The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's denial of Petitioners', Brookwood- Walton County Convalescent Center and Brookwood-Washington County Convalescent Center (Brookwood), interim rate request for general and professional liability insurance was proper and in keeping with state and federal laws and the rules and regulations governing Florida's Medicaid program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Brookwood-Washington County Convalescent Center and Walton County Convalescent Center (Brookwood) are licensed nursing homes in the State of Florida. The Brookwood facilities have historically been high Medicaid providers. Both participate in the Florida Medicaid program. Washington County Convalescent Center is currently 90 percent Medicaid and Walton County Convalescent Center is 85 percent Medicaid. The statewide average for all nursing homes in Florida is 50-55 percent Medicaid. Such high Medicaid participation makes Brookwood extremely sensitive to changes in its allowable costs and its ability to recover those costs. Florida's Medicaid program is needs-based, providing nursing home care to persons eligible for such care who fall below a certain level of income and assets. Medicaid is a "prospective" reimbursement program in that reimbursement to a nursing home is based on the facility's cost history adjusted or inflated to approximate future costs. Adjustments are made and reimbursement rates are set based on a nursing home's cost report for allowable costs it has incurred in the past year. In determining allowable reimbursable costs, AHCA utilizes the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan, Version XIX, dated November 27, 1995 (Reimbursement Plan), the reimbursement principles of the Federal Medicare Program's Health Insurance Manual (also known as the Provider Reimbursement Manual, PRM, or HIM-15), and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or accepted industry practice. In making determinations as to allowable reimbursable costs, one first looks to the Plan, then HIM-15 and finally, GAAP. With certain exceptions not relevant here, The Florida Medicaid program reimburses all allowable costs, as those costs are defined in the Reimbursement Plan and HIM-15. Premiums paid by a nursing home for liability insurance are an allowable cost under the Reimbursement Plan. Allowable costs are broken out in the categories of property, patient care, and operating expenses. As indicated, in determining the prospective rate, AHCA inflates the reported allowable costs in each category forward subject to various class ceiling limitations and target limitations. A class ceiling is an upper limit on the cost that will be reimbursed. A target limitation is a limit on the rate of increase of costs from year to year. In short, a nursing home provider may be under its class ceilings; however, any increase in its costs that exceeds a certain percentage amount will not be recognized for reimbursement purposes. After applying the inflation factor, the class ceilings and the target limitations to allowable costs, AHCA arrives at a per-patient, per-day rate that the nursing home will be paid during the next year. Because nursing home reimbursement is prospective and subject to target limits, a nursing facility might be unable to recover its allowable costs of providing services if it experiences unanticipated expenses that cause its allowable costs to unexpectedly rise. In such cases, the Plan has provisions that allow, under very limited circumstances, an interim rate adjustment for an unexpected increase in costs. Such interim rate increases are covered in Section IV.J. of the Plan. In 1999, Brookwood's liability insurance premium cost was $400,000 for its six Florida facilities and one North Carolina facility. In the year 2000, Brookwood's liability insurance premium cost increased to $4,000,000. Of that amount, the premium cost for Walton County Convalescent Center increased from $56,000 to $546,000 and the premium cost for Washington County Convalescent Center increased from $84,000 to $819,000. The premium increase occurred after Brookwood's rates had been set based on its 1999 insurance costs. Additionally, in September of 2000, Brookwood's liability insurer left the state. Brookwood has since been unable to obtain liability insurance for its Florida facilities. It was possible for Brookwood to self-insure, but it did not. Self-insurance is generally only feasible for facilities larger than Brookwood. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that Brookwood could not self-insure. On May 30, 2000, faced with this unforeseen increase in liability insurance premiums, Brookwood applied to AHCA for an interim rate effective retroactively to January 1, 2000. This was necessary because the large increase in costs would not be covered by the normal rate of inflation allowed by the department and the cost of the increase would not be recoverable through the normal prospective reimbursement methodology due to the lag time between the cost increase and the filing of the cost report. In addition, without an interim rate Brookwood would not receive an adjustment to its target rate, thereby, limiting reimbursement for any increased costs it did report on its cost reports. Brookwood only requested interim rates for these two facilities because its other four facilities were at or above the cost ceilings and could get no relief from an interim rate. In other words, for those four facilities, Medicaid will not participate in payment for the extra costs incurred by the increased liability insurance premiums. Even for the two facilities at issue here, if an interim rate is granted, AHCA will not reimburse for any costs that exceed the cost ceilings. The increase of premiums and subsequent pull out by several insurance companies were part of a reaction to increased loss in the area of nursing home liability. The crisis was, in part, due to an increase in civil litigation against nursing homes being brought under Sections 400.022 and 400.023, Florida Statutes. Indeed, Florida's rate of nursing home liability litigation is significantly above the national average. However, Florida's nursing home population is also significantly larger than the national average. However, the crisis was also due to many other factors which impact liability and rates in Florida. While there may be some debate about the causes of the increased litigation, there is no debate that the cost of liability insurance increased significantly over a short period of time with some insurance companies ceasing to write liability insurance for nursing homes in Florida. The Agency denied Brookwood's request because no new interpretation of law by the state or federal government pertaining to liability insurance had occurred which caused Brookwood's costs to increase. As indicated earlier, the Plan contains provisions that allow a nursing home participating in the Medicaid program to request an interim change in its reimbursement rate when it incurs costs resulting from patient care or operating changes made to comply with existing state regulations and such costs are at least $5,000 or one percent of its per diem. The language of Section IV.J.2 of the Estate's Long- Term Care Reimbursement Plan states that: J. The following provisions apply to interim changes in component reimbursement rates, other than through the routine semi- annual rate setting process. * * * 2. Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient care or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider's current total per diem rate. Other subsections of Section J of the Reimbursement Plan deal with new requirements or new interpretation of old requirements. Those subsections do not apply in this case. The term standards as used in Section J refers to standards in the Reimbursement Plan, Section IV titled "Standards," the standards of care and operation detailed by the Medicaid program in its provider handbooks and such standards as are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations, and HCFA/HHS guidelines, as well as state statutes and rules. These standards are the usual or customary method or practice used by the nursing home industry to gain reimbursement from Medicaid. The term standards include reimbursement standards, methods or principles for medicaid providers. In essence, a nursing home would have to incur additional or new costs to receive an interim rate adjustment. Brookwood's increase in insurance premiums was such an increase in costs, which would be allowable subject to ceiling and target limitations. At the time of Brookwood's request, there was no specific requirement in the state Reimbursement Plan, state or federal law requiring that liability insurance be carried by a nursing home. Additionally, there was no change to the Reimbursement Plan, state, or federal law or regulation requiring that liability insurance be carried by a nursing home. On the other hand, the reimbursement standards or requirements set forth in HIM-15 make it clear that a prudent Medicaid provider is expected to carry liability insurance or self-insurance in order to be reimbursed for any uninsured losses. Specifically, Section 2160.2 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual states: Liability damages paid by the provider, either imposed by law or assumed by contract, which should reasonably have been covered by liability insurance, are not allowable. Section 2161 of HIM-15 states that the reasonable costs of such insurance are allowable. Section 2162.1 of HIM-15 states that losses in excess of the deductible or co-insurance are allowable costs so long as the amount of insurance was consistent with sound management practices. Section 2162.5 of HIM-15 recognizes the allowability of deductibles, so long as they do not exceed 10 percent of the entity's net worth or $100,000 per provider. It also states that if you set a deductible higher than those amounts (or assume all the risk), any losses exceeding the 10 percent or $100,000 will not be allowable as recognized costs. The general implication of these and other related sections of HIM-15 is that a prudent provider is expected to carry liability insurance or be self-insured. Thus, a provider will be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of liability insurance, any reasonable deductible, and any losses in excess of reasonable insurance coverage. These limitations on loss recovery or reimbursement are standards for purposes of determining whether a interim rate increase is allowable. These standards were in effect at the time Brookwood's premiums increased. Thus, in order to comply with Medicaid's reimbursement standards, Brookwood had to remain insured or self-insured. The choice of which type of insurance to utilize to meet the reimbursement standard is left to the provider. Brookwood reasonably chose to insure through an insurance company. Since Brookwood was required to make such a choice in order to comply or conform to Medicaid's reimbursement standards, Brookwood is entitled to an interim rate increase. However, the interim rate provisions of the Plan only recognize such rates submitted within 60 days prior to the date of the interim rate request. Based on this limitation, Petitioners' rate increase is limited to the increase in premium incurred 60 days prior to its interim rate request around May 30, 2000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that A final order be entered granting Brookwood's interim rate request limited to the 60 days prior to the initial rate request. