Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas Holliday Veal, held a license as a general lines agent issued by petitioner, Department of Insurance. He currently resides at 2515 South Atlantic, No. 203, Cocoa Beach, Florida. When the events herein occurred, Veal owned and operated Mr. Auto Insurance, Pine Hills, Inc., located at 1449 Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida. In order to purchase a tag for an automobile, a driver must, at a minimum, show evidence of having personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. This type of coverage is commonly referred to as tag insurance. Respondent's agency sold this type of insurance, and others, including accidental death and dismemberment policies. On or about May 28, 1982, Timothy L. Lake visited Mr. Auto Insurance for the purpose of purchasing PIP coverage for his 1969 Ford. He spoke with an unidentified lady, who apparently worked for Veal, and asked for tag insurance. She quoted a price of $44. The cost of the PIP coverage was actually $20 while the remaining $24 was the cost of a $2000 accidental death and dismemberment policy. She then handed him a series of documents which included forms for purchasing an accidental death policy as well as the PIP coverage. Upon her request, Lake named a beneficiary, and was told that in the event be was killed, his beneficiary would receive $2,000. He then read and signed both applications. In the line immediately above his signature on the accidental death application appeared the following: "Fee $20.00". He also received a written receipt indicating he had purchased "PIP; (8000 ded) No lia, No UM, Acc. death" for a total of $44. In addition, he signed the following statement: I understand the accidental death benefit through life insurance company is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included in with my down payment. The accidental death policy contained the following words in hold face type at the top of the document: Accidental Death and Dismemberment Coverage". However, at no time was Lake specifically told by the lady that he was buying a separate policy in addition to the PIP coverage that he had requested. He left the premises believing that he had only purchased PIP coverage. At the final hearing, Lake admitted he was not rushed, and that he understood what an accidental death policy was. An investigation of Veal was later conducted by the Department. After a Department investigator visited Lake, and both reviewed his coverage, Lake claimed that for the first time, he realized he had also purchased an accidental death policy. On or about August 3, 1982, George D. Morris visited Mr. Auto Insurance for the purpose of purchasing tag insurance. He spoke with a lady who apparently worked for Veal and asked for PIP coverage so that be could purchase tags for his two automobiles. The lady quoted a price of $69. The actual cost of the PIP coverage was only $39. The remaining $30 represented the cost of a $10,000 accidental death and dismemberment policy. Morris was handed a series of forms to fill out and was asked to name a beneficiary in the event he was accidentally killed. The employee explained to him that the beneficiary would receive $10,000 if be died. Morris then read and signed the accidental death application. In the line immediately above his signature appeared the following: "Fee $30.00." He also received a written receipt indicating that he bad paid $39 for PIP coverage and $30 for an accidental death policy. In addition, he read and signed the following statement: I understand the accidental death benefit through life insurance company is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand that the additional charge of this coverage is included in with my down payment. At no time, however, was Morris told by the lady that he was specifically purchasing something other than tag insurance. He left the premises under the impression he had only purchased PIP coverage. In the course of a later investigation of Veal, a Department investigator visited Morris and reviewed the coverage he had purchased from Veal. After meeting with the Department investigator, Morris claimed that for the first time he realized he had purchased an accidental death policy. Sliding is the practice of tricking insureds into buying coverages other than those that they wished to purchase. According to an expert in the field of insurance, an agent engaged in sliding generally gives the insured a single document containing more than one policy so that the insured believes he is only purchasing one. In the case at bar, because (a) both Lake and Morris were given separate documents for each policy, (b) the types of policies were identified in large bold face print, (c) their signatures were required on each policy, (d) a beneficiary had to be named, (e) receipts for both policies were given, and (f) the insured read the agreements prior to signing the same, the expert concluded that no sliding had occurred, especially where both Lake and Morris appeared to have reasonable intelligence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating subsections 626.611(9), 626.621(2) and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes, on two separate occasions and that his insurance license be suspended for twenty (20) days. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his suspended insurance license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to regulate the business of insurance, including the licensing of insurance agents, and to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is, and at all material times was, licensed in Florida as an insurance agent and subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Petitioner's license was suspended on or about July 16, 2004. Petitioner's license suspension arises from a September 11, 2003, Final Order in Department case number 65103- 03-AG (Final Order) issued against the Petitioner. The Final Order determined that the Petitioner was guilty of violating Sections 626.651(1), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes, and suspended his license and eligibility for licensure for a period of nine months. Petitioner exercised his right to judicial review of the Final Order. In due course, the Final Order was affirmed, per curiam, by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. The suspension of Petitioner's license pursuant to the Final Order became effective with the issuance of an Order Terminating a Stay of Final Order entered on July 27, 2004 (the Order Terminating Stay). The Order Terminating Stay provided that Petitioner's license and eligibility for licensure would be placed on suspension for a period of nine months, commencing July 16, 2004. The Order Terminating Stay of Final Order also stated that: Pursuant to Section 626.641(4), Florida Statutes, during the period of suspension the Respondent shall