The Issue Whether the Petitioner application for licensure as a resident life, variable annuity and health agent should be granted or denied.
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 issuing licenses "authorizing a person to be appointed to transact insurance or adjust claims for the kind, line, or class of insurance identified in the document." §§ 626.015(9) and 626.112(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Prior to December 4, 2002, Mr. Porras was licensed in Florida as an insurance agent. He was also part-owner of The Garpo Group, Inc. ("Garpo Group"), an insurance agency. On October 18, 2002, the Department (formerly the Department of Insurance) and Mr. Porras entered into a Settlement Stipulation for Consent Order ("Settlement Stipulation") as a result of an investigation by the Department that resulted in allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Porras. In the Settlement Stipulation, Mr. Porras agreed to surrender his agent's licenses to the Department. Mr. Porras did not admit in the Settlement Stipulation that he committed the acts alleged by the Department. A Consent Order was entered on December 4, 2002. The Consent Order incorporated the terms of the Settlement Stipulation and provided that the surrender of Mr. Porras's licenses "shall have the same force and effect as a revocation pursuant to Section 626.641, Florida Statutes"; that Mr. Porras "shall not engage 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 . . . ."; and that Mr. Porras "shall not have the right to apply to the Department for another license under the Insurance Code within two (2) years of the effective date of revocation." Neither the Settlement Stipulation nor the Consent Order included a deadline by which Mr. Porras was required to divest himself of his ownership interest in the Garpo Group. On April 24, 2003, a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Agreement") was executed whereby Mr. Porras, Eduardo Garcia, Mayda Garcia, and Luis Garcia, who were identified as the principals of the Garpo Group, agreed to sell the Garpo Group to Jose Peña and Peter Rivero. The Agreement included a purchase price of $50,000.00, payable in an initial deposit of $20,000.00, with the remaining balance to be paid "in monthly installments of no less than $500.00 (Five Hundred Dollars), and no more than $2,500.00 (Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars)." A Special Condition of the Agreement provided that Mayda Garcia, "Shareholder/Registered Agent/General Agent/Director," and Luis Garcia, "Shareholder/Director," would "remain in Corporation in their current capacity until final payment for sale of business is paid." Mr. Porras retained an interest in the monthly payments to be made by Mr. Peña and Mr. Rivero for the purchase of the business. In accordance with the terms of the Consent Order, Mr. Porras surrendered his license and did not subsequently engage in the transaction or solicitation of insurance. Mr. Porras did not exercise any control over the Garpo Group after entry of the Consent Order. Mr. Porras worked for the Garpo Group as a bookkeeper from May 2004 through October 2004.3 He was paid $175.00 per week, and his duties included reconciling the Garpo Group's bank accounts, entering deposits in the system, and cutting checks on the Garpo Group accounts.4 It can be reasonably inferred from the evidence presented by Mr. Porras regarding his understanding of the terms of the Consent Order that Mr. Porras was aware when he accepted employment with the Garpo Group that the terms of the Settlement Stipulation and of the Consent Order prohibited him from any involvement in the business of the Garpo Group, including employment "in any manner."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Lorenzo Alejandro Porras violated the terms of a Consent Order entered by the Department of Financial Services and denying his application for licensure as a resident life, variable annuity, and health agent, pursuant to Section 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 29th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Respondent, John Roger Pascale, currently holds an insurance license issued by the Florida Department of Insurance (Petitioner), and is eligible for the issuance of further licenses. It is admitted that Respondent was a licensed general lines agent during times material to the Complaint allegations herein. Respondent, however, has voluntarily elected not to renew his license since September, 1980. By its five count Administrative Complaint dated June 13, 1980, Petitioner advised Respondent that it intended to revoke, refuse to issue or renew, or to impose lesser penalties as may be proper under the provisions of Sections 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes. The main thrust of Count I is that Respondent committed the following violations: Received premiums or other funds belonging to insurers or others in transactions under his license which were trust funds received by him in a fiduciary capacity, which funds he failed to account for or pay to the insurer, insured or other persons entitled thereto in violation of Chapter 626.561(1), Florida Statutes. Lacked one or more of the qualifications for the license or permit as specified