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 21st day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven A. Grigas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed in Florida as a life and variable annuity contracts salesman and as a life and health insurance agent. In 1994 twin sisters Edith Ellis and Gertrude Franklin attended a luncheon at which Respondent made a presentation. The sisters were then 79 years old, and both were the owners of single-premium insurance policies issued by Merrill Lynch. They decided to cash in their existing policies and purchase new policies through Respondent. Both Ellis and Franklin executed 1035 exchange forms whereby the monies obtained from cashing in their Merrill Lynch policies were transferred to the insurance companies issuing their new policies. Both were charged a substantial penalty by Merrill Lynch. On August 11, 1994, Security Connecticut Insurance Company issued to Edith Ellis a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy with a face value of $150,000. The cover page of the policy recites in bold print that it is a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy, directs the insured to read the policy, and provides a 20-day period for canceling the policy with a full refund. It also contains a statement that provides: This Policy provides flexible premium, adjustable life insurance to the Maturity Date. Coverage will end prior to the Maturity Date if premiums paid and interest credited are insufficient to continue coverage to that date. Dividends are not payable. Flexible premiums are payable to the end of the period shown, if any, or until the Insured's death, whichever comes first. The cover page also recites that the first premium is $75,000 and that the monthly premium is $805.75. After deductions, Merrill Lynch only transferred $44,928.81, and Ellis never paid any additional premiums. Therefore, the policy was not funded to maturity since the company only received a partial payment. The insurance company did not set up this policy to receive periodic premium payments because it was originally anticipated that the company would receive $75,000 which would carry the expense, based upon the then interest rate. The policy was dependent upon interest rates. The company sent annual statements, however, to both Ellis and to the agency where Respondent worked. These statements clearly showed a declining accumulated value for the policy and specified how much it had declined from the previous year. When Ellis surrendered the policy on July 3, 2002, its value was $4,849. First Colony Life Insurance issued a flexible premium adjustable life insurance policy to Gertrude Franklin on October 18, 1994, with a face value of $600,000. The cover page provides for a 20-day cancellation period with a full refund of premiums paid. In bold type, the cover page further advises as follows: "Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy", "Adjustable Death Benefit Payable at Death", "Flexible Premiums Payable During Insured's Lifetime", and "Benefits Vary with Current Cost of Insurance Rates and Current Interest Rates." It also advises that the initial premium is $56,796. The insurance company received an initial premium payment of $203,993.75 on December 19, 1994, and an additional premium payment in February 1996, for a total of premiums paid of approximately $266,000. The total premiums received, however, were insufficient to fund the policy to maturity since that would have required in excess of $400,000 in premiums. Annual statements sent by the insurance company reflected that the policy value was declining. On August 26, 1996, the insurance company received a letter over the name of Nancy Franklin, the trustee of the trust which owned the policy, advising the company to send billing and annual statements to the address of the agency where Respondent was employed. Respondent sent that letter as a courtesy because Gertrude Franklin asked him to keep her papers for her because she had no place to keep them. Gertrude Franklin, not her daughter, signed that letter. Respondent left that agency in October 1997 and was not permitted to take any records with him. In 2002 Edith Ellis showed her policy to someone at a senior center. Based upon that person's statements she called her sister and told her that their policies were no good. They contacted Respondent who came to their homes and reviewed their policies. He advised Gertrude Franklin that her only options at that point were to pay an additional premium or to reduce the face value of the policy to $400,000 in order to keep it in effect longer. She chose the latter course. Respondent gave Franklin a letter for Nancy Franklin's signature directing the insurance company to reduce the face value of the policy. Franklin, not her daughter, signed the letter and forwarded it to the company. The company reduced the face value based upon that letter which it received on April 1, 2002. That directive allowed the policy to stay in force another two months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Nancy Wright, Esquire 7274 Michigan Isle Road Lake Worth, Florida 33467 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed insurance agent licensed in the State of Florida as a general lines agent. He was the primary agent of Emerald Coast Insurance Agencies, Inc. (Agency) for Pensacola, Florida. The agency at all times pertinent to the events and times treated in the Amended Administrative Complaint was a general lines insurance agency incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and licensing the entry of insurance agents into the profession of insurance and regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida, including the imposition of disciplinary measures. The Respondent had been an insurance agent, as of the time of the hearing, for approximately four years. During that time, he has typically written 50-60 applications for automobile insurance and related coverage per week. The owner of the Agency would not allow the Respondent to issue checks from the Respondent's own office. All processing of insurance application files was completed at the Tallahassee, Florida office. The files with client information for insurance applicants, whose business was initiated by the Respondent, was sent by UPS to the Tallahassee, Florida office on the morning following the taking of the applications. The forms, which the Respondent was required to have completed and asked customers to sign, were pre-printed and issued from the Tallahassee, Florida office. The Respondent had no part in the creation of these forms as to content, format, and the disclosures depicted on their face. The Respondent inquired of the Department's local office as to whether the forms comported with pertinent statutes and regulations, and the Department expressed no objection to them. Indeed, the forms in question do make disclosures of the coverage or products which the customer is purchasing and contain an acknowledgment, which the customer is required to sign, indicating that the coverage has been explained to the customer. In particular, the motor club product is depicted on the relevant form as being an optional product and that it has been explained to the customer, with a blank after that pertinent statement for the customer to sign an acknowledgment of that fact. The issue in this case does not involve whether the customer paid for such a product without executing any consent but, rather, whether the customer was misled or whether the products sold were actually, in fact, explained fully to them; whether they were misled in making a decision to buy such coverage in the belief that it was required in order to obtain the insurance they knew they needed. THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE No evidence was submitted as to Count I, concerning Cheryl Ginsterblum nor Count VIII, concerning Joseph Shelton. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made and these counts should be dismissed. Pam Shivers of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance coverage for her 1988 Dodge Caravan. Because the van was still financed with a lender, "full coverage" was required, that is, she needed personal injury protection (PIP), property damage (PD) coverage, comprehensive risk coverage, and collision damage coverage. On March 8, 1993, she went to the Respondent's Agency, and the Respondent handled the requested insurance transaction. She requested "full coverage", and the transaction was handled while she was standing at the counter, in just a few minutes. PIP and PD insurance was placed with Security Insurance Company of Hartford (Security). Comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Florida International Indemnity Company (FIIC). The premium for Security was $350.00, and the premium for FIIC was $399.00. The purchase of this coverage was financed so that Ms. Shivers would not have to pay the entire $749.00 premium for all of the coverage at one time. In return for the premium financing arrangement, a $187.00 down payment was required for the insurance coverage. During the transaction, Ms. Shivers was quickly presented with approximately six documents to sign. Included in those documents was a document containing a disclosure that the motor club product which she purchased was optional, that is, not required by law; that she had been offered to purchase automobile insurance by the Agency without an optional motor club and chose to purchase that optional coverage of her own free will at an additional cost of $150.00; that she examined the benefits being offered, and that it was her decision to request enrollment as a member of the motor club association. It is true that Ms. Shivers signed these acknowledgments and disclosures, which on their face, would indicate that she had been informed about the nature of the motor club product or coverage and its cost, including the fact that it was not required by law and was optional. In fact, however, her apparent consent was not an actual, knowing and informed consent. She was presented with the six documents to sign hurriedly, with the places to sign simply marked for her to make quick signatures. She did not, in the course of the transaction, have significant time to read the documents or reflect on what she was signing, what her signatures obligated her for, and what specific products she was purchasing. She was not, in actual fact, informed that she was purchasing a motor club membership. She did not request that product, and the Respondent did not give her any actual explanation about it. She was not informed that she had any choice in whether or not to take that product. She later discovered that the product was optional and that it was, therefore, not an integral, unseverable part of the insurance coverage she did want to purchase. Moreover, Ms. Shivers was confused about the $749.00 premium quote and the amount she was actually required to pay. Her confusion involved the $749.00 premium for insurance quoted to her because of the fact that she was actually required to pay an $899.00 purported "premium". The receipt issued at the end of the purchase transaction indicated a total "premium" of $899.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of the insurance was $749.00. The additional $150.00 was for a motor club membership which was hidden in the receipt amount and what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $337.00 quoted to her was also deceptive because actually, only $187.00 of that was the down payment on the actual insurance coverage premium. This is shown by the premium finance agreement in evidence. The Respondent had concealed the cost of the motor club membership within what was purported to be the total insurance premium amount reflected on the receipt and included the entire $150.00 charge for that membership within the down payment, simply and misleadingly calling the down payment of $337.00 as the down payment on insurance coverage. Thereafter, on March 21, 1993, Ms. Shivers went back to the Agency to cancel her insurance, related to the fact that her vehicle had been involved in an accident. Upon doing that, she left thinking that her insurance had been effectively cancelled. Later, she received notices from the premium finance company but was told by the Respondent to ignore them. On May 7, 1993, however, the Respondent informed her that she had to come back to the Agency and fill out a cancellation request. Thus, 47 days after she had attempted to cancel her coverage, her request was finally processed by the Agency. In the meantime, she was apparently being charged for premiums on the coverage she thought she had cancelled. Thus, from January 21, 1994, the premium finance company turned an amount it claimed was due of $43.26 over to its attorney for collection purposes, which impinged on Ms. Shivers' credit standing. She had already paid the Respondent $190.00 in premiums under the premium financing agreement, with her down payment, but did not receive any returned unearned premium representing the period after she thought she had cancelled her policy but, instead, was billed the additional $43.26 directly due to the Respondent's 47-day delay in processing her cancellation request. Count III In June, 1993, Laura O'Donohue of Pensacola, Florida, purchased her first vehicle, a 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier. The automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle, gave her a card for the Respondent's insurance agency. Therefore, never having established a relationship with an insurance agency, she went to that Agency to purchase insurance. Her mother, Lynn O'Donohue, accompanied her to the Agency. Before coming to the Agency while at the automobile dealership, she had received a quote for the insurance she wanted from the Agency. When she arrived at the Agency, she informed Donald Grubb, an employee of the Agency and the Respondent, that she just wanted "basic coverage". This was the first time she had purchased insurance, and she relied entirely for her decisions regarding that upon the representations of the Respondent and his colleague. Therefore, in a transaction, which took approximately 20 minutes, the Respondent and/or Mr. Grubb assisted her in filling out the paperwork required to place the insurance coverage she requested. During the course of the brief insurance purchase transaction, Ms. O'Donohue learned that she would be required to pay a higher premium amount than the quote she had received from the Agency while she was at the automobile dealership earlier that day. This is consistent with the Agency's custom and practice, established by former agent, James Self's, testimony to the effect that motor club coverage was typically added to the normal insurance coverage requested by customers, which resulted in higher purported "premium" quotes and charges than had initially been