not engage in or attempt or profess to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or appointment is required under the Insurance Code or directly or indirectly, own, control, or be employed in any manner by any insurance agent or agency or adjuster or adjusting firm. Pursuant to Section 626.641(1), Florida Statutes, Respondent's licensure shall not be reinstated except upon request for such reinstatement, and the Respondent shall not engage in the transaction of insurance until his license is reinstated. The Department shall not grant such reinstatement if it finds that the circumstance or circumstances for which the license(s) was suspended still exist or are likely to recur. Petitioner properly requested reinstatement of his license effective April 16, 2005. The Request for Reinstatement of Suspended License/New ID License Request form requires acknowledgment by the individual seeking reinstatement that: the circumstances which led to the suspension of my license(s) no longer exist and are not likely to recur . . . I understand that my request for reinstatement in no way guarantees that my license(s) will be reinstated. At all times material to this case, Petitioner was employed by American Professional Insurance, also known as Ampro (Ampro). More specifically, at all times relevant to the allegations made by the Department in its Notice of Denial, Petitioner was an employee, director, and shareholder of Ampro. Feehan, as previously noted, is the owner and operator of JTS, a cabinetry business. Feehan had been an insurance client of Ampro from 1999-2004 and had experienced no problems in the relationship. The business relationship between Feehan and Petitioner ended following a fire at JTS on July 29, 2004, when Feehan learned that there was no insurance coverage for the fire. Feehan filed a complaint with the Department, which complaint was investigated and thereafter formed the primary basis for the Notice of Denial. On or about May 4, 2004, Feehan executed a form provided by Petitioner for the purpose of renewing coverage for JTS for general liability as well as for the building that JTS occupied at 75 Northwest 18th Avenue (JTS building). Feehan paid for this insurance by check in the amount of $3,850.00. The check was made out to Ampro and was deposited into the payroll account of Ampro. At all times material to this case, Petitioner has exclusive signature authority for this account. Feehan knew the check he had issued had been negotiated and believed he had insurance for JTS through Ampro. Feehan never received a copy of any insurance policy for JTS, nor was Feehan provided any type of identification of the policy number. Feehan was instead provided by Petitioner with certificates of liability insurance which identified the Nautilus Insurance Company (Nautilus) as the insurer. Petitioner partially completed the certificates, omitting any specific policy number. Petitioner signed the incomplete certificates and provided them to Feehan. Feehan required the certificates to show its contractors that JTS had general liability insurance. On July 29, 2004, a fire occurred at JTS' building. Feehan attempted to make a claim. By this time, Petitioner's suspension had taken effect. Feehan made several unavailing efforts to contact Petitioner. Feehan eventually accepted the services of a freelance adjuster who was on the scene at the fire (the freelance adjuster). The freelance adjuster informed Feehan that JTS did not have any insurance coverage in place. Nevertheless, on his own initiative, Feehan then tried to contact the Continental Insurance Company (Continental) directly and file a claim. Feehan decided to contact Continental because Feehan had seen Continental's name on several of the documents provided to JTS from Ampro. Continental also informed Feehan that JTS had no insurance. As of October 19, 2005, Feehan had yet to receive a full or partial refund of the $3,850.00 Feehan had paid to Ampro for insurance coverage for JTS. Steve Finver (Finver) is the President of Continental Agency of Florida (CAF), a business which acts as an insurance wholesaler and assists retail agents in placing insurance coverage. Finver oversees the entire operations of CAF, which include Continental. Finver is an authorized representative of Continental and has access to the records kept in the ordinary course of business. Nautilus is among the insurance carriers that Finver works with. Finver had enjoyed a business relationship with the Petitioner and Ampro which dated back a generation. The relationship soured in the fall of 2003 over bad checks for policies of insureds that Ampro wrote to Continental. In response, Finver imposed upon Petitioner a requirement that Ampro must henceforth pay by cashier's check or by finance draft. The relationship between Continental and Petitioner and Ampro ended when Finver learned that Petitioner had been arrested for fraud sometime in May of 2004, although Continental would continue to honor any quotes already rendered to Ampro clients. Continental quoted an insurance policy for JTS for Ampro in May of 2004. The quote was $3,226.76. A request to bind was made by Ampro, but Continental never received payment for the quoted JTS policy, so a policy was never issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his suspended insurance license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of December 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James Curran, Esquire 633 Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Michael T. Ruff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of violating any of the below-cited provisions of the Florida Insurance Code and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been licensed as follows: life agent, life and health agent, general lines agent, and health agent (Licenses). Respondent's license identification number is A192740. At all material times, Respondent has owned Florida Best Insurance Agency, Inc. (Best). Best sells insurance. Rose Duverseau has previously purchased insurance from Best and Respondent. Respondent has previously sold her insurance even though Ms. Duverseau lacked the cash necessary to pay the premium, although the record does not reveal the specifics of their arrangements in such transactions. On September 9, 2003, Ms. Duverseau telephoned Respondent at Best's office to discuss the purchase of automobile insurance. Satisfied with the premium cited by Respondent, Ms. Duverseau told Respondent to prepare the paperwork, and she would come to the office to sign the papers and obtain the insurance. When she arrived at Best's office later that day or the following day, Ms. Duverseau revealed to Respondent that she lacked the funds to pay the entire premium of $530. Respondent accepted from her a payment of part of the premium--$100. In return, Respondent issued to her insurance identification cards, showing