying she wanted to keep the EquiTrust policy. On June 2, 2010, Mr. Carter sent, by facsimile, a letter written by him and signed by J.K. asking Great American to make Peter Gotsis her annuity agent. J.K. did not know Peter Gotsis and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter asked her to. On June 29, 2010, EquiTrust received a check for an additional $90,302.19 premium for J.K.'s policy. In July 2010, with the assistance of employees at her bank and others, J.K. contacted an attorney. The attorney, Joan Hook, contacted Mr. Carter and the various companies with annuities. Due to the efforts of Ms. Hook, J.K.'s guardian, Ms. Rego, Ms. Karen Ortega of the Department, and others, the series of transactions were undone and J.K. returned to her position before the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. From December 2010 forward, it was clear to Mr. Carter or anyone else having regular dealings with J.K. that she is confused, uninformed about financial matters, compliant, reasoning poorly, and not capable of making sound decisions. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact combined with the fact that W.K. died several years before the hearing, makes it impossible to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to W.K. and J.K. and to determine what information or instructions they gave him. Much of the evidence related to Counts I through V is hearsay evidence that would not be admissible over objection in a civil action. In addition, there is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of W.K. and J.K., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the various products promoted by Mr. Carter or of the liquidation of the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the Allianz and the EquiTrust annuities. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz and EquiTrust. Count VI--G.D. and K.D. G.D. lives in New Port Richey, Florida, where she moved from New York about 40 years ago. She was born on January 17, 1935, and has a ninth-grade education. G.D. had worked as a courier. Her investment experience consists of funding certificates of deposit (CDs), placing money in a mutual fund, and purchasing a Transamerica annuity. She is frugal and a conservative investor. G.D. is married to K.D. who was born April 12, 1927. Both are retired. G.D. met Mr. Carter in January 2010, when she responded to a postcard that he sent suggesting that he could save her money on taxes on social security payments. At that time, G.D. was 75 years old and K.D. was 83. G.D. was and is in bad health due to having suffered four strokes. She had difficulty speaking to Mr. Carter during his sales presentations. G.D. and K.D. disclosed to Mr. Carter that their total monthly family income, including social security and K.D.'s pension income, was approximately $2,400.00. They also disclosed that their assets included approximately $325,000.00 in CDs held with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union. G.D. and K.D. each owned an annuity, one with Hartford and one with Transamerica, which they told Mr. Carter about. Together, the annuities had a value of approximately $85,000. G.D. and K.D. also had approximately $66,000 in a money market account. Mr. Carter convinced G.D. and K.D. to liquidate their CDs to purchase two Allianz annuities called a MasterDex 10 Plus. One required payment of a $38,219.39 premium. The other required payment of a $287,365.00 premium. The couple applied for the annuities for G.D., with K.D. as the beneficiary, because he was the older of the two. Mr. Carter completed the applications, which they signed. Part six of the applications is titled: "Replacement (this section must be completed)." It asks two questions. The first is: "Do you have existing life insurance or annuity contracts?" Mr. Carter checked "no" as an answer. This was not correct, and he knew it. The second question asks: "Will the annuity contract applied for replace or change existing contract or policies?" This Mr. Carter correctly answered "no." Section six also asks for the amount of coverage in force. Mr. Carter did not provide this information. Mr. Carter also completed the Florida Senior Consumer Suitability Form Questionnaire for G.D. and K.D., which they signed. The form accurately reflects the couple's net worth, liquid assets, and income. It reports correctly that they owned or had owned CDs, fixed annuities, and variable annuities. The completed form also accurately reflects the couple's desire for guaranteed income. The form discloses that the annuity must be owned a minimum of 15 years to receive its maximum value. The MasterDex 10 Plus annuity is a complicated financial product with a ten percent "bonus" that the buyer does not receive unless she holds the policy for 15 years. In fact, holding the policy for 15 years is the only way to get the full benefit of the policy. While money may be withdrawn earlier, that results in losses of the benefits and in some cases penalties. For instance, if a policy holder chooses to liquidate the policy, the value she receives is only 87.5 percent of the premium paid with one percent interest for the period held. These provisions have a substantial financial effect on the benefits of the annuity. For example, in the fifth year, the cash surrender value of the $38,219.49 premium policy is $36,027.00. About ten months after purchasing the annuities, G.D. and K.D. began having second thoughts about the purchase of the annuities. G.D. consulted with the financial advisor "Wayne" at her bank. G.D. later concluded that she had also misunderstood the interest rate. Mr. Carter had shown her sales material with the ten percent "bonus," which generated a high interest rate of 13.3 percent for one year. But G.D. did not understand that the interest rate only applied in one year, and the money was not immediately available. On November 17, 2010, G.D., with Wayne's help, composed a complaint letter to Allianz that summarized her complaints and requested that her premium payments be returned without fees. On November 28, 2010, Carter responded with a letter to Allianz defending his annuity sales. On December 17, 2010, Allianz's employee, Mary Lou Fleischacker, advised G.D. by letter that the "free look" period for cancelling the contracts had passed. But Fleischacker did request further information about the sales. By two letters dated January 10, 2011, Allianz advised G.D. that she would suffer over $80,000 in penalties if she canceled the contracts. G.D.'s efforts to terminate the annuities prompted Carter to come uninvited into G.D.'s home and insistently