quoted to the customer, typically by telephone, before a customer came to the Agency office. When Ms. O'Donohue and her mother arrived at the Agency after having received the lower quote earlier, they were thus not prepared to pay the higher amount of the so-called premium. Ms. O'Donohue did not need a motor club because, through her mother, she was covered by AAA Motor Club for towing and other benefits. She had no knowledge that she had purchased a motor club product from the Respondent. All of the documents were presented to her, in response to her request for just basic insurance coverage, in the context that this was what the law required her to have and what she needed. She totally relied, as did her mother, upon the representations of the Respondent and his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, concerning what the law required and what she needed in the way of insurance coverage. The testimony of Ms. O'Donohue's mother, Lynn O'Donohue, confirms the fact that they had no intent to purchase towing coverage or "auto club" because they already had a membership with AAA and wanted to pay nothing extra other than the basic insurance coverage. The Respondent or his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, indicated, as shown on page 91 of the transcript, that "towing was all part of it", that is, they meant that the basic insurance package sought by Ms. O'Donohue included towing as part of its coverage. In fact, that was not the case, and the motor club product was clearly optional, at extra cost, and not legally required. Ms. O'Donohue purchased it unknowingly, based upon the representations and business practice used by the Respondent in connection with her transaction, in spite of the presence of her signatures on the disclosure portion of the application documents for the reasons referenced with regard to the Shivers transaction. The insurance requested was placed with two insurance companies. The PIP and PD were issued by Security at a premium of $223.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with General Insurance Company (General) at a premium of $411.00. Thus, the premiums for actual insurance coverage, which is all Ms. O'Donohue wanted, totaled $634.00. That was financed by the ETI Premium Finance Company (ETI) on periodic installment payments, with a required down payment of $127.00. The Respondent, however, required Ms. O'Donohue to make a down payment of $277.00 on a purported total premium due of $784.00. This amount, unbeknownst to Ms. O'Donohue, happened to include a motor club purchase (Atlantic Travel Association), which cost $150.00, thus, the difference between the $634.00 actual insurance premium and the $784.00 purported premium due. The $150.00 fee for motor club benefits was concealed in the "total premium" amount falsely represented to the customer by the Respondent. The deceptive and misleading nature of this transaction is further pointed out by the form of the receipt issued to Ms. O'Donohue upon consummating the transaction. That receipt indicates that the "total premium" is $784.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $634.00, as referenced above, and the additional $150.00 of that purported total premium amount was the motor club fee. Likewise, the down payment quoted to her of $277.00 was deceptive because only $127.00 of that was applied to the actual insurance coverage. The remaining amount was the motor club fee which the agent collected in its entirety at the beginning of the transaction, as part of the down payment, while the insurance premiums, in excess of the $127.00 actual down payment for insurance, were financed through ETI. The Respondent did this because, by collecting all of the motor club fee in a lump sum at the outset of the transaction, he could get his entire commission immediately. His motor club sales commission was at a considerably higher rate than the commission he earned on the sale of insurance itself. In fact, his commission was 90 percent of the $150.00 motor club fee. Since Ms. O'Donohue did not have the entire $277.00 at the time of the transaction, because she had been relying on the lower quote for the insurance given to her over the telephone, she only paid $200.00 down payment at the time of the transaction, with a balance owed of $79.00, as reflected on her receipt. Her mother had reservations concerning the purchase of this insurance from the Respondent and told her daughter that she thought that because the insurance she purchased involved financing the premium, she could save money by going to GEICO insurance company. Therefore, the following day, she went to GEICO and secured new coverage at a lower premium rate and then called the Respondent's Agency to confirm that she could cancel her policy, with no penalty. They replied that she could cancel her policy just so long as she brought them proof that she had secured new insurance, since the law presently does not allow them to cancel the coverage until they are shown proof that the insured has obtained other coverage. Ms. O'Donohue, therefore, went to GEICO, purchased new insurance for her vehicle, and then brought proof to the Agency and requested that the Respondent cancel her insurance. This request was made on June 19, 1993. At that time, she requested a refund of the $200.00 down payment which she had made two days before and was assured that she would receive it within 60 days. In fact, she never received a refund and continued to receive past-due and delinquency notices from ETI, the premium finance company. She notified the Agency of this problem on numerous occasions to no satisfaction. Due to ETI's belief that her coverage was still in force and that they were still owed the premium payments, her credit was endangered. This was all directly related to the Respondent's failure to properly and timely process her cancellation request. On June 20, 1993, Terre Thompson of Pensacola, Florida, also went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for her 1993 GEO Metro automobile. The Respondent met her at the automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle. He had already prepared documents for the purchase of insurance to be underwritten by Security and General, along with a premium financing agreement and other documents. He had marked X's where Ms. Thompson was supposed to sign all contracts and disclosure forms. The Respondent filled out all of the information on the documents and merely told her, in effect, to "sign here, here and here". The transaction was conducted very quickly and with little or no explanation of coverage or benefits. Although Ms. Thompson needed full coverage for her vehicle, because it was financed, she did not want towing and rental benefits. The Respondent, however, gave her to understand that it was required in the coverage package she purchased. Accordingly, on June 20, 1993, she made a down payment of $100.00, with an additional amount due of $51.00 by June 27, 1993. Although the receipt was dated June 20, 1993, Ms. Thompson did not actually receive it until June 27, 1993, when she returned to the Respondent's Agency to pay the $51.00 owed. The receipt falsely depicts that the "total premium" was $834.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $754.00. The additional $80.00 was for a motor club product, although the $80.00 was buried in and represented to be part of the total insurance premium for the transaction. The down payment of $231.00 quoted, likewise, was deceptive because only $151.00 of that was actually applied to insurance coverage, which was all of the coverage that Ms. Thompson had requested. The Respondent collected the $100.00 on June 20, 1993 and entered into a financing arrangement with the customer, Ms. Thompson, for the $51.00 to be paid on June 27, 1993. In fact, this was only enough to cover the down payment for the actual insurance coverage because the Respondent forgot to include the fee for the motor club coverage on the "front end" or in the down payment, as was his normal practice. This is why Ms. Thompson became upset when she learned she owed an additional $71.00 when she returned on June 27, 1993, when she thought she had only owed approximately $60.00. In any event, the receipt finally received by her reflected payments of $100.00, $60.00, and $71.00, which totals $231.00. This amount includes the $151.00 down payment for actual insurance coverage and the remaining $80.00 for motor club membership, which Ms. Thompson did not know she had purchased at the time and did not desire to purchase. Indeed, Ms. Thompson, and the other customers referenced in the Amended Administrative Complaint, who testified, signed the disclosure in the standard package of documents presented to them by the Respondent. It indicated that they acknowledged that the motor club benefit or the "nations safe driver" medical benefit was an optional coverage, not required by law and that, after explanation of it, they had elected to purchase it. In fact, they signed those documents, albeit imprudently, without actual knowledge that they were obtaining that coverage and without explanation that it was not legally required. No disclosure was made to them that the purported "total premium" amount actually included payment for the motor club benefit, which was not actually part of the insurance premium and which, at least in the case of those customers with AAA memberships, was totally unnecessary. Timothy Malden of Jacksonville, Florida, purchased a vehicle on or about August 31, 1993. He needed full coverage because the vehicle was financed, that is, he needed PIP, PD, comprehensive coverage, and collision coverage. He went to the Respondent's Agency on that date to purchase coverage on his 1986 Pontiac Fiero. During the course of the transaction, handled by the Respondent, Mr. Malden was asked if he had motor club coverage or benefits and he told the Respondent that he had AAA membership and showed the Respondent his AAA card. The Respondent and Mr. Malden entered into a transaction to sell Mr. Malden insurance. The transaction involved approximately seven different documents and took a total of about 15 to 20 minutes. Mr. Malden merely signed the documents. The Respondent told him that he just needed his signature on the documents and the Respondent did not explain the coverage. The procedure seemed rushed or hurried to Mr. Malden. Although Mr. Malden signed the disclosure (inadvertently, because apparently he did not read it) stating, in effect, that the motor club coverage was optional, not required and that after having it explained to him, he had decided to purchase it, he, in fact, did not know at the time that he had purchased the motor club coverage and it had not been explained to him. Moreover, as stated above, he had explained to the Respondent that he did not need it because he already had AAA motor club coverage. Nevertheless, the Respondent, knowing that Mr. Malden had AAA, still sold him the motor club coverage with the Atlantic Travel Association for an additional fee of $150.00. Mr. Malden made no informed consent to purchase that benefit. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with Security at a premium of $395.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Continental American Insurance Company (Continental) for a premium of $525.00. The total premium for "insurance" was $920.00, with a $230.00 down payment. The premiums were financed by ETI. Mr. Malden, however, was required to pay a "down payment" of $380.00. The receipt issued to him reveals a "total premium" of $1,070.00. The actual cost of insurance was only $920.00. The additional $150.00 was for motor club coverage, and the charge for that was hidden in what was represented on the receipt as "total premium". Likewise, the down payment of $380.00 was deceptive in nature because only $230.00 of it was actually a down payment for insurance coverage. The remainder of it, as explained above with regard to the other customers, was actually full payment for the unnecessary, unwanted motor club benefit. On March 8, 1994, Karen Sigler of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Agency to purchase automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymough Voyager. She stated to the Respondent that she only wanted the minimum automobile insurance required by Florida law. She told the Respondent that she needed new insurance because her previous insurance company had gone out of business. The Respondent handled the transaction for her and she specified that she wanted only that coverage which the State of Florida required. Ms. Sigler had been originally quoted a $324.00 premium amount. When she actually entered into the insurance transaction, however, an additional $65.00 was added on to that amount because the Respondent sold her an additional "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc." enrollment. This is not an insurance product but, rather, is a form of supplemental medical benefit. Ms. Sigler had not requested this and did not understand the nature of it, believing that it was unnecessary because she was already qualified as a "safe driver" based upon her driver's record. She was given no explanation as to what that enrollment form, and benefit was nor that there was an extra charge for it. Even as reflected on the enrollment form, Ms. Sigler merely thought that the Nations Safe Drivers membership was a part of the required insurance purchase package. This is not true, in fact, since only PIP and PD coverages are required by law. Ms. Sigler was thus sold a product she did not request, which was not required by law and which was not explained to her. The entire transaction took approximately one- half hour. The receipt issued to Ms. Sigler shows that the "total premium" was $324.