that, effective September 9, 2003, she had coverage with American Vehicle Insurance Company (American) for personal injury protection benefits, property damage liability, and bodily injury liability. Ms. Duverseau told Respondent that she would bring him the rest of the money later. On September 23, 2003, Ms. Duverseau returned to Best's office and gave Respondent an additional $200 toward the premium. On September 25, 2003, Ms. Duverseau sent a friend with the remaining $230 to complete payment of the premium. Ms. Duverseau sent a friend because, earlier on September 25, Ms. Duverseau was involved in an automobile accident while in the covered vehicle. As a result of the accident, Ms. Duverseau incurred over $11,000 of medical expenses, which, after negotiations, was later reduced to $6243.25. She paid this amount with the proceeds of a settlement with another party involved in the accident. Ms. Duverseau later demanded that Respondent pay her this sum and the $530 that she had paid him for the policy, but Respondent gave her only $200 and a used computer that broke shortly after he gave it to her. Respondent never submitted the insurance application or premium payments to American. He is not an authorized agent of American. As he had in other insurance transactions, Respondent had intended to submit the application and premium to Fed USA Insurance and Financial Services, which is an agent of American, but Respondent intended to do so only after Ms. Duverseau had completed paying the full amount. However, Respondent is not an employee or agent of Fed USA.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's Licenses for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Robert Alan Fox Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Francois Noel 13285 Northeast Sixth Avenue, Apt. N104 North Miami, Florida 33161
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, John Morris Ale, hereinafter Mr. Ale, was licensed as a general lines agent in the State of Florida. On or about December 5, 1994, Mr. Ale telephoned Ms. Kristen Stryker informing her that he had started his own insurance business, Doctors Insurance Agency, and inquiring if she wanted to obtain her automobile insurance coverage from him. Mr. Ale was acquainted with Ms. Stryker due to his having obtained her present coverage for her. It was almost time for renewal of her present coverage. Ms. Stryker agreed to obtain her automobile coverage from Mr. Ale. Further, Mr. Ale inquired if Ms. Stryker would allow his son, James Ale, to come to her home and write the coverage. Mr. Ale indicated that his son was learning the insurance business, but assured her that he, Mr. Ale, would review all documents prepared by his son. Relying on that assurance and believing that Mr. Ale's son was a licensed agent, Ms. Stryker agreed for Mr. Ale's son to write her automobile coverage. On the evening of December 5, 1994, James Ale came to Ms. Stryker's home. He completed an automobile insurance application for coverage on her 1993 Jeep Cherokee and explained the coverage to her. Ms. Stryker presented to James Ale a check for $222, made payable to Doctors Insurance, as down payment for the insurance premium. Additionally, James Ale presented to Ms. Stryker an E.T.I. Financial Corporation premium finance agreement to sign. She signed the premium finance agreement. E.T.I. is a premium finance company. The premium finance agreement is dated December 6, 1994. It is signed by Respondent and indicates, among other things, Ms. Stryker's down payment, the total premium, and coverage effective on December 6, 1994, by two insurance companies, Fortune and New Alliance. Ms. Stryker's down payment check for $222 was endorsed and deposited by Doctors Insurance Agency. At no time material hereto was James Ale licensed by the State of Florida to transact insurance. At all times material hereto, Mr. Ale knew or should have known that his son, James Ale, was not licensed by the State of Florida to transact insurance. Subsequently, James Ale forwarded to Ms. Stryker an undated letter, together with additional applications for insurance coverage with insurance companies other than Fortune and New Alliance. In the letter, James Ale requested, among other things, that Ms. Stryker sign the applications and return them to him so that he could forward the applications to the insurance companies. Also, included with the undated letter was a copy of an automobile insurance binder, which indicated, among other things, that her vehicle coverage was with two insurance companies, Armor Insurance and Service Insurance, and that the binder period was from March 10, 1995 through March 10, 1996. The binder, according to the undated letter, could be used for proof of insurance. E.T.I. Financial Corporation authorized Doctors Insurance Agency, by and through Mr. Ale, to finance insurance premiums through E.T.I. Mr. Ale was the licensed agent for Doctors Insurance Agency. As an authorized insurance premium finance agent for E.T.I., Doctors Insurance Agency had possession of blank bank drafts from E.T.I. The process and procedure utilized in financing insurance premiums through an insurance company authorized by E.T.I. to represent it included forwarding blank bank drafts, bearing E.T.I.'s name, to the authorized insurance company. The bank draft is completed by the authorized insurance company, which includes making the drafts payable for the entire premium to the insurance company providing the coverage and is signed by the licensed agent of the authorized insurance company. The completed bank draft is forwarded, along with the premium finance agreement and any down payment, to E.T.I. which forwards the draft to the specified insurance company providing the coverage. If a draft is not signed by the licensed agent, the draft is not honored by E.T.I. and, therefore, is not issued to the insurance company providing the coverage. Consequently, no coverage is provided for a vehicle. No premium finance agreement from Doctors Insurance Agency was received by E.T.I. on behalf of Ms. Stryker. No premium finance agreement was ever received by E.T.I. from Doctors Insurance Agency. No down payment for the insurance premium on behalf of Ms. Stryker was received by E.T.I. from Doctors Insurance Agency. No bank draft from Doctors Insurance Agency was received by E.T.I. on behalf of Ms. Stryker and payable to Fortune or New Alliance. No bank draft from Doctors Insurance Agency was received by E.T.I. on behalf of Ms. Stryker and payable to Armor Insurance or Service Insurance. No bank drafts were ever received by E.T.I. from Doctors Insurance Agency. Due to the failure of Doctors Insurance Agency to submit the proper documents to E.T.I., including the bank drafts, no insurance company, which was to provide automobile insurance coverage to Ms. Stryker, received a premium from E.T.I. Therefore, none of the insurance companies