in the Insurance code in violation of Chapter 626.611(1), Florida Statutes. Willfully, under his license, circumvented the prohibitions of the insurance code. Chapter 626.611(4), Florida Statutes. Was willfully deceptive with regard to an insurance policy in violation of Section 626.611(5), Florida Statutes. Demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance contrary to the requirements contained in Chapter 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Demonstrated a lack of reasonable and adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by the license or permit. Chapter 626.611(8), Florida Statutes. Engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices in violation of Chapter 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. Misappropriated, converted, or unlawfully withheld monies belonging to insurers, insureds, beneficiaries, or others and received in the conduct of business under his license. Chapter 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. Willfully violated an order, rule or regulation of the insurance department, or willfully violated a provision or provisions of the insurance code. Chapter 626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Withheld information from which the issuance of a license or permit could have been refused had it then existed and been known to the department contrary to the requirements of Chapter 626.621(1), Florida Statutes. Violated a provision of the insurance code contrary to Chapter 626.621(2), Florida Statutes. Violated a lawful order, rule, or regulation of the department in violation of Chapter 626.621(3), Florida Statutes. Has shown himself to be a source of injury or loss to the public or detrimental to the public interest in violation of Chapter 626.621(6), Florida Statutes. In support of the above allegations, Petitioner produced as its primary witness, Delores V. Cardet, who first purchased insurance from Respondent in November of 1977. The agent employed by Respondent with whom Ms. Cardet transacted business was Rigo Avila (Avila). (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Ms. Cardet's insurance application was transmitted to Lumberman's Insurance Company to effect the appropriate coverage. Her complaint against Respondent is that the wrong address was placed on her insurance application and that she was overcharged for insurance based on the premiums quoted by agent Avila. Respecting the allegation that agent Avila placed the wrong address on her insurance application, evidence indicates that when this matter was called to Respondent's attention, the matter was taken care of and Ms. Cardet subsequently received billing notices at the correct address. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). During the time in which Ms. Cardet purchased insurance through Respondent's agency, she was employed as a manager for Beneficial Finance Company of Florida. As part of her employment duties, Ms. Cardet is involved in collections and has received management training from her employer. During the period in question Ms. Cardet had one address change. This change was properly brought to Respondent's attention and the change was effected without incident. Respondent quoted Ms. Cardet a total premium during 1978 of $699.00 whereas the insurer, Lumberman's Insurance Company, charged Ms. Cardet an annual premium of $677.00. The $22.00 overcharge represented the difference between the premium quoted by agent Avila and the actual premium charged. The excess was referred to the premium finance company (Sonny Financial Services) where it was handled as a credit toward the balance owed by Ms. Cardet. During 1979, Ms. Cardet was quoted a total annual premium of $797.00 for renewal of her insurance policy. Her policy reflects a premium of $662.00 plus two (2) motor club memberships for her two (2) vehicles at the rate of $50.00 each. The remaining difference of $35.00 was refunded from Kemper Insurance Company and forwarded to Sonny Financial Services as a credit toward the remaining balance of Ms. Cardet's premiums. 2/ Linda Manning, the underwriting service manager for Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Company, a subsidiary of the Kemper Insurance Group, acknowledged that in the insurance business, mistakes regarding insurance print-outs occur on a frequent basis. Ms. Manning services several hundred premium changes daily and testified that there are numerous reasons for an agency to give a prospective insured an improper quote. Among the reasons listed by Ms. Manning is the fact that drivers' records are not always available for a prospective insured and rate adjustments occur for various reasons. COUNT TWO The gravamen of Count Two is that Respondent's employees used an incorrect address when insurance was placed by Respondent's agency for Mr. Jeffrey Brown which resulted in the insured not getting a premium notice from the insurance company. It is also alleged that Respondent willfully listed an incorrect address for Mr. Brown in a lower rate territory which gave the insured the advantage of a lower premium. In support of the above allegations in Count Two, Petitioner introduced the testimony of Respondent's former spouse, Robin LaPlante. Ms. LaPlante's husband, Jeffrey Brown, purchased