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of insurance was a $259.00 premium. The additional $65.00 of the $324.00 amount was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership, which was hidden in what was represented as a "total premium". Moreover, the down payment she paid of $98.00 was deceptive because only a part of it was applied to automobile insurance coverage and the remainder was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership. The Respondent's business practice in this regard resultingly misled Ms. Sigler into believing that Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. was required by State law and that it was an insurance product, which it was not. Here, again, in spite of the disclosure she signed and the documents that she was hurriedly urged to execute by the Respondent, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she did not actually, knowingly consent to purchase the extra non-insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's business practice, the way he represented the nature of her insurance coverage and in the manner in which he conducted the transaction did not involve an actual explanation of the non-insurance product he misled her into purchasing. Thus, there was no informed consent to purchase that product. Rosa Johnson went to the Respondent's Agency on March 21, 1994. She wanted to purchase the "minimum" automobile insurance required by State law for her 1971 Plymouth. She dealt with the Respondent and another gentleman who worked under the Respondent's direction and control. She told them she only wanted the basic, legally-required coverage. PIP and PD coverage was issued through Security. Ms. Johnson was also sold the Nations Safe Drivers product. This product was not actually explained to her, in spite of the fact that she may have signed a written disclosure that it had been, including the fact that it was an optional benefit and not part of the legally-required insurance coverage. She did not request this product nor was it explained to her so that its meaning and coverage was understood by her. Upon conclusion of the transaction, Ms. Johnson had purchased PIP and PD coverage from Security for a premium of $248.00, plus an unrequested enrollment in Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. for a fee of $35.00. All of this amount was financed by ETI. Here, again, as with the other customers, the receipt furnished to Ms. Johnson indicates a total "premium" of $283.00. The actual cost of insurance or true premium was $248.00. The additional $35.00 of the $283.00 amount was the cost of the Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. product, which was hidden in what was represented to her on the receipt as the "total premium". Likewise, the purported down payment of $85.00 was deceptive in the manner in which it was presented and required of Ms. Johnson, because only part of it was applied to insurance coverage, the remainder being the $35.00 fee for the added non- insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's authority to bind coverage with Security Insurance Company had been terminated on March 14, 1994 due to excessive late submissions of insurance applications to the carrier. The problem was later alleviated and his authority to bind insurance for Security was restored by that company. However, during the period of time his binding authority had been terminated, the Respondent kept taking applications and binding policies. This caused the insureds to believe that they had coverage when, in fact, they did not, because the carrier, Security, through its managing agent, U.S. Underwriters, did not, for a period of time, allow the Respondent to obligate that company for coverage. Accordingly, in due course, Ms. Johnson was notified by U.S. Underwriters, on behalf of Security, that she had no coverage. She became upset and filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner because she had understood that as soon as the transaction with the Respondent was completed, her coverage had been bound and timely filed and processed with the underwriting insurance carrier. Charles Meadows of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance on his 1986 Chrysler LeBaron. He wanted to purchase the minimum amount of legally- required coverage and went to the Respondent's Agency for that purpose on May 17, 1994. He needed the minimum amount of legally-required insurance so that he could obtain a tag for his automobile from the county tag office. He was in a hurry because he had taken leave from work and needed to get his insurance transaction consummated, as well as to obtain his automobile tag before 4:30 p.m. He conferred with a lady who was employed by the Respondent at the Agency who handled his transaction. She completed all of the documents, spread them across the counter, and marked and told him the places to sign to effect the binder of the coverage that day. The transaction occurred quickly, lasting only approximately 15 minutes. He received no effective explanation of any of the coverages. Rather, he relied on her representations that he was getting what he had asked for, that is, the minimum legally-required Florida insurance coverage. The coverage he obtained was placed with Security as to the PIP and PD coverage. The premium for that coverage was $321.00. The total premium quoted to him was $421.00, which included a $100.00 membership in the Gulf Coast Travel Association, a motor or travel club. Mr. Meadows was not aware that he had this extra amount of coverage or membership until he conferred with Mr. Spencer of the Department at a later time, who informed him of such. If he had known that the agreements he was signing during the hurried, unexplained transaction with the Respondent's employee included the motor club coverage, he would have declined it because his wife already had coverage with AAA for towing and related benefits. Mr. Meadows made a down payment of $190.00 on May 17, 1994. The receipt issued to him revealed a "total premium" of $421.00. The actual cost of insurance was $321.00, with the additional $100.00 being for the motor club, although the total amount was represented as "total premium". Additionally, the down payment of $190.00, which he paid, was deceptive in that only $90.00 was actually applied to insurance coverage and the remaining $100.00 was the total up-front fee for the motor club coverage, although it was represented to Mr. Meadows as being the $190.00 down payment on the insurance premium itself. Later, Mr. Meadows learned that he had the motor club benefits which he did not want or need and so he demanded a refund of his money from the Respondent. He spoke to the Respondent personally about this but did not receive immediate satisfaction. There was a substantial delay in receiving his refund after the Respondent told him that he would receive one. The Respondent justified this by stating to him that it had to come from "another office" and that it would not come from his Agency itself. Dorothy Weber of Pensacola, Florida, required automobile insurance for her 1986 Chevrolet Blazer and a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice. She went to the Respondent's Agency on June 15, 1994 and indicated to one of his employees that she was interested in the cheapest coverage available. She wanted nothing extra, except that required by law. She received very little explanation of the coverages and benefits, other than in response to questions she asked. The transaction of insurance was conducted in a similar manner to those referenced earlier in these Findings of Fact. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association. It carried a premium of $787.00. Despite Ms. Weber's request for only the minimum, legally-required insurance, she was also sold a motor club (Gulf Coast Travel Association) unbeknownst to her at the time at an additional fee of $150.00. In spite of the fact that Ms. Weber signed the disclosure concerning the optional nature of the motor club and related fee and so forth, as described in further detail in the above Findings of Fact, in actual fact, it was not explained to her. The fact that the fee for it was separate from the insurance premium for the insurance coverage was not explained to her and she effectively was not informed that she was purchasing that product. During the transaction, she was informed that if her vehicle broke down, she could obtain wrecker service. Nothing was mentioned to her, however, about Gulf Coast Travel Association or that the $150.00 was an extra fee. She merely had all of the forms presented to her in rapid fashion and was asked to sign them. The explanation simply was that the "total policy" cost $937.00, and there was a down payment of $318.00 supposedly for premium only. The entire transaction took approximately one-half hour. Later, Ms. Weber discovered that she had been misinformed and complained to the Department and the Respondent's Agency, specifically indicating that she had not been informed that the $150.00 for the motor club was separate nor that she had purchased motor club coverage. The receipt furnished to Ms. Weber concerning the amounts she paid to secure her coverage is misleading. It indicates a total premium of $937.00, when the actual cost of the insurance was $787.00. The additional $150.00 was for the undisclosed motor club coverage hidden in what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $308.00 was deceptive or misleading in that only $158.00 of it was actually a down payment on insurance coverage. Barry and Deeana Walker of Pensacola, Florida, needed automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymouth Laser. They wanted the cheapest coverage legally required and available to them. The Respondent dealt with the Walkers and was their agent of record. Mr. Walker remembers nothing being mentioned about a motor club, but Mrs. Walker remembers that the agent mentioned "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc."; however, she specifically informed him that she did not want it. In fact, Nations Safe Drivers is a non-insurance membership plan which includes a medical supplement coverage benefit. It is not a motor club. The PIP and PD and bodily injury coverages were placed with Underwriters Guaranty Insurance Company (UGIC) for a premium of $641.00. The premium was originally financed by Underwriters Financial. Also executed on May 4, 1994 was another premium finance agreement with ETI. It provided for an insurance premium of $441.00 for a policy issued by UGIC and the financing of a Nations Safe Drivers enrollment for $100.00. This document was not signed by the Walkers. On May 4, 1994, the Walkers paid $150.00 by check and were required to pay an additional $143.00 by May 20, 1994. The $143.00 was paid; and subsequently, the Walkers received a notice of additional premium of $190.00 due and they paid an additional down payment of $76.00. The Walkers made payments on the ETI premium financing agreement up until October, 1994, even though it had never actually been signed. They made down payments of $369.00 and monthly payments totaling $333.63, for a total of $702.63. Sometime in October of 1994, they received a letter from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Drivers Licenses in Tallahassee, Florida, stating that Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended because his insurance had been cancelled, effective July 16, 1994. The Walkers had received a notice from the insurance company of cancellation (because apparently that company would not insure co-owned vehicles) and had gone to the Respondent to see what to do about that problem. The Respondent told them to fill out a form which he gave them and that everything would be taken care of. They filled out the form at his behest so as to indicate that Mr. Walker's father, the co-owner, would not be a driver of the vehicle. Accepting the Respondent's representation, they believed that that would take care of the cancellation of coverage problem, and they continued to make their monthly payments on their premium financing agreement until October of 1994 based upon what the Respondent told them. In fact, the coverage was cancelled effective July 16, 1994; and soon thereafter, Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended due to failure to carry valid insurance on his automobile. If the Respondent had acted with promptness in correcting the underwriting error, upon being apprised of the situation by the Walkers, the lapse in coverage and suspension of the driver's license need not have occurred and the payments on the original coverage need not have been made until October 11, 1994, when new