demand that G.D. telephone Allianz and cancel her attempt to rescind the contracts. He also asked her, without explanation, to wait one week before liquidating the policies. G.D. refused. Carter repeatedly telephoned G.D. and returned uninvited to the house several times making the same demand. G.D. refused to answer her door. Mr. Carter came to G.D.'s daughter's house uninvited one evening, told her that her mother was going to lose a lot of money, and revealed her mother's financial matters to her. Mr. Carter demanded that G.D.'s daughter deliver to her mother for signature a letter he wrote rescinding the liquidation requests. G.D.'s daughter agreed to get Carter to leave. G.D.'s daughter feared for her mother's safety because of Mr. Carter's harassing telephone calls to her and her mother. She urged her mother to call the police. G.D. called the police and a New Port Richey officer told Mr. Carter to cease the harassment, and then filed a report on January 13, 2011. Mr. Carter did not contact G.D. or her daughter after that. Eventually, with the assistance of Department Investigator Ortega, G.D. was able to obtain the return of her funds from Allianz. There is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of G.D. and K.D., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the liquidation of the CDs and purchase of the MasterDex 10 Plus annuities as promoted and sold by Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the MasterDex 10 Plus annuity. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz. Mr. Carter's repeated, persistent, and overbearing efforts to require G.D. to speak with him about the cancelation and withdraw it demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance. Count VII--G.B. G.B. was born on January 14, 1930. She has a high school education. G.B. worked at and retired from Lucent Technology wiring telephone boards. She receives a small pension. Her husband, K.B., managed their financial affairs before he died ten years ago. Before K.B.'s death, the couple maintained investment accounts with Schwab. After K.B.'s death, Schwab employee, Barry Tallman, recommended that G.B. seek financial advice from Christopher Trombetta, CPA. She did so. Mr. Carter and a colleague, Christopher Drew, met with G.B. on June 29, 2010. She was 70 years old, timid, and easily confused. G.B. had responded to a promotional postcard she received from them purporting that the law governing taxes on social security income had changed and that they could lower her taxes. Mr. Carter was the person who presented G.B. information and persuaded her to purchase an annuity in the course of a meeting that lasted one to two hours. The evidence does not permit a determination of what representations and information Mr. Carter presented in his sales meeting with G.B. Her memory of the meeting was not distinct. She was confused about the meeting and did not remember facts precisely or explicitly. Mr. Carter completed applications for EquiTrust annuity products. G.B. signed the applications. Mr. Carter also completed financial needs analyses. G.B. signed them also. A box that asks if the applicant is aware that the annuity may be "a long-term contract with substantial penalties for early withdrawal" was checked "yes." The form also accurately represented that the source of funds for the annuity premium was stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. The other representations in the form were accurate. Mr. Carter persuaded G.B. to purchase two EquiTrust Market Power Plus annuities. G.B. signed two EquiTrust annuity contracts ending with 29F (E-29F) and 30F (E-30F). The initial premium for E-29F was $458,832.71. The initial premium for E-30F was $118,870.34. Both annuities were designed to provide G.B. with income in 2036. The funds for the premium came from the liquidation of her stock brokerage account. Both contracts had 20 percent surrender charges for the first two years of ownership. G.B. could not have surrendered the contract with its full financial benefits without a penalty until she was 95 years old. Mr. Carter delivered the annuity contracts to G.B. on August 6, 2010. The contracts provided G.B. the right to cancel the annuity by returning it within 15 days of the date she received it. Soon afterwards, Barry Tallman notified G.B. that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated. Transamerica Agent William Pearson had liquidated the accounts to transfer the money for purchase of the EquiTrust annuities. She was surprised. G.B. grew concerned about the annuities and consulted Mr. Trombetta and a financial advisor named Judith Gregory on September 20, 2010. With their assistance, G.B. wrote a complaint letter to EquiTrust asserting that Mr. Carter had assured her, among other things, that the annuities would protect her money should she enter a nursing home. G.B. wanted to cancel the annuities and have her full premium returned. G.B.'s letter to EquiTrust said, "I do not want any calls or visits from the agent or the agent's office." Mr. Carter learned of the effort to cancel the annuities. On November 15, 2010, at Mr. Carter's suggestion, he and Mr. Drew returned to G.B.'s home uninvited and unannounced. Mr. Carter insisted on entering and speaking to G.B. Mr. Carter began loudly and forcefully arguing with G.B. She telephoned Mr. Trombetta and asked that he speak to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter yelled at Mr. Trombetta. Mr. Trombetta credibly describes part of the conversation as follows: And before I could barely get that out, Rick exploded on me. He snapped and he started cursing up and down. F'n me up one side and down the other. And "you don't F'n know what you are talking about. You don't care about this person. You don't f'n know what you are doing;" and this and that. When G.B. returned to the telephone to speak with Mr. Trombetta, he advised her to call the police if Mr. Carter did not leave her house within five minutes. Mr. Carter and Mr. Drew left. EquiTrust eventually returned over $600,000 to G.B. There is no expert testimony evaluating and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of G.B.'s life expectancy which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the two annuities Mr. Carter sold G.B. Mr. Carter's conduct, in his unannounced visit to G.B. to try to persuade her to change her plans to liquidate the annuities and his conversation with Mr. Trombetta, demonstrated a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order revoking the licenses of Richard Edward Carter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2012.