insurance through Respondent's agency on February 26, 1978. It is alleged that Respondent falsely indicated on the Brown application for automobile liability coverage with Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Company that Mr. Brown's address was in Lauderhill, Florida, whereas he actually resided in Miami, Florida. Ms. LaPlante's complaint with Respondent is that they sold a van, which was one of the two vehicles covered under the policy, and it took approximately nine (9) months before the van was deleted and a refund check was issued for termination of that coverage. Ms. LaPlante had no direct dealings with Respondent and/or his agents during the time in question. Respondent's dealings were with Ms. LaPlante's former husband, Jeffrey Brown, who did not appear to testify in these proceedings. COUNT THREE As amended by Order dated December 31, 1980, Count Three alleges that Respondent employed the services of someone other than his employees or himself to complete a portion of an insurance application; that the insured was sold membership in a motor club without his knowledge and consent and that the Respondent unlawfully endorsed a check payable to the insured from the insurance carrier to reinstate the insured's policy which had been cancelled by the insurance carrier. In support of Count Three, Petitioner presented the testimony of Stanley Friehofer. Friehofer went to Houston Motors in Dade County, Florida, for the purpose of purchasing a Subaru Brat. To do so, it was necessary for Friehofer to provide evidence of insurance on the vehicle in order to obtain financing through the dealership. Sam Houston, the salesman involved, arranged the financing on behalf of the automobile dealership. Friehofer had obtained an insurance quote from his stepmother who was also in the insurance business. After discussing the possibility of the stepmother's agency issuing a policy, Mr. Houston called Respondent, John Pascale, who was at the dealership on other matters, Respondent quoted a rate less than that quoted by Friehofer's stepmother. Friehofer paid Houston Motors $440.00 and was given an insurance binder by Sam Houston. (Petitioner's Exhibit 20). Friehofer was accompanied by his brother at Houston Motors. Also present at the time was Sam Houston. Friehofer testified that Sam Houston completed the entire insurance application and issued him the insurance binder 3/ Friehofer never received a policy for his insurance although he received a bill from Kemper Insurance Company of Orlando, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22). Friehofer noted three errors on his insurance application. Those errors were (1) his marital status (Friehofer is single), (2) the use of the vehicle was incorrectly noted, and (3) the premium quoted was the wrong amount. Friehofer also complained that he was incorrectly enrolled for membership in a motor club contrary to his consent. When Friehofer purchased the vehicle from Houston Motors, he was in the process of transferring from the Virgin Islands. Friehofer therefore used his brother's address on his insurance application. According to Friehofer, his first acquaintance with Respondent was during the taking of a deposition in this matter. Linda Manning confirmed the fact that Lumberman's Mutual charged Richard Friehofer a premium of $410.00 for insurance coverage to his vehicle. Friehofer received a cancellation notice dated April 30, 1979, from Kemper Insurance Company (Kemper) and was instructed by a Mr. Bell of Kemper to obtain "dual coverage" until Kemper could investigate the matter and refund the premiums expended by him to maintain dual coverage when the situation was resolved. Friehofer received an agency check from Respondent dated June 28, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Friehofer initiated the call to Kemper to advise that he intended to cancel his insurance which was effected by Respondent's agency. After Friehofer advised Kemper that he planned to cancel his coverage, he notified Respondent approximately four (4) days later. Respondent received a refund from Kemper and was unable to contact Friehofer. Respondent therefore endorsed the check and returned it to Kemper to reinstate the coverage. Respondent later learned of Friehofer's intention to, in fact, cancel the coverage and Respondent stopped payment on the check to Kemper. (See Respondent's Exhibit 1). Thereafter, Respondent refunded the premium paid from Kemper to Friehofer on June 28, 1979. (Respondent's Exhibit 13). COUNT FIVE 4/ Count Five charges Respondent with the sale of membership in a motor club to an insured and accuses the Respondent of misappropriating $38.00 of the insured's money. In support of this allegation, Petitioner introduced the deposition of Betty Monette. The thrust of this allegation is that Ms. Monette was quoted a renewal premium for her Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance coverage of $142.00. Thereafter, Respondent's employees determined that they could provide the same coverage through another carrier for $104.00. As a consequence, Respondent refunded the difference of $38.00 to Ms. Monette, however, the refund was accompanied by a transmittal which erroneously stated that the refund resulted from a cancellation of a motor club membership. Ms. Monette acknowledged having received the $38.00 refund, and the difference i.e. $104.00, coincides with the premium charged by Banker's Insurance for the PIP coverage. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Sam Houston is an official affiliated with Houston Motors. Houston contacted Respondent, who happened to be at the dealership attending to an unrelated business matter at the time the Friehofers were at the dealership to purchase a Subaru vehicle. Houston has not participated or otherwise benefited from insurance commissions derived by Respondent. Houston Motors has a policy of not being affiliated with insurance salesmen or other brokers based on legal requirements imposed upon the automobile dealerships. Houston was in charge of handling financing and insurance arrangements for purchasers of vehicles at the dealership when Stanley Friehofer purchased his vehicle from Houston Motors. Houston recalled copying basic pertinent data from a financing application onto an insurance application due to the rush that Respondent found himself in after he had quoted Friehofer a premium for coverage. Houston is not licensed to sell automobile or property insurance and is unfamiliar with the procedure of quoting premiums. When shown a copy of the insurance application executed on behalf of Friehofer, Houston recalled completing the name, address, company, telephone number, state, car information and lienholder on the insurance application. Houston was certain that he did not complete any item listed on page 2 of Petitioner's Exhibit 21 which was received in evidence herein. Houston is only licensed to sell credit life, accident and health insurance in connection with financing agreements. Houston finally recalled giving Friehofer a receipt for the $440.00 tendered for insurance premiums. Houston remembered that the Friehofer transaction was unique and to the best of his recollection, had not been previously handled by him in that fashion. Respondent, John R. Pascale, is, as stated herein, a licensed casualty, property agent who holds what is designated as a "220" license. Respondent received a bachelors degree in Business Administration from Pace University and has been involved in the insurance business since he was approximately nineteen (19) years old. Respondent started his first insurance agency in Florida during 1971, and the agency grew to five (5) offices employing approximately sixteen (16) to twenty (20) employees, presently. In response to the specific charges, Respondent had no personal dealing with Ms. Cardet on her purchase of insurance from the Pascale agency. The agent involved was Rigo Avila who was dismissed from Respondents employ on August 6, 1980. Respondent's agency files reflect that Ms. Cardet had several address changes during the three-year period in which she was insured with the assistance of Respondent's agency. Respondent countered the allegations that he incorrectly listed the wrong address for Ms. Cardet by assigning her to an area which charges lower premiums by asserting that there was no economic advantage to do this since the agency collects a commission on the amount of premiums charged. Thus, a lower premium nets the agency a lower commission. Therefore, during 1977, when Ms. Cardet was quoted a premium of $699.00, Kemper Insurance determined that the premium was approximately $677.00. A refund check was sent to Respondent which was forwarded to Segral Premium Finance Company for credit to Ms. Cardet's premium finance balance. Likewise, during 1978, Ms. Cardet was quoted a premium of $797.00 with a down payment of $300.00, with the balance financed over three (3) installments through a premium finance agency. Respondent was paid directly by the agency and the overcharge (alleged) represented a $100.00 motor club membership and a $35.00 refund which was remitted by the carrier. The refund was transferred to the premium finance agency for credit to Ms. Cardet's premium balance account. Sonny Financial Service received the $35.00 check in question. (See Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 3) Respondent acknowledged that it is an agency responsibility to correct an error once the agent learns of the error or through diligence, it is otherwise brought to the agent's attention. To correct errors, Respondent's agency usually amends the policy by means of a "declaration." Finally, Respondent acknowledged that the bookkeeping errors relative to the Cardet account had been the subject of a civil claim which was amicably settled in Ms. Cardet's behalf. (See Respondent's Exhibit 5 and 6) The insurance rates of residents in Lauderhill are generally less than the rates charged residents in Dade County. The producing agency has no control over a carrier's billing procedures. Respecting the allegations surrounding the Jeffrey Brown/Robin LaPlante matter, evidence reveals that Respondent sent policy changes per Jeffrey Brown's request to the carrier during April and September of 1978. (See Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 6) As to the allegations surrounding the Betty Monette incident, evidence revealed that Respondent was able to obtain the identical coverage through another carrier for Ms. Monette at a lower rate and thus was refunded $38.00 of a quoted $142.00 premium. The transmittal letter which accompanied the refund check, however, incorrectly stated that the $38.00 refund represented a credit for cancellation of a motor club membership. (Respondent's Exhibit 10) When all of these charges surfaced, Respondent attempted to get an understanding from his employee, Mr. Avila, who abandoned his employment with Respondent. However, Respondent did all that he could to effectively resolve the difficulties and terminated Avila's employment relationship by sending him a mailgram on August 6, 1980. (See Respondent's Exhibits 11 and 12) As to the allegations surrounding the Friehofer incident, Respondent was at Houston Motors in an effort to canvass and otherwise "drum up' additional business through the dealership. Respondent met Mr. Friehofer, quoted the insurance premium, explained the various coverages available, asked if there were questions and solicited Mr. Houston to complete the necessary basic data. Respondent acknowledged that it was not a good business practice for him to leave the insurance forms with Mr. Houston to complete, however, he considered the situation rare and unusual. He also felt that it was both an accommodation for Messrs. Houston and Friehofer. Respondent admitted that he benefited from the transaction by receiving the commission from the Friehofer insurance contract. Respondent completed the second sheet of the insurance application with the exception of the signature. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 21) Respondent did not leave any blank forms at the Houston agency or any other business enterprise. Respondent has not shared commissions received with any unlicensed or unemployed person who is not authorized to complete insurance forms. Respondent received the refund check from the Friehofer insurance application on June 20, 1979. He reviewed his file, and noted that there was no file notation regarding any intent by Mr. Friehofer to cancel his insurance coverage. He made an effort to contact Mr. Friehofer and learned that he was living with his brother-in-law in Miramar, Florida, and commuted on weekends to the Virgin Islands. He, therefore, redeposited the refund check to Kemper thinking that the policy had been erroneously cancelled. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 25 and Respondent's Exhibit 13)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be issued a letter of written reprimand cautioning him against the practice of allowing unlicensed or unauthorized persons to assist in completing forms which may be used to effect insurance coverage. In all other respects, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint allegations filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a property and casualty insurance license, life and health insurance license, and life insurance license for the State of Florida. She has held her property and casualty license for about 20 years. In 1976, she was employed as an agent for the Orlando office of Commonwealth insurance agency, which she purchased in 1977 or 1978. She continues to own the Commonwealth agency, which is the agency involved in this case. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. In 1979 or 1980, Respondent was appointed to the board of directors of the Local Independent Agents Association, Central Florida chapter. She has continuously served on the board of directors of the organization ever since. She served as president of the association until September, 1991, when her term expired. During her tenure as president, the local association won the Walter H. Bennett award as the best local association in the country. Since May, 1986, Commonwealth had carried the insurance for the owner of the subject premises, which is a 12,000 square foot commercial block building located at 923 West Church Street in Orlando. In July, 1987, the insurer refused to renew the policy on the grounds of the age of the building. Ruth Blint of Commonwealth assured the owner that she would place the insurance with another insurer. Mrs. Blint is a longtime employee of the agency and is in charge of commercial accounts of this type. Mrs. Blint was a dependable, competent employee on whom Respondent reasonably relied. Mrs. Blint contacted Dana Roehrig and Associates Inc. (Dana Roehrig), which is an insurance wholesaler. Commonwealth had done considerable business with Dana Roehrig in the past. Dealing with a number of property and casualty agents, Dana Roehrig secures insurers for the business solicited by the agents. Dana Roehrig itself is not an insurance agent. In this case, Dana Roehrig served as the issuing agent and agreed to issue the policy on behalf of American Empire Surplus Lines. The annual premium would be $5027, excluding taxes and fees. This premium was for the above- described premises, as well as another building located next door. The policy was issued effective July 21, 1987. It shows that the producing agency is Commonwealth and the producer is Dana Roehrig. The policy was countersigned on August 12, 1987, by a representative of the insurer. On July 21, 1987, the insured gave Mrs. Blint a check in the amount of $1000 payable to Commonwealth. This represented a downpayment on the premium for the American Empire