coverage was finally obtained by the Respondent at the Walkers' behest. Although, on November 11, 1994, ETI credited the Respondent and the Walkers for $169.41 of unearned premium, the damage had already been done by that point in terms of the lapse of coverage and the suspension of Mr. Walker's driver's license, with attendant financial risk and inconvenience to Mr. Walker. Moreover, the receipt issued to the Walkers in the original insurance transaction indicates a total premium of $741.00. As in the other situations, the actual insurance cost was $641.00, and the additional $100.00 was for the Nations Safe Drivers non-insurance medical payment product, wrapped up in what was represented as "total premium". The down payment of $293.00 was similarly misleading because only $193.00 of that applied to actual insurance coverage. The Respondent received his fee of $100.00 for the added-on product mentioned above entirely out of the up-front, down payment amount. Thus, the Respondent received the entire fee for the Nations Safe Drivers product within a purported "premium receipt" amount described to the customer as an insurance down payment. On January 26, 1995, Ms. Betty Cook of Walnut Hill, Florida, needed to purchase insurance for her 1994 Thunderbird and her 1993 Chevrolet C1500 pickup truck. She went to the Respondent's Agency to accomplish her insurance renewal transaction. A lady by the name of Sonya handled the transaction for her that day. The Cooks' insurance was placed with UGIC for a premium of $1,123.00. The premium was financed through Underwriters Financial of Florida, Inc. The transaction was initiated on January 26, 1995 but ultimately concluded on January 28, 1995, after Mrs. Cook had received and signed all of the paperwork. Mrs. Cook made a premium down payment of $339.00 and mailed her first payment when it was due. She thereupon was sent a notice stating that no policy existed. She called the Agency to see what was wrong and someone at the Agency indicated to her that it would taken care of immediately. A lienholder on the pickup truck sent a notice to her that they had not been notified that the insurance had been renewed. Mrs. Cook became very concerned and the Respondent offered to refund her premium; however, three months had evidently elapsed since she first renewed her insurance or thought she had. Thus, Mrs. Cook, without knowing at the time, was driving her automobiles without insurance coverage for approximately a three-month period. Mrs. Cook contacted the Department and got her insurance reinstated and placed with another servicing agent. The policy was issued by UGIC, without requiring the payment of a premium down payment by the Respondent. The Respondent had still not forwarded the $339.00 down payment originally received from Mrs. Cook as of April 19, 1995. This lapse or failure to forward the insurance down payment obviously resulted in the coverage never being bound with the company. Therefore, the company had not issued and had no record of coverage for Mrs. Cook's vehicles. The agent for this company was required to account for and promptly forward insurance premium down payments, such as this, to the insurer he represented and on behalf of the insured he also represented in the transaction. Christopher Camus of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for a 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass. He went to the agency on August 25, 1993, and the Respondent placed his coverage with Security. The total premium was quoted as $274.00. Mr. Camus signed an application on that date and paid the full amount to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to forward the application and premium to the insurance carrier, and the policy of insurance was not actually issued until November 30, 1993. Mr. Camus was thus left without coverage for approximately two months. He made repeated telephone calls to the Agency to no avail. Agency personnel maintained that the problem was occurring with the insurance company itself and was not the fault of the Respondent's Agency. The Respondent deposited Mr. Camus' check in August of 1993, but the application for his insurance was never received by Security until December 23, 1993. The Respondent thus did not promptly and appropriately handle the insurance premium funds in question and forward the application so as to promptly bind the coverage for the customer. Indeed, it is noteworthy that this company revoked the Respondent's authority to bind coverage for customers on March 14, 1994 due to an excessive amount of such late submissions of insurance applications and premiums. In 1993, of the 1,299 applications taken by the Respondent and his Agency, only 58 percent reached the insurer's office within the required time period. In summary, the evidence presented in this case indicates that the Respondent engaged in the general business practice of selling ancillary products to insureds without truly obtaining "informed consent" of those insureds. The pattern running through the testimony of the above-described witnesses, none of whom were shown to have any motive to falsify their testimony, was that, although they signed the various disclosures on the insurance underwriting or binding documents, indicating that they understood that the ancillary products were optional, were not insurance, and were not required to be purchased. They did not receive any significant explanation of the optional nature of those products concerning the advisability of their purchase (particularly as to those customers who had AAA coverage), nor the extra cost attributable to those products. Each insured witness consistently maintained that he or she had not read the numerous documents presented to them. Certainly, they should have, in an abundance of caution, read the documents and attempted to understand them. Their failure to do so, however, does not absolve the Respondent of his duty to specifically explain to each customer the exact nature of the coverage being offered, whether or not it was legally optional, particularly, as to those customers who stated definitely that they only wanted the bare minimum coverage required by law, and the fact that it was optional at an extra cost, and was not included in the basic insurance coverage being sold. It is clear from these witnesses' testimony that none had requested motor club benefits or any other ancillary product and yet, in effect, these were automatically added to the policies involved in this proceeding in each transaction and were clearly not explained to the customers. The general business practice of the Respondent involved in the sale of the motor club and ancillary products belies the existence of "informed consent" on the part of the customers. Mr. James Self is a former agent for the Respondent, who testified regarding the Respondent's business practices. He was trained by the Respondent and worked for the Agency from August, 1993 to June, 1994. The Agency had a policy of giving telephone quotes for insurance premiums, without including the amount represented by motor club or other add-on optional products. The Agency would then add such products to the insurance package when the customer came in to purchase insurance. According to Mr. Self, any sort of explanation or disclosure of these add-on products to the customer would be merely to the effect that the insurance "quote" included towing or rental. There was little else explained about it. In many of the situations with witnesses in this case, the insureds only requested the minimum coverage and, therefore, no optional or ancillary products were justified without full explanation to the customer. Mr. Self described how the Respondent specifically trained him in "clubbing", which meant adding motor club coverage to the insurance coverage requested by customers. The Respondent's own testimony shows the economic necessity for the pervasive sale of such motor club benefits to as many customers as possible, when he stated: It's really the only way to exist . . . Q: So you're telling me that the only way for you to exist is to sell motor clubs? A: Financially, it's -- really for most businesses in this market it's the only way to be able to survive. Transcript, page 175. The Respondent further acknowledged the pecuniary interest he had in selling travel or motor clubs since he described his average commission as being 90 percent of the fee for writing that coverage, which is higher than the commission on insurance products. Moreover, he recovered all of that money from the down payment the customers were making, supposedly for their insurance coverages. Therefore, his incentive was multiplied because he was getting the high commission percentage rate, plus he was getting all of it in cash on the initial portion of the transaction, the down payment. Mr. Self also explained that salesmen would never tell the insured exactly how much the motor club cost. On occasions, when Mr. Self would try to partially disclose the motor club, the Respondent would tell him to "hurry up", that he was taking too much time in effecting the transaction. It was Mr. Self's experience that approximately 99 percent of the customers coming into the Agency for insurance left having purchased motor club benefits. Eventually, Mr. Self was terminated because he did not sell enough motor club products. The overall gravamen of his testimony shows that he attempted to make some disclosure or explanation of the motor club and other ancillary products but was discouraged from doing so by the Respondent, with the implication being that this ultimately resulted in his termination from employment with the Respondent's Agency. The evidence thus establishes that, for the most part, the insureds in question did not really know what "minimum coverage" or "full coverage" really consisted of when they came in to purchase such insurance. In making this lay description of the coverage they desired, they then relied on the agent, the Respondent or his employees, to sell them coverage which comported with their wishes and needs, since they were not schooled in the insurance business and related laws themselves. Since they were not so schooled, they almost totally relied on any explanation given to them by the Respondent or his agents or employees. In spite of the signing of the disclosure documents referenced in the above Findings of Fact, the reality of the situation, as a continuing, consistent pattern throughout the testimony adduced from these insureds, and from Mr. Self, reveals that no regular business practice of obtaining an informed consent from customers, such as these, was carried out by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Daniel Lee Alison, be found guilty of the violations set forth and discussed above, that his license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be revoked for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $9,000.00, within a time to be set by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-2690 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-35. Accepted, except to the extent that they do not comport with the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on these subject matters to which they are subordinate. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and because of the editorial comment. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected, as to the editorial comment. 39-40. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-44. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate and somewhat contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive to the issues presented for resolution in this case. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 19-25. Accepted, but not themselves materially dispositive to the resolution of the issues presented to the Administrative Law Judge. 26. Accepted. 27-29. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 30-32. Accepted. 33-36. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as to the overall material import and as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-43. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as immaterial. 44. Accepted, as technically correct, but witness Self, a former employee and a witness who purchased insurance, did establish in his testimony that purchase of an ancillary product was a pre-condition to premium financing by Agency policy. 45-47. Accepted, in part, but otherwise rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 48. Accepted. 49-52. Accepted, but not in and of themselves dispositive of the material issues presented concerning this witness' transaction(s). Rejected, as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley & Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Bill Nelson Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly issued a Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance that meets the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. It is responsible for enforcing the workers' compensation coverage requirements pursuant to section 440.107. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Grandview was a corporation registered to do business in Florida. Grandview is a bread and breakfast and was an active company during the two-year audit period from August 22, 2015, through August 21, 2017. On July 19, 2017,1/ Respondent met with a Henderson Insurance agent and learned that Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation requirements. Grandview immediately requested bids to obtain insurance, but did not purchase a policy because it was decided that it was "not the right time." On August 21, 2017, Robert Feehrer ("investigator" or "Feehrer"), compliance investigator for the Division, started an investigation of Grandview. Feehrer discovered that Grandview did not have any workers' compensation policies, employee leasing agreements, or exemptions on file with the National Council on Compensation Insurance. That same day the Division issued Grandview a Stop-Work Order for Respondent's failure to secure the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner also served Grandview with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("Request") asking for documentation to enable the Division to evaluate the payroll for the audit period of August 22, 2015, through August 21, 2017, and to determine Respondent's compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law of Florida. Grandview responded timely and provided sufficient business records in response to the Division's Request. Eunika Jackson ("auditor" or "Jackson"), penalty auditor for the Division, was assigned to Grandview's investigation. Jackson reviewed the business records produced by Grandview. Jackson concluded her audit by properly calculating the workers' compensation amount owed by Grandview for the audit period using the Class Code 9052 for lodging facilities. Jackson applied the approved manual rates and methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d). Grandview had at least four employees2/ during the audit period and did not have any exemptions from workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements during the audit period. Initially, Jackson calculated Grandview's penalty amount as being over $25,000.00. After Grandview timely provided sufficient business records in response to the Request, Jackson correctly applied the penalty reduction credit to the calculation and concluded Grandview owed a reduced penalty amount of $13,755.55. On November 27, 2017, Respondent was served with the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment totaling $13,755.55. On December 18, 2017, Respondent challenged the penalty assessment and requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order affirming the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $13,755.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 30th day of October, 2018.
The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specifically at issue in this proceeding are the proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009 which restrict, under certain circumstances, compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and which require premium refunds to some purchasers of credit insurance.
Findings Of Fact Credit insurance is a form of group insurance marketed and sold to consumers by creditors or, in the case of motor vehicle financing, by vehicle dealers. The insurance can be purchased by a debtor at the time the debtor enters into a loan agreement. Credit insurance is purchased by debtors as protection against risk of loss caused by unexpected events occurring during the term of the insurance contract. Credit insurance provides for the payment of the balance of the debt upon the death or disability of the insured debtor. Otherwise stated, the benefit of such insurance to the debtor is the assurance that, if the debtor becomes unable, due to death or disability, to make the required periodic payments, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. Sellers of credit insurance products are compensated in the form of commissions paid to sellers by insurers. Additional compensation is periodically paid by some insurers to sellers based upon the profitability of each seller's line of business. Beginning in late 1990, the Department of Insurance ("Department") proposed amendments to administrative rules relating to credit life and credit health and accident insurance products. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of the proposed rule restricting the level of compensation paid to the sellers of credit insurance products and requiring insurers to make "experience refunds". As set forth in the Department's Notice of Change, published in the November 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 17, No. 48), the proposed rule amendment provides in relevant part as follows: 4-7.009 Determination of Reasonableness of Benefits in Relation to Premium Charge General Standard. Under the Credit Insurance Law, benefits provided by credit insurance policies must be reasonable in relation to the premium charged. In determining whether benefits are reasonable in relation to premium, the Department shall consider loss experience, allocation of expenses, risk and contingency margins, and policy acquisition costs. This requirement is satisfied if the premium rate charged develops or may be reasonably expected to develop a loss ratio of not less than 1. (a) 55% for credit life insurance and 2. (b) 50% for credit accident and health insurance, and either the insurer does not pay compensation in excess of 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011, or the insurer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that payment of compensation in excess of said 30% is actuarially sound. "Compensation" means money or anything else of value paid by the insurer and/or by any reinsurer to any agent, producer, creditor, or affiliated body. On the basis of relevant experience, uUse of rates not greater than those contained in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 ("prima facie rates") shall be deemed currently reasonable premium rates reasonably expected to develope the required loss ratio, subject to a later determination of experience refunds, if any, as described herein. An insurer may only file and use rates with such forms which are greater than the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 upon a satisfactory showing to the Department Commissioner that the use of such rates will not result on a statewide basis for that insurer of a ratio of claims incurred to premiums earned of less than the required loss ratio. Furthermore, the extent to which an actual rate is greater than that set forth may not exceed the difference between (a) claims which may be reasonably expected and (b) the product of the required loss ratio and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 for the coverage being provided. (2) The Department Commissioner shall, on a triennial basis, review the loss ratio standards set forth in subsection (1), above, and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 and determine therefrom the rate of expected claims on a statewide basis, compare such rate of expected claims with the rate of claims for the preceding triennium, determined from the incurred claims and earned premiums at prima facie rates reported in the annual statement supplement, and adopt the adjusted actual new statewide prima facie rates for Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 to be used by insurers during the next triennium. The new rates will be set at levels that would have produced the loss ratios set forth in subsection (1), above. To make this comparison and redetermination, insurers shall report in the annual statement supplement format, each year, claims and earned premiums, separately, for business written with premiums based on Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. * * * Insurers will calculate a dollar amount of loading each year based upon the insurer's earned credit life and credit accident and health premium in this state for the same year. Loading will be calculated as 45% of earned premium for life insurance and 50% of earned premium for credit accident and health insurance. For this calculation, earned premium shall be based on the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. Insurers shall calculate an Experience Refund Amount each year for credit life and credit accident and health insurance written in this state after the effective date of this rule. Experience Refunds can be positive or negative. Positive Experience Refunds are to be refunded in the following manner: Experience refunds are to be allocated to accounts which have positive Experience Refund Amounts in proportion to the ratio of each account's refund amount to the total of all positive refund amounts. For the purpose of this allocation, all individual policies are to be treated as one account. The Experience Refund Amount allocated to a particular account is to be refunded to all certificate holders or individual policyholders of such account in proportion to the premiums earned for each certificate holder or individual policyholder to the total of all premiums earned for such account. Earned premiums for Experience Refund purposes are to be equal to paid premiums for the calendar year less unearned premium reserves at the end of the calendar year plus unearned premiums at the beginning of the calendar year. Unearned premium reserves are to be calculated pro rata. Credit policies issued on a non-contributory basis are excluded. Non-contributory means that individual insureds pay no part of the insurance premium. Premiums are paid by the policyholder out of policyholder funds. Individual credit policies issued on a participating basis are to be excluded. All new loans insured after the effective date of this rule are subject to the Experience Refund calculation and distribution, if any. Individual refunds of less than $10 do not have to be made. Experience Refunds are to be determined for each calendar year as follows: Earned Premium, less Loading as determined above, less Incurred claims, less The sum of any carry forwards for the three previous years. An insurer that uses rates which are 10% or more below the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 shall not be required to calculate or make an Experience Refund. The Florida Bankers Association ("FBA") is the trade association of the Florida banking industry, many of whom sell credit insurance to their customers. The Florida Automobile Dealers Association ("FADA") is a trade association of franchised new car and truck dealers, approximately 65% of whom sell credit insurance. The Florida Recreational Vehicle Dealers Trade Association ("FRVDTA") is a trade association of recreational vehicle dealers, approximately 35% of whom sell credit insurance. The FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment at issue in this case. Specifically the FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed regulation of compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and by the proposed requirement that, under some circumstances, refunds be made to credit insurance purchasers. The Consumer Credit Insurance Association ("CCIA") is a trade association of credit insurance companies, at least 50 of whom sell credit insurance in Florida. The CCIA is substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment provision related to premium refunds to some insureds. Credit insurance is priced and sold without regard to sex or age of the debtor. There is little underwriting of credit insurance risks. Due primarily to the age of the population and the effect of mandated coverages, Florida's credit insurance claims are higher than in other states. There are currently in excess of eighty million credit insurance policies in force in the United States. Credit insurance is sold under master policies issued by insurers to producers, such as banks and vehicle dealers. Producers sell the insurance product and maintain records of the credit insurance purchasers, who hold certificates issued under each master policy. Credit insurance premiums are based upon the amount financed by the debtor and are calculated according to rates established on a statewide basis by the Department. Credit insurers may not charge more than the prima facie rates for credit insurance, therefore, there is no benefit to consumers to "shop around" for credit insurance. Although credit insurers are not prohibited from charging less than the prima facie rates, there is no evidence that any insurer charges less than the Department's adopted rates. Since 1982, the Department-approved prima facie credit life premium rate was $.60 for every $100 financed. The rate was based on the Department's determination that a $.60 prima facie rate would result in insurers paying out approximately 60% of premium dollars in claims paid to insureds, and that a 60% "loss ratio" was reasonable. The "loss ratio" is the fraction of premium dollars paid out in claims. The $.60 prima facie rate did not yield a 60% loss ratio. The loss ratios for some insurers was substantially less that 60%. On September 1, 1991, the Department reduced the prima facie credit life and credit health and accident rates. In establishing new prima facie rates, the Department established a 55% loss ratio for credit life insurance and a 50% loss ratio for credit