provided Ms. Stryker with coverage for her vehicle. Even though Ms. Stryker had a binder for insurance coverage, unbeknownst to her, she had no automobile insurance coverage in effect. On or about May 24, 1995, Ms. Stryker was involved in an automobile accident. Believing that she had automobile insurance coverage in effect, Ms. Stryker contacted Mr. Ale regarding the accident. Mr. Ale informed her that she did not have insurance coverage with his insurance company and never did. Shortly afterwards, Ms. Stryker spoke with James Ale who informed her that he would attempt to locate her documents. She was not contacted again by James Ale. Because she had no automobile insurance coverage, Ms. Stryker was personally liable for the damages resulting from her accident, which exceeded $3,000. Also, she was exposed to potential personal liability for claims of injuries or damages suffered by the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Neither Doctors Insurance Agency nor Mr. Ale paid any monies to Ms. Stryker for the damages that she suffered. On or about June 7, 1995, Ms. Stryker filed a consumer's assistance request with the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, hereinafter the Department. On or about October 18, 1995, almost 5 months after her automobile accident, Doctors Insurance Company issued a refund to Ms. Stryker of her $222 down payment on the insurance premium. Ms. Stryker had paid the down payment more than 10 months earlier.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order: Finding that John Morris Ale violated Subsections 626.611(4), (7), (8), and (13), and 626.621(2) and (12), Florida Statutes (1993), in Count I and violated Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), (8), and (13), and 626.621(2), Florida Statutes (1993), in Count II. Imposing a 21-month suspension of the license of John Morris Ale. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 24, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing, regulating, and imposing discipline on insurance agents in Florida. See §§ 626.016(1); 626.601, Fla. Stat. Ms. Sykes was licensed as a 2-14 "life including variable annuity agent" and as a 2-20 general lines agent in January 1998. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Ms. Sykes worked at an insurance agency owned by David J. Heiny ("Heiny Agency"). Deena Buell also worked for the Heiny Agency, and Ms. Sykes, Ms. Buell, and Mr. Heiny were the only three employees who were licensed as 2-20 general lines agents. The remaining two employees of Heiny Agency during the times pertinent to this proceeding held 4-40 licenses as customer service representatives. Certificate of Liability Insurance The Heiny Agency marketed the insurance products of the Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate") and also the products of other insurance companies at the times material to this proceeding. In 2003, Mr. Heiny decided to expand his business to include workers' compensation insurance. In July 2003, he submitted an application to the Florida Workers' Compensation Joint Underwriting Association ("FWCJUA"), the insurer of last resort in Florida for workers' compensation insurance, for authority to submit applications to it for workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Heiny was notified by the FWCJUA in a letter dated July 29, 2003, that he was authorized to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA until July 29, 2004. Mr. Heiny did not have authority to bind coverage for the FWCJUA, nor did he have authority to issue certificates of liability insurance showing workers' compensation insurance coverage through the FWCJUA. Under his agreement with the FWCJUA, Mr. Heiny was required to meet with and explain the workers' compensation insurance coverage to applicants and to sign all of the application forms. Mr. Heiny was unfamiliar with workers' compensation insurance, and he intended for Ms. Buell to handle all of the workers' compensation insurance business because she had experience at another agency with workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Heiny's office submitted one application for workers' compensation insurance, which was rejected, and he decided that the FWCJUA required too much paperwork. Mr. Heiny decided that he did not want to be involved with workers' compensation insurance, and he did not apply to renew his authorization to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA. As a result, his authority to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA expired on July 29, 2004. Mr. Heiny informed both Ms. Sykes and Ms. Buell that he did not intend to renew his authorization with the FWCJUA. Ms. Sykes is fluent in Spanish and was the only licensed agent at the Heiny Agency who spoke Spanish at the times pertinent to this proceeding. Because of her fluency in Spanish, Ms. Sykes worked with the Heiny Agency's Spanish- speaking customers, and most of her business consisted of referrals from these customers. One of Ms. Sykes' long-standing customers was Mayola Campos, who owned Form Construction, Inc. ("Form Construction"), with her husband, Fortino Campos, and Ms. Sykes handled the commercial insurance for Form Construction. Mrs. Campos came into the Heiny Agency's office regularly to pay premiums and to discuss with Ms. Sykes's the corporation's various insurance policies and changes in coverage. As a result, Ms. Sykes and Mrs. Campos were well-acquainted, and Ms. Sykes received a number of referrals from Mrs. Campos. Form Construction was a trim and roofing company working in the construction industry. According to Ms. Sykes, Mrs. Campos came to her in or around July 2004 seeking workers' compensation insurance. Ms. Sykes was not familiar with workers' compensation insurance because she had never sold that type of insurance, and it was not a product normally sold through the Heiny Agency. Nonetheless, she completed an application and submitted it to Ms. Buell for processing. At the time, Ms. Sykes was aware that Mr. Heiny did not intend to renew his authority to submit applications for workers' compensation insurance to the FWCJUA and that the authority would expire at the end of July 2004. Ms. Sykes cannot recall hearing anything further about Form Construction's July 2004 application for workers' compensation insurance. She was going through a particularly difficult divorce proceeding and was not working full-time at the agency. In addition, Ms. Buell was working from her home so she could care for her infant and young daughter, and Ms. Sykes and Ms. Buell were not in regular communication. Without confirming that the FWCJUA had issued workers' compensation insurance to Form Construction, Ms. Sykes signed a Certificate of Liability Insurance for Form Construction and sent it to that company. The certificate, dated October 12, 2004, reflected that, in addition to general liability and automobile insurance, Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance through the FWCJUA that was effective from October 16, 2004, to October 16, 2005. The certificate holder was identified on the certificate as Gold Construction. Ms. Sykes was aware of the purpose of a Certificate of Liability Insurance since she routinely prepared and signed them for insurance companies whose products were marketed by the Heiny Agency. A Certificate of Liability Insurance is used to establish that a person or company has liability, automobile, and/or workers' compensation insurance. Although some insurance companies allow insurance agents to issue certificates of liability insurance, only the FWCJUA issues certificates of liability insurance for the workers' compensation insurance coverage it provides. The only exception to this policy is when an agent requests authority to issue a certificate of liability insurance for a specific insured for a specific purpose. The agent must request this authority in writing and specify the purpose of the certificate; the FWCJUA must give approval in writing to the agent before the agent can issue the certificate. The agent must then send a copy of the certificate to the FWCJUA for its records. In the construction industry, a certificate of liability insurance is presented to a contractor to establish that a company working on a project as a subcontractor has workers' compensation insurance. If a general contractor hires a subcontractor that does not have workers' compensation insurance, the general contractor is responsible for providing workers' compensation insurance for the employees of the uninsured subcontractor who worked on the contractor's job. See § 440.10(a), (b), and (c), Florida Statutes. Form Construction presented the Certificate of Liability Insurance signed by Ms. Sykes to Gold Construction, which was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, a qualified contractor business. Gold Construction hired general contractors, which, in turn, hired subcontractors to work on its projects. The subcontractors were paid by Gold Construction, and it required all subcontractors to present a certificate of liability insurance showing that they had general liability and workers' compensation insurance at the time the subcontractors were hired. Sometimes, the subcontractor would provide the certificate directly to Gold Construction, and sometimes Gold Construction would call the subcontractor's insurance agency and request that the certificate be sent to it, directly. The Certificate of Liability Insurance signed by Ms. Sykes was presented to Gold Construction as evidence that Form Construction had liability and workers' compensation insurance, and, in November 2004, Gold Construction hired Form Construction to do truss work on two construction projects. Gold Construction was subsequently audited by its workers' compensation insurance carrier, and the auditor determined that that Form Construction did not, in fact, have workers' compensation insurance and that the Certificate of Liability Insurance was bogus. Gold Construction was, therefore, assessed an additional $12,000.00 in workers' compensation insurance premium to add coverage for Form Construction's employees. The only records the FWCJUA has relating to Form Construction is an application for workers' compensation insurance for Fortino and Mayola Campos, d/b/a Form Construction, which was signed by Mr. Heiny and dated August 27, 2003; a date stamp on the application shows that it was received by the FWCJUA on September 17, 2003. In a letter dated October 16, 2003, the FWCJUA notified Mr. Heiny that the application for Form Construction was being returned with no coverage having been bound, and there is nothing in the records of the FWCJUA showing that it received another application for workers' compensation insurance for Form Construction or that it provided compensation insurance for Form Construction. Automobile insurance endorsement The Heiny Agency wrote commercial automobile insurance through Allstate. Ms. Sykes joined the agency in 1995, after having worked for another agency that marketed Allstate insurance products. Ms. Sykes was recommended by one of Allstate's district managers, and her familiarity with the Allstate computer system and her fluency in Spanish were considered by Mr. Heiny to be very important contributions to his agency. Form Construction had commercial automobile insurance coverage with Allstate, which was written through the Heiny Agency. Ms. Sykes was the only agent at the Heiny Agency that worked with Mrs. Campos on insurance matters. Mrs. Campos visited the Heiny Agency's office frequently to pay premiums and to discuss the various insurance policies issued to Form Construction. Mrs. Campos always spoke with Ms. Sykes when she came into the office because none of the other agents or employees of the agency spoke Spanish. Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy came up for renewal in April 2005. When Mrs. Campos came in to pay the renewal premium, she and Ms. Sykes discussed raising the policy's bodily injury liability limits from $25,000.00 per person and $50,000 per occurrence. Mrs. Campos told Ms. Sykes that she needed to speak to her husband before she could raise the liability limits. Ms. Sykes did not hear anything from Mrs. Campos until June 2005, when Mrs. Campos came into the office and requested that Ms. Sykes add another vehicle to Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy. Ms. Sykes again advised Mrs. Campos that she should consider raising the policy's bodily injury liability coverage limits to at least $250,000. Mrs. Campos asked Ms. Sykes how much such an increase in coverage would cost, and Ms. Sykes went into the Allstate computer system and partially prepared an endorsement to the automobile insurance policy showing the increased limits so she could get a quote for Mrs. Campos on the price. Ms. Sykes did not submit the endorsement at that time, and it remained pending in the Allstate computer system. On or about July 12, 2005, Mrs. Campos visited the Heiny Agency's office and reported to Ms. Sykes that Mr. Campos had been involved in an automobile accident while driving a vehicle owned by Form Construction and that he had hit a person on a bicycle. Ms. Sykes advised her that her commercial automobile bodily injury liability coverage limits were $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence. Ms. Sykes also reminded Mrs. Campos that she had advised her several times to raise the Form Construction's bodily injury liability limits. Ms. Sykes immediately submitted the claim to the Allstate claims Department, where it was assigned to Thomas Burger. On July 15, 2005, Mrs. Campos contacted Ms. Sykes and told her to raise the bodily injury liability limits in Form Construction's automobile insurance policy to $500,000.00 per person and $500,000.00 per occurrence. Ms. Sykes went into the Allstate computer system and prepared and submitted the endorsement to Allstate. The endorsement submitted by Ms. Sykes on July 15, 2005, carried an effective date of July 10, 2005, two days prior to the date on which Mrs. Campos reported the claim relating to Mr. Campos's automobile accident. A copy of the endorsement was sent to Mrs. Campos on July 16, 2005, and Mrs. Campos visited the Heiny Agency's office several days later with a check for the additional premium attributable to the increase in bodily injury liability limits. The Allstate claims department was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, separate from the department handling commercial automobile insurance policies. The information available to Mr. Burger at the time the Form Construction claim was submitted showed bodily injury liability limits of $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence on the Form Construction policy. On July 29, 2005, Allstate tendered a check to the person injured by Mr. Campos for the policy limit of $25,000.00. This check was not cashed. Mr. Burger did not learn until October 2005 that a policy endorsement raising the bodily injury liability limits had been submitted July 15, 2005, with an effective date of July 10, 2005. According to Ms. Sykes, someone from Allstate contacted her in August 2005 to question her about the endorsement, and she explained that the retroactive increase in bodily injury liability limits was a mistake and that the policy limits were $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence at the time of the accident on July 12, 2005. Mr. Burger interviewed Ms. Sykes and Mr. Heiny on January 13, 2006, regarding the endorsement, and Ms. Sykes told Mr. Burger that she could not recall why she would have back-dated the endorsement. Ms. Sykes told Mr. Burger of the problems she had experienced with endorsements to automobile insurance policies being lost in the Allstate computer system. On January 26, 2006, the attorney representing the person injured by Mr. Campos wrote Allstate demanding disclosure of the policy limits of Form Construction's automobile insurance policy. In a letter dated February 3, 2006, Allstate notified Mr. Heiny and Ms. Sykes that it might seek indemnification from the Heiny Agency because it attributed the back-dated increase in bodily injury liability limits to agent error. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Heiny asked if Allstate could change the limits back to the original $25,000.00 per person and $50,000.00 per occurrence as of the date of the accident, but Allstate had already determined that the increased limits were effective July 10, 2005, because of the effective date on the endorsement and because of Mrs. Campos's payment of the premium for the additional coverage. In a letter dated February 17, 2006, Mr. Burger advised the attorney representing the injured person of the increase in the bodily injury liability limits, and, on March 2, 2006, Allstate tendered a check to the injured person's attorney in the amount of $500,000.00. Ms. Sykes attributed the back-dating of the endorsement to a glitch in the Allstate computer system by which the endorsement she submitted July 15, 2005, was automatically back-dated to July 10, 2005. Ms. Sykes had complained to Mr. Heiny on numerous occasions about problems with endorsements disappearing from the system, which required her to resubmit the endorsements. Ms. Sykes was not, however, aware of any endorsements being automatically back-dated by the system except for the July 2005 endorsement to Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy. Under the Allstate computer system, there are only two ways in which an endorsement's effective date can be established. The usual procedure requires the agent to complete the endorsement and submit it into the system; the system then automatically records on the endorsement the date it was submitted and the effective date of the endorsement. The other alternative is for an authorized agent to manually back-date the effective date of an endorsement and then submit it into the system. Mr. Heiny tested the Allstate computer system repeatedly, trying to determine whether the system would automatically back-date an endorsement. None of the test endorsements prepared by Mr. Heiny was automatically back-dated, and Mr. Heiny is aware of no instance in which an endorsement was automatically back-dated except for the Form Construction endorsement at issue herein. Findings of ultimate fact Certificate of Liability Insurance The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, when she signed the Certificate of Liability Insurance on October 12, 2004, showing that Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance issued by the FWCJUA with effective dates of October 16, 2004, through October 15, 2005, Ms. Sykes knew that Form Construction did not have workers' compensation insurance placed by the Heiny Agency through the FWCJUA and knew that Gold Construction would rely on the Certificate of Liability Insurance as evidence that Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance. Ms. Sykes' action demonstrates her lack of fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance, and Ms. Sykes caused injury to Gold Construction because, as a result of its reliance on the Certificate of Liability Insurance, it was required to pay additional premium to its workers' compensation insurance carrier. Ms. Sykes's testimony regarding the circumstances in which she signed the Certificate of Liability Insurance was replete with inconsistencies and improbabilities and was wholly insufficient to support her contention that, when she signed the Certificate of Liability Insurance, she had a good faith belief that Form Construction had workers' compensation insurance issued by the FWCJUA. Mr. Heiny told Ms. Sykes that he did not intend to renew his authorization to submit workers' compensation insurance applications to the FWCJUA after it expired in July 2004, and, because she was the only agent at the Heiny Agency that dealt with Mrs. Campos, Ms. Sykes would necessarily have known if Form Construction had been issued a workers' compensation insurance policy by the FWCJUA. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that Ms. Sykes was aware on October 12, 2004, that Form Construction was not, and had never been, covered by workers' compensation insurance issued by the FWCJUA as a result of an application submitted by Mr. Heiny. Finally, Ms. Sykes' testimony that, before signing the Certificate of Liability Insurance, she reviewed the Form Construction file and saw a check and a Federal Express receipt showing that "it all went out to the FWCJUA"2 directly conflicts with her testimony that Form Construction's records were destroyed when the Heiny Agency's office flooded in September 2004.3 Although the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Ms. Sykes demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about workers' compensation insurance, she was not authorized to submit applications to the FWCJUA and did not engage in any transactions involving workers' compensation insurance except for signing the Certificate of Liability Insurance for Form Construction. This act is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Sykes engaged in transactions involving workers' compensation insurance. Automobile insurance endorsement The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Sykes' deliberately back-dated an endorsement to Form Construction's commercial automobile insurance policy increasing the bodily injury liability policy limits so that the increased limits were effective two days before Mr. Campos was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by Form Construction. Ms. Sykes' action constitutes willful misrepresentation of the coverage limits actually in effect on the date of the accident, and it demonstrates Ms. Sykes' unfitness and untrustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Ms. Sykes' explanation that the endorsement was automatically back-dated by the Allstate computer system is rejected as not credible. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Sykes lacked in any respect adequate knowledge of or technical competence in commercial automobile insurance. Finally, the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish by the requisite degree of certainty that, because Ms. Sykes committed misconduct relating to the signing of the Certificate of Liability Insurance, she engaged in dishonest practices while engaging in the business of insurance when she back-dated the endorsement to the Form Construction commercial automobile insurance policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order Finding Madeline Hernandez Sykes guilty of one count of having violated Sections 626.611(7) and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes; Finding Ms. Sykes guilty of one count of having violated Section 626.611(5), (7), and (9), Florida Statutes; and Suspending Ms. Sykes' license to engage in business as a general lines insurance agent for a period of 15 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 30th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether discipline should be imposed upon Respondents' license to do business as a Fire Equipment Dealer, based on allegations that Respondents failed to maintain continuously in force a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance, failed to provide proof of insurance to Petitioner, and failed to maintain a qualification for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Ricardo Cabrera, as the qualifier for Respondent BC & ABC Fire Extinguisher Maintenance ("BC"), is licensed by the State of Florida to do business under BC's name as a Class C Fire Equipment Dealer. For the purposes of this case, the actions of BC and the actions of Mr. Cabrera are indistinguishable. Thus, Respondents will be referred to collectively as "Cabrera." As a licensed Fire Equipment Dealer, Cabrera is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Financial Services (the "Department"). Class C licensees are required by law to maintain comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance in an amount not less than $100,000 and to provide the Department with proof of such coverage. In compliance with Florida law, Cabrera maintained CGL coverage in the amount of $300,000 for the policy period from January 29, 2003 to January 29, 2004, and he submitted proof of such coverage to the Department. By letter dated December 1, 2003, the Department notified Cabrera that, because his existing CGL policy was due to expire on January 29, 2004, he would need to submit evidence of continuing coverage beyond that date. Enclosed with this letter was a blank Certificate of Insurance in the form required by the Department as proof of insurance, for Cabrera to complete and return. Cabrera failed to timely renew his CGL policy and the coverage lapsed following January 29, 2004, which was the last day of the policy period. A few weeks later, Cabrera obtained another CGL policy for his business, in the amount of $300,000. This policy provides coverage for the period from February 23, 2004 to February 23, 2005. Cabrera was without the required CGL coverage for 24 days, from January 30, 2004 through February 22, 2004. On February 24, 2004, the Department received, by facsimile transmission, a Certificate of Insurance, in the proper form, showing that Cabrera was insured for the period from February 23, 2004 to February 23, 2005, in the amount $300,000.1 Cabrera was erroneously identified on the form as a "Class A Fire Equipment Dealer." This misidentification, the undersigned reasonably infers from the evidence presented, was the result of a scrivener's mistake; it had no effect whatsoever on Cabrera's coverage, which was, in fact, for an amount well in excess of the statutory minimum for Class C licensees. By letter dated February 25, 2004, the Department notified Cabrera of three alleged deficiencies relating to his recently filed proof of insurance, namely: (1) the misidentification of Cabrera as a Class A licensee; (2) the 24- day coverage gap; and (3) the fact that a copy of the Certificate of Insurance, rather than the original, had been submitted. The Department requested a response. Cabrera failed to respond to the Department's deficiency letter. Consequently, by letter dated April 21, 2004, the Department gave Cabrera a "final notice" of his alleged noncompliance with the statutory requirements concerning proof of insurance. Cabrera still did not respond. On June 29, 2004, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Cabrera, charging him with failing to provide proof of insurance or failing to maintain coverage in force, an offense described in Section 633.162(4)(e), Florida Statutes; and failing to maintain one or more qualifications for licensure, an offense pursuant to Section 633.162(4)(f). Thereafter, around July 21, 2004, the Department received a corrected copy of Cabrera's Certificate of Insurance, one which identified him accurately as a Class C licensee. Ultimate Factual Determinations Cabrera is guilty of failing to maintain continuously in force the statutorily required insurance coverage, which is a specific offense disciplinable pursuant to Section 633.162(4)(e), Florida Statutes. Although Cabrera's failure to maintain continuously in force the statutorily required insurance coverage also necessarily constituted a failure to maintain a qualification for licensure——which latter is a general offense disciplinable pursuant to Section 633.162(4)(f), Florida Statutes——his misconduct in allowing a gap in insurance coverage is, as a matter of ultimate fact, a single wrong and hence should be treated as a single violation. Since the particular wrong that Cabrera committed is specifically punishable under Section 633.162(4)(e) as a failure to maintain insurance coverage continuously in force, that is the offense for which he should be disciplined, not the general offense described in Section 633.162(4)(f). Cabrera is not guilty of failing to provide proof of insurance to the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Cabrera guilty of failing to maintain continuously in force the required CGL insurance coverage, an offense under Section 633.162(4)(e), Florida Statutes. For this violation, it is further RECOMMENDED that Cabrera be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000 and be placed on probation for a period of one year, on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Department may specify in its final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole (including the admissions made by Respondent), the following Findings of Fact are made: Background Information Respondent is now, and has been since 1978, licensed by Petitioner as a general lines insurance agent. During the period of her licensure, Petitioner has not taken any disciplinary action against her. Professional Future Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Professional") is an insurance agency located at 2234 Northwest 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida. Respondent owns and works as an insurance agent for Professional. Count I Joseph Ha is the owner of Dashiwa Corporation. Dashiwa Corporation operates the Liberty Flea Market in Miami, Florida. Ha enlisted Respondent's services to obtain workers' compensation insurance for his business. 3/ In November and December of 1993, Ha provided Respondent with monies (in the form of checks made out to Professional) to be used to pay the premiums for such insurance. Respondent deposited the checks in Professional's bank account. She did not properly and promptly (in the regular course of business) remit the premium payments to the insurer. Instead, without Ha's consent, she used these monies to help pay the medical expenses of a cousin who had AIDS. As a result of Respondent's dereliction, Ha's business was without the workers' compensation insurance coverage Respondent was supposed to obtain for him. Respondent has yet to make a complete refund of the monies Ha provided her to obtain such coverage. Count II On or about December 21, 1993, Rene Hernandez, on behalf of his mother, Gloria Hernandez, provided Respondent with a down payment (in the amount of $251.00) for insurance that Respondent was to obtain for an automobile owned by Gloria Hernandez. The balance of the premium was to be financed by a premium finance company. Respondent failed to take the necessary steps (in the regular course of business) to obtain insurance for Gloria Hernandez's automobile. In March of 1994, Hernandez's automobile was involved in an accident. As of the date of the accident, Respondent had neither obtained insurance for the automobile, nor had she refunded (in the regular course of business) the monies she had been given to obtain such insurance. Following the accident, in June of 1994, Respondent finally secured coverage for Hernandez's automobile Count III On or about August 15, 1994, Jacquetta Jackson provided Respondent with a down payment for insurance that Respondent was to obtain for an automobile that Jackson owned. The application for such insurance coverage was bound on or about that same day. Respondent submitted the application (on an outdated form) to Bankers Insurance Company (as a member of the Florida Automobile Joint Underwriting Association) on or about November 14, 1994. The application was accompanied by a "sight-draft" from a premium finance company in an amount less than the gross premium that was due for the requested insurance coverage. Rule 2B of the Rules of General Practice of the Florida Automobile Joint Underwriting Association provides that premiums are to be submitted to the insurer on a gross remittance basis within one business day after the application for coverage is bound. Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 2B in her efforts to obtain automobile insurance for Jackson. By letters dated November 14, 1994, and December 20, 1994, Bankers Insurance Company notified Respondent that it had rejected the application she had submitted on behalf of Jackson because the application had been submitted on an outdated form and had not been submitted in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2B. It was not until January 18, 1995, that Respondent submitted another application to Bankers Insurance Company on behalf of Jackson. 4/ The insurance that Jackson had requested was finally obtained on February 28, 1995 (from Fortune Insurance Company by another insurance agent to whom Respondent had transferred the matter). Respondent never advised Jackson, during the period that Jackson was without coverage (from on or about August 15, 1994, to February 28, 1995), that the requested insurance had not been obtained. Count IV On or about September 26, 1994, Roderick Cole provided Respondent with a down payment for insurance that Respondent was to obtain for an automobile that Cole owned. The application for such insurance coverage was bound on or about that same day. Respondent submitted the application (on an outdated form) to Bankers Insurance Company (as a member of the Florida Automobile Joint Underwriting Association) on or about November 14, 1994. The application was accompanied by a "sight-draft" from a premium finance company in an amount less than the gross premium that was due for the requested insurance coverage. Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 2B in her efforts to obtain automobile insurance for Cole. Bankers Insurance Company subsequently notified Respondent by letter that it had rejected the application she had submitted on behalf of Cole because the application had been submitted on an outdated form and had not been submitted in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2B. It was not until January 18, 1995, that Respondent submitted another application on behalf of Cole. The insurance that Cole had requested was finally obtained on March 7, 1995 (from Fortune Insurance Company by another insurance agent to whom Respondent had transferred the matter). Respondent never advised Cole, during the period that Cole was without coverage (from on or about September 26, 1994, to March 7, 1995), that the requested insurance had not been obtained.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations noted in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by revoking her license; and (3) dismissing the remaining allegations of misconduct advanced in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of December, 1996. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1996.