policy. The check was deposited in Commonwealth's checking account and evidently forwarded to Dana Roehrig. On July 31, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued its monthly statement to Commonwealth. The statement, which involves only the subject policy, reflects a balance due of $3700.86. The gross premium is $5027. The commission amount of $502.70 is shown beside the gross commission. Below the gross premium is a $25 policy fee, $151.56 in state tax, and a deduction entered July 31, 1987, for $1000, which represents the premium downpayment. When the commission is deducted from the other entries, the balance is, as indicated, $3700.86. The bottom of the statement reads: "Payment is due in our office by August 14, 1987." No further payments were made by the insured or Commonwealth in August. The August 31, 1987, statement is identical to the July statement except that the bottom reads: "Payment is due in our office by September 14, 1987." On September 2, 1987, the insured gave Commonwealth a check for $2885.16. This payment appears to have been in connection with the insured's decision to delete the coverage on the adjoining building, which is not otherwise related to this case. An endorsement to the policy reflects that, in consideration of a returned premium of $1126 and sales tax of $33.78, all coverages are deleted for the adjoining building. The September 30 statement shows the $3700.86 balance brought forward from the preceding statement and deductions for the returned premium and sales tax totalling $1159.78. After reducing the credit to adjust for the unearned commission of $112.60 (which was part of the original commission of $502.70 for which Commonwealth had already received credit), the net deduction arising from the deleted coverage was $1047.18. Thus, the remaining balance for the subject property was $2653.68. In addition to showing the net sum due of $944.59 on an unrelated policy, the September 30 statement contained the usual notation that payment was due by the 12th of the following month. However, the statement contained a new line showing the aging of the receivable and showing, incorrectly, that $3700.86 was due for more than 90 days. As noted above, the remaining balance was $2653.68, which was first invoiced 90 days previously. Because it has not been paid the remaining balance on the subject policy, Dana Roehrig issued a notice of cancellation sometime during the period of October 16-19, 1987. The notice, which was sent to the insured and Commonwealth, advised that the policy "is hereby cancelled" effective 12:01 a.m. October 29, 1987. It was the policy of Dana Roehrig to send such notices about ten days in advance with two or three days added for mailing. One purpose of the notice is to allow the insured and agency to make the payment before the deadline and avoid cancellation of the policy. However, the policy of Dana Roehrig is not to reinstate policies if payments are received after the effective date of cancellation. Upon receiving the notice of cancellation, the insured immediately contacted Mrs. Blint. She assured him not to be concerned and that all would be taken care of. She told him that the property was still insured. The insured reasonably relied upon this information. The next time that the insured became involved was when the building's ceiling collapsed in June, 1988. He called Mrs. Blint to report the loss. After an adjuster investigated the claim, the insured heard nothing for months. He tried to reach Respondent, but she did not return his calls. Only after hiring an attorney did the insured learn that the cancellation in October, 1987, had taken effect and the property was uninsured. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the policy, the October 31 statement was identical to the September 30 statement except that payment was due by November 12, rather than October 12, and the aging information had been deleted. By check dated November 12, 1987, Commonwealth remitted to Dana Roehrig $3598.27, which was the total amount due on the October 30 statement. Dana Roehrig deposited the check and it cleared. The November 30 statement reflected zero balances due on the subject policy, as well as on the unrelated policy. However, the last entry shows the name of the subject insured and a credit to Commonwealth of $2717 plus sales tax of $81.51 minus a commission readjustment of $271.70 for a net credit of $2526.81. The record does not explain why the net credit does not equal $2653.68, which was the net amount due. It would appear that Dana Roehrig retained the difference of $125.87 plus the downpayment of $1000 for a total of $1125.87. It is possible that this amount is intended to represent the earned premium. Endorsement #1 on the policy states that the minimum earned premium, in the event of cancellation, was $1257. By check dated December 23, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued Commonwealth a check in the amount of $2526.81. The December 31 statement reflected the payment and showed a zero balance due. The record is otherwise silent as to what transpired following the issuance of the notice of cancellation. Neither Mrs. Blint nor Dana Roehrig representatives from Orlando testified. The only direct evidence pertaining to the