disability. The revised prima facie rates are based upon data from calendar years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Such data includes information related to paid claims, earned premium, and insurer administrative overhead expenses. The setting of such rates is an actuarial exercise intended to provide a reasonable projection of premium rates and loss ratios. There is no evidence that the revised prima facie rates result in premiums which are excessive in relationship to the amount of the loans insured. The revised prima facie rates are reasonably expected to yield the revised loss ratios. The rule provides a triennial review mechanism to ascertain whether the expected loss ratios are being met and to adjust prima facie rates if such is indicated. The review is a reasonable method of assuring that such loss ratios are met. Currently, commissions are paid by insurers to producers (i.e. banks and dealers) as compensation for selling the product. The amount of commission is determined by agreement between the insurer and producer. Commissions for the sale of credit insurance vary widely and, in some cases (generally involving the sale of credit insurance related to automobile purchases) may be as high as 60% of the premium paid by the consumer. In addition to payment of commissions, some insurers retrospectively compensate producers by periodically paying an amount based upon the profitability of each producer's business. Compensation levels largely determine which credit insurer's product a producer chooses to sell. The proposed rule limits total compensation levels, absent specific authorization by the Department, to 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates. Compensation levels have no impact on the premiums charged to consumers purchasing credit insurance. Premiums charged are based on the Department's prima facie rates. The proposed rule permits a credit insurance company to exceed the 30% compensation restriction where the insurer can establish that the payment of compensation in excess of the 30% is "actuarially sound". The determination of whether payment of commission in excess of 30% is "actuarially sound" is left to the discretion of the Department. There is no statutory, rule, or commonly accepted definition of the term, although the Department's actuary stated that a product determined to be "actuarially sound" would be a "self-supporting" product, either profitable or "breaking even". He further opined that he would consider investment income in a determination of actuarial soundness, although the proposed rule does not require such consideration. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed compensation restriction was to protect insurers from insolvency and financial instability. The commission restriction was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The commission restriction was not intended to, and will not, ensure that the loss ratios deemed reasonable by the Department will be met. In adopting a 30% compensation restriction, the Department calculated that, assuming the 55% loss ratio was met, $.55 of each premium dollar would be paid in claims. The Department assumed that $.15 of each premium dollar would cover overhead expenses and profit. According to the Department, the remaining $.30 is the most an insurer could pay as compensation to the producers without affecting the solvency of the insurer. In calculating the commission restriction, the Department did not consider the effect of an insurer's investment income on the ability to pay commission. There is no evidence that payment of commissions in excess of 30% of net direct written premiums has adversely affected the solvency of any credit insurer doing business in Florida. There is, in fact, no history of credit insurer insolvency in Florida. Nationwide, there has been little problem of insolvency in the credit insurer business, with no more than four insurers having become insolvent. In each of those cases, the insolvency resulted from poor management of assets, and was not related to payment of excess commissions to producers. The Department asserts that, absent such restrictions, insurers will pay excessive compensation in order to compete for producers, and that such excess compensation, coupled with administrative expenses and a 55% loss ratio, will threaten the solvency of the companies. The assertion is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. The proposed rule also requires insurers, under some circumstances, to make experience-based refunds to credit insurance purchasers. In determining whether a refund is required, an insurer first calculates whether the insurer has met or exceeded the 55% loss ratio for the prior year. If the loss ratio is met or exceeded, no refunds are required. If an insurer determines that the 55% loss ratio was not met, the insurer calculates the difference between targeted 55% loss ratio and the actual percentage of premium dollars paid out in claims. The insurer then identifies each producer account which had a loss ratio of less than 55%, determines the identity and location of each certificate holder (insured) in each producer's account, and makes a refund to each identified certificate holder. Individual refunds of less than $10 to an individual consumer are not required. The proposed rule permits insurers to carry excess losses forward for a period of three year, to offset years when the targeted loss ratio is not met. However, such excess losses may not be carried forward beyond the three year period. Whether a consumer receives a refund is unrelated to the premium paid by the consumer. An individual consumer ("A") purchasing a car and credit insurance at Dealer "A" may receive a refund, while a Consumer "B" purchasing the same car and credit insurance from Dealer "B" may not receive a refund, if Dealer A's line of business with the insurer meets the target loss ratio and Dealer B's line of business with the same insurer fails to meet the loss ratio. The benefit of the credit insurance is the assurance that, under certain conditions, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. If Consumer A receives a refund and Consumer B does not, Consumer A pays more than Consumer B for the same insurance protection. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed experience refund was to ensure that the 55% loss ratio would be met. However, the experience refund provision, combined with the three year limit for charging off excess losses, will eventually result in loss ratios which will exceed the 55% ratio which the Department has determined to be reasonable. There is no need for experience refunds when the prima facie rates established by the Department are appropriately set. Such rates are designed to produce an acceptable loss ratio. It is reasonable to believe that the Department's revised prima facie rates will result in acceptable loss ratios. The refund proposal was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The proposed rule provides that an insurer charging a premium based on rates at least 10% below the prima facie rates are not required to calculate the experience refund. There is no credible rationale supporting the use of 10% as the threshold under which an insurer escapes the refund calculation, although the resulting loss ratio likely approaches the 60% loss ratio suggested by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Of the actuaries testifying at hearing, one opined that a rate 10% less than the prima facie rate was viable, the other opined that it was not. Because the Department's revised prima facie rates are reasonably calculated to result in a 55% loss ratio, an insurer charging less than the prima facie rate will likely exceed the 55% loss ratio. In connection with the final version of the proposed rule, the Department did not prepare an economic impact statement. The Department did not estimate the costs of insurer compliance with the refund provisions. The expense required of insurers in order to establish experience refund payment systems is significant. Information management systems will require extensive modification to permit such data to be maintained. Substantial amounts of data, which is not currently provided to insurers, must be collected and accurately maintained to permit refunds to be made. Such costs were not included in administrative expenses considered by the Department when the revised prima facie rates were established. Presently, credit insurers maintain limited data related to insureds purchasing credit insurance in connection with installment loans. Although such data may be initially collected by producers, insurers are typically provided only with the name of the debtor and loan number. Data is transmitted to insurers either electronically or through paper files. In either case, data must be converted to usable form by insurers. In approximately seventy percent of credit insurance business, addresses of insureds are not transmitted to insurers. There is no credible evidence that current addresses of insureds are continuously maintained by either insurer or producer in installment debt insurance, since there is little need to question original data as long as periodic payments are being timely made. In a form of credit insurance known as "monthly outstanding balance" insurance, bulk accounts are received by insurers, who generally does not receive either names or addresses of insureds. Consumers whose monthly outstanding balance indebtedness is insured are more likely to provide producer/creditors with current addresses, but such data is not provided to insurers. As to credit insurers, although most insurers currently process refund checks, the additional expense of establishing or modifying systems capable of compliance with the proposed refund requirement could amount to as much as five percent of each premium dollar. One bank official estimated that, as to his bank, the expense of complying with the refund provisions would include an initial cost of $1.1 million and an annual cost of $350,000 to $500,000. A credit insurance information systems and processing executive estimated that the 31 producers writing business for his company would incur costs of $1,860,000 to comply with the rule, and that his own company's costs would be in the range of $4-5 million. The Department suggested that, rather than modify existing mainframe computer systems, such data could be maintained by insurers on personal computers and microcomputer networks. The Department asserted that such systems would be less expensive and require less modification than the process outlined by industry representatives. However, there is credible testimony establishing that significant resources would be involved in determining whether such conversion to microcomputers would be feasible or warranted. In any event, there is no evidence that such conversion could be accomplished in a timely manner permitting the insurers to comply with the proposed rule requirements. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the expenses estimated by the industry representatives are reasonable based upon the existing management information systems maintained by the industry.
The Issue The issues which developed were: Did Pomeroy receive the coverage as asserted by Department of Administration, and What deductions were made from Pomeroy for the coverage, and What deductions were required for the coverage, and Did Pomeroy owe additional for the coverage, and Should the doctrine of laches be applied against the State to prevent the State from asserting the claim?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Kathleen Pomeroy was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, on April 3, 1984. When she was employed, Pomeroy became eligible for participation in the state's health insurance plan. She applied for coverage on April 3, 1984, filling out and signing the application form, Petitioner Exhibit 2. Ms. Pomeroy indicated she desired Family I Coverage, insuring herself and her husband, Albert Pomeroy, who was not a state employee. See Petitioner Exhibit 2. Family I Coverage was provided by the State as indicated by issuance of an insurance card. Although the Pomeroy's never had occasion to make a claim against the insurance, the insurance was in effect from the date of acceptance into the program through the date of the hearing. (Pomeroy's Testimony) The State erroneously failed to deduct the correct amount for insurance premiums from Pomeroy's salary. For May, June and July 1984 the State should have deducted $48.46/month. From August 1984 until March 1986 when the error was caught and corrected, the State should have deducted $55.64/month. However, the State deducted only $7.59 per pay period. Ms. Pomeroy had twenty six (26) pay periods per year, which converts to a monthly payment of $16.45($7.59 x 26 divided by 12 equals $16.45) For May, June and July 1984 the State failed to deduct $96.03, ($48.46 - $16.45 x 3 equals $96.03). From August 1984 to March 1986 the State failed to deduct $1,057 over 19 months, ($55.64 - $16.45 x 19 equals $1,057). This is a computed total of $1,153 based upon Petitioner Exhibit 1. However, the State asserts a claim against Pomeroy totalling $914.74. The State, as indicated above, discovered its error in March 1986 and began deducting the appropriate premium and asserted at that time Pomeroy owed back premiums totaling $914.74.
Recommendation The State should recover $914.74 from Kathleen Pomeroy for underpayment of insurance premiums in 78 equal payments over the next three years, or recover any remaining unrecovered balance from Ms. Pomeroy's last pay check as a lump sum. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2110 The following constitute my specific rulings on petitioner's proposed findings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Respondent did not file proposed findings. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1 adopted. Paragraph 2 adopted. Paragraph 3 rejected as irrelevant and argumentative. Paragraph 4 rejected. No facts support these specific findings, although computations indicated premiums were first paid in May. Paragraph 5 rejected. See paragraph 3, Finding of Facts, which is substituted. Paragraph 6 rejected as irrelevant and argumentative. Paragraph 7 regarding May, June and July 1984, there is no evidence to support the finding that $13.28 was deducted each month. See Finding of Facts paragraph 5. Regarding premiums August 1984 - March 1986 the computations follow those in Finding of Facts, paragraph 6. Regarding April 1986, there is no evidence to support a premium payment of $35.41. Paragraph 8 and 9 essential parts adopted in paragraph 8 of Finding of Facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard L. Cauvel, Esquire RANO, CAUVEL & JOHNSON, P.A. 233 East Rich Avenue DeLand, Florida 32724
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department's audit assessment against Petitioner for additional insurance premium tax for the tax years 1989 and 1990 is proper.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the Final Hearing, the parties agreed to numerous facts and entered into a Joint Prehearing Statement. The Hearing Officer entitles the Findings of Fact section of the Recommended Order "Agreed Facts"; however, instead of reciting the actual stipulation facts submitted by the parties, the Hearing Officer paraphrases and adds facts that were not agreed to by the parties. The "Agreed Facts" section should only recite the facts that were actually agreed to by the parties. Accordingly, the Department substitutes the Joint Prehearing Statement for the Hearing Officer's "Agreed Facts" numbers 1 through 6 as follows: Central Dade is, and at all material times was, a Medical Malpractice Self Insurance Fund as defined in Sec. 627.357, Fla. Stat. Central Dade is a trust, not a corporation. It has been in existence and operation since 1979. Its sole purpose is to provide medical malpractice insurance for its members, i.e., approximately 100 doctors in Dade County. Central Dade has no capital and is not operated for profit. It does not and cannot, absent permission from the Department of Insurance, legally pay dividends to its members; rather it is required by law to hold one hundred percent of its premium and investment income to fund medical malpractice claims and pay its operating expenses (including taxes). Central Dade's members are individually liable or assessable for any shortfall in its trust funds. Central Dade has standing to challenge Fla. Admin. Code Rule 12B- 8.001(5) because it is substantially affected by the Rule. The Department, as an agency within the Executive Branch of the government of the State of Florida, is authorized by Chapters 213 and 624, Fla. Stat., to conduct audits and make assessments of tax pursuant to Chapter 624, Fla. Stat., (Insurance Premium Tax). The Department conducted an audit of Central Dade for the audit period of 12/31/89 through 12/31/90 for Insurance Premium Tax. After the conclusion of the audit and after administrative protest of the proposed assessment by Central Dade, an assessment was issued on July 20, 1994. The assessment became a Final Assessment on July 20, 1994. Central Dade was assessed $8,996.31 tax; $899.63 penalty; and $2,346.58 interest through March 10, 1993. Central Dade paid the entire assessment and is seeking a refund of the payment through this action. Central Dade timely filed a Petition seeking to have the tax assessment declared invalid. Additionally, Central Dade filed a Petition pursuant to Sec. 120.56, Fla. Stat. challenging Fla. Admin. Code Rule 12B-8.001(5) as invalid. Upon Motion by the Parties, the cases were consolidated for Final Hearing. Medical Malpractice Self-insurance Funds became subject to the Insurance Premium Tax beginning July 1, 1989. Ch. 88-206, ss. 6, Laws of Fla. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 12B-8.001(5) became effective March 25, 1990. The parties agree the Rule was correctly promulgated and the Petitioner is only challenging the applicability of the Rule to Petitioner and the substance of the Rule. The dispute between the parties concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to the credits contained in Sec. 624.509.(4), Fla. Stat. The parties additionally stipulated to the following: If the Department prevails in this action, the Petitioner will not be entitled to any refund for the tax years 1989 and 1990. [Joint Exhibit Two] Any overpayment made by the Petitioner will be applied to subsequent tax years. 1/ If the Petitioner prevails in this action, it will be entitled to a refund of $23,774.76 for the tax years 1989 and 1990. [Joint Exhibit Two] The Department rejects the Hearing Officer's "Agreed Fact" number 7 because it is a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. The Department rejects the Hearing Officer's "Agreed Fact" number 8 as irrelevant to this proceeding. The Department makes the following additional findings of fact based on competent and substantial testimony and evidence presented at the Final Hearing: A premium tax on "medical malpractice self-insurance [funds]" was first imposed in 1989. Effective July 1, 1989, Chapter 88-206, ss. 6, Laws of Fla., amended Sec. 627.357, Fla. Stat. to provide: 627.357 Medical malpractice self-insurance -- (9) Premiums, contributions, and assessments received by a fund are subject to s. 624.509 (1), (2), and (3), except that the tax rate shall be 1.6 percent of the gross amount of such premiums, contributions and assessments. E.S. The premium tax imposed on medical malpractice self-insurers was, pursuant to the above-quoted statute, 1.6 percent of the gross amount of the premiums, contributions and assessments. A premium tax on "dental service plan corporations" self-insurance funds was first imposed in 1989. Effective July 1, 1989, Chapter 88-206, ss. 6, Laws of Fla., amended Sec. 627.357, Fla. Stat. to provide: 637.406 Tax on premiums, contributions, and assessments. Premiums, contributions, and assessments received by a dental service plan corporation are subject to the tax imposed by s. 624.509. The premium tax imposed on dental service plan corporations in 1988 was 2 percent of the gross amount of the premiums, contributions, and assessments pursuant to Sec. 624.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). The Legislature in the same Bill that added the amendments to Sec. 627.357 Fla. Stat., which subjected medical malpractice self-insurers to subsections (1), (2) and (3) 2/ of Sec. 624.509, Fla. Stat., 3/ and made dental service plan self-insurers subject to "s. 624.509" in its entirety also made multiple employer welfare arrangements, 4/ Commercial self-insurance funds, 5/ professional liability self-insurance, 6/ and group self-insurer funds subject to subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Sec. 624.509, Fla. Stat.; but made other insurers, such as the continuing care contracts, 7/ subject to Sec. 624.509, Fla. Stat., in its entirety. Further, all those entities which the Legislature specifically made subject to noncredit paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Sec. 624.509, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988) were given a lower 1.6 percent tax rate by the Legislature. In contrast, those entities made subject to Sec. 624.509, Fla. Stat., in its entirety, such as the dental service plan self-insurers, without a listing of the specific paragraphs, and which are clearly entitled to the credits therein, were made subject to the higher 2 percent tax rate provided in Sec. 624.509(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988). 18. Sec. 624.509(1), (2), (3), (4), and (9), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1988), states in pertinent part: 624.509 Premium tax; rate and computation. In addition to the license taxes provided for in this chapter, each insurer shall also annually, and on or before March 1 in each year, except as to wet marine and transportation insurance taxed under s. 624.510, pay to the Department of Revenue a tax on insurance premiums, risk premiums for title insurance, or assessments, including membership fees and policy fees and gross deposits received from subscribers to reciprocal or interinsurance agreements, and on annuity premiums or considerations, received during the preceding calendar year, the amounts thereof to be determined as set forth in this section, to wit: An amount equal to 2 percent of the gross amount of such receipts on account of life and health insurance policies covering persons resident in this state and on account of all other types of policies and contracts (except annuity policies or contracts taxable under paragraph (b)) covering property, subjects, or risks located, resident, or to be performed in this state, omitting premiums on reinsurance accepted, and less return premiums or assessments, but without deductions: For reinsurance ceded to other insurers; For moneys paid upon surrender of policies or certificates for cash surrender value; For discounts or refunds for direct or prompt payment of premiums or assessments; and On account of dividends of any nature or amount paid and credited or allowed to holders of insurance policies; certificates; or surety, indemnity, reciprocal, or interinsurance contracts or agreements; and An amount equal to 1 percent of the gross receipts on annuity policies or contracts paid by holders thereof in this state. Payment by the insurer of the license taxes and premium receipts taxes provided for in this part of this chapter is a condition precedent to doing business within this state. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, the distribution of the premium tax and any penalties or interest collected thereunder shall be made to the General Revenue Fund in accordance with rules adopted by the Department of Revenue and approved by the Administration Commission. The intangible tax imposed under chapter 199, the income tax imposed under chapter 220, and the emergency excise tax imposed under chapter 221 which are paid by any insurer shall be credited against, and to the extent thereof shall discharge, the liability for tax imposed by this section for the annual period in which such tax payments are made. As to any insurer issuing policies insuring against loss or damage from the risks of fire, tornado, and certain casualty lines, the tax imposed by this section, as intended and contemplated by this subsection, shall be construed to mean the net amount of such tax remaining after there has been credited thereon such gross premium receipts tax as may be payable by such insurer in pursuance of the imposition of such tax by any incorporated cities or towns in the state for firemen's relief and pension funds and policemen's retirement funds maintained in such cities or towns, as provided in and by relevant provisions of the Florida Statutes. For purposes of this subsection, payments of estimated income tax under chapter 220 and of estimated emergency excise tax under chapter 221 shall be deemed paid either at the time the insurer actually files its annual returns under chapter 220 or at the time such returns are required to be filed, whichever first occurs, and not at such earlier time as such payments of estimated tax are actually made. (9) As used in this section "insurer" includes any entity subject to the tax imposed by this section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the Department's assessment issued July 20, 1994, was improper and finding Petitioner entitled to a refund in the amount of $23,774.76. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 19th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5 and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3, 6, and 8 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, and 9-11 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 5 and 12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 6-10, 13, and 15-19 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 14, 20, and 21 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11 and 22 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis H. Sitterson, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, et al. Museum Tower 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Lisa M. Raleigh, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Tax Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department's Rule 12B-8.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