period between December 31, 1987, and the claim the following summer is a memorandum from a Dana Roehrig representative to Mrs. Blint dated March 24, 1988. The memorandum references the insured and states in its entirety: Per our conversation of today, attached please find the copy of the cancellation notice & also a copy of the cancellation endorsement on the above captioned, which was cancelled effective 10/29/87. If you should have any questions, please call. Regardless of the ambiguity created by the monthly statements, which were not well coordinated with the cancellation procedure, Mrs. Blint was aware in late March, 1988, that there was a problem with the policy. She should have advised the insured, who presumably could have procured other insurance. Regardless whether the June, 1988, claim would have been covered, the ensuing litigation would not have involved coverage questions arising out of the cancellation of the policy if Mrs. Blint had communicated the problem to the insured when she received the March memorandum. Following the discovery that the policy had in fact been cancelled, the insured demanded that Respondent return the previously paid premiums. Based on advice of counsel, Respondent refused to do so until a representative of Petitioner demanded that she return the premiums. At that time, she obtained a cashiers check payable to the insured, dated June 1, 1990, and in the amount of $2526.81. Although this equals the check that Dana Roehrig returned to Commonwealth in December, 1987, the insured actually paid Commonwealth $1000 down and $2885.16 for a total of $3885.16. This discrepancy appears not to have been noticed as neither Petitioner nor the insured has evidently made further demands upon Respondent for return of premiums paid. The insured ultimately commenced a legal action against Commonwealth, Dana Roehrig, and American Empire. At the time of the hearing, the litigation remains pending.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.561(1) and, thus, 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and, pursuant to Sections 626.681(1) and 626.691, Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $1002.70, and placing her insurance licenses on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order. If Respondent fails to pay the entire fine within 30 days of the date of the final order, the final order should provide, pursuant to Section 626.681(3), Florida Statutes, that the probation is automatically replaced by a one-year suspension. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart Division of Legal Affairs Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods Gatlin, Woods, et al. 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
Findings Of Fact From January 15, 1980, until November 30, 1981, Respondent was the only licensed general lines agent at the C&M Insurance Agency of Dade County, located at 1014 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. At the same time, Respondent also sold insurance as Authorized Insurance Agency at The North Miami Flea Market, 14135 Northwest Seventh Avenue, Miami, Florida. While Respondent was the only licensed agent at that C&M address, his contract with C&M Insurance Agency expressly prohibited him and his employees or agents from soliciting or selling any form of insurance. Rather, the contract provided That Respondent was only permitted to use office space to prepare and file income tax returns at the C&M Northwest 27th Avenue address and also at C&M's other offices located on South Dixie Highway and on South State Road Seven. While doing business at the North Miami Flea Market, Respondent held himself out as president of Authorized Insurance Agency. During the same time period, Respondent wrote business at The North Miami Flea Market during the week and not just on weekends. Further, on December 19, 20 and 22, 1920, Respondent wrote business at both The North Miami Flea Market and at the C&M Northwest 27th Avenue address. On September 9, 1981, John G. Holmes completed an application and paid $639 for automobile insurance with National Security Insurance Company. The application was signed by Respondent and contains C&M's Northwest 27th Avenue address. Neither the application nor the insurance premium monies were ever forwarded to National Security Insurance Company. Holmes has never received either insurance coverage on his automobile or a refund of his insurance premium. On October 6, 1981, Antje Kalb purchased an automobile. The salesman at the dealership told her she needed to purchase insurance and gave her the name and telephone number for C&M's Northwest 27th Avenue office. She called C&M, and someone from that Agency came to the dealership. Kalb gave to C&M's representative $783 for full automobile insurance coverage, and the C&M employee gave Kalb a receipt for her premium. The receipt carries the C&M Northwest 27th Avenue address, and the binder given to Kalb carries Respondent's signature. Neither Kalb's application nor her premium payment were ever forwarded to the insurer, Commercial Union Insurance Company, and Kalb has never received either her automobile insurance coverage or a refund of her premium payment. On July 14, 1980, Sidney Sugarman from C&M's South State Road Seven office entered into a written agency agreement with Fortune Insurance Company. Between November 1, 1980, and January 31, 1981, Respondent signed and sent 23 applications for automobile insurance to Fortune Insurance Company, which applications reflected that the business had been written out of C&M's Northwest 27th Avenue address. Fortune issued policies to The insureds based upon those applications. Respondent performed all The acts and duties of a general lines insurance agent for Fortune Insurance Company. On October 24, 1980, Respondent entered into a written agency agreement on behalf of Authorized Insurance Agency with Fortune Insurance Company. Between October 31, 1980, and January 31, 1981, Respondent signed and sent 14 applications for automobile insurance from Authorized Insurance Agency to Fortune Insurance Company. Fortune issued policies to the insureds based upon these applications. Respondent performed all The acts and duties of a general lines insurance agent for Fortune Insurance Company. Respondent was not licensed with Fortune Insurance Company until June 17, 1981. Fortune Insurance Company and Respondent had no brokerage arrangements prior to June 17, 1981; rather, all applications submitted by Respondent to Fortune Insurance Company prior to that date were written as direct contracts and not through any brokerage arrangement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; finding Respondent guilty of The allegations contained in Counts I, III, IV, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint filed herein; and revoking all licenses currently possessed by Respondent and his eligibility to hold a license pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 19th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Eugene Lipofsky 1851 NE 168th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 The Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Frank Alvin Lashman (Lashman), was at all times material hereto a licensed insurance agent in the State of Florida. Lashman is qualified for licensure and/or licensed as an Ordinary Life, including Health Agent, Dental Health Care Service Contract Salesman, and Legal Expense Insurance Agent. At all times material hereto, all funds received by Lashman from consumers or on behalf of consumers representing premiums or monies for insurance policies were trust funds received in a fiduciary capacity. Such funds were to be paid over to the insurer, insured, or other persons entitled thereto, in the regular course of business. On or about July 1, 1985, Lashman, as a general agent for American Integrity Insurance Company (American), solicited Martha Lunsford to purchase a medicare supplement insurance policy. On July 31 1985, Lashman secured an application for the subject insurance policy from Ms. Lunsford, and delivered to her a "certification" document which provided: That, I am a licensed agent of this insurance company and have given a company receipt for an initial premium in the amount of $189.20 which has been paid to me by ( ) check (x) cash ( ) money order. The proof establishes that Lashman did not receive the initial quarterly premium of $189.20 from Ms. Lunsford, or give a company receipt for any monies. Rather, Lashman collected $25.00 on July 3, 1985 with the intention of submitting the application to American once he had collected the entire initial premium. Over the ensuing months Lashman visited Ms. Lunsford on a number of occasions to collect the balance due on the initial premium. While the proof is uncontroverted that the full premium of $189.20 was never paid, there is disagreement as to the total amount Ms. Lunsford paid to Lashman. The premium installments Ms. Lunsford paid to Lashman were in cash. Lashman kept no record of the amount or date of payment, and gave no company receipt for the monies collected. The only evidence of payment Lashman provided to Ms. Lunsford was a brief note on the back of his business cards stating the amount received. The last business card he gave to Ms. Lunsford reflects a payment of $60.00, and a balance due of $9.00. On balance, the proof establishes that Ms. Lunsford paid to Lashman $180.20 toward the initial premium of $189.20. Under the terms of Lashman's general agent's contract with American, he was: . . . authorized to solicit applications for insurance for (American), to forward these applications to (American) for approval or rejection, and to collect only the initial premium payment due on such applications. While American averred that Lashman's contract did not permit him to collect the initial premium payment in installments, there is no such prohibition contained in the agreement or proof that Lashman was otherwise noticed of such a prohibition. Accordingly, there is no proof that Lashman committed any offense by collecting the premium in installments, by failing to remit any monies to American until he was in receipt of the full initial premium, or by failing to submit the application to American until the initial premium was paid in full. Although Lashman is free of wrongdoing in the manner in which he strove to collect the initial premium and his delay in submitting the application to American, the proof does establish that Lashman breached a fiduciary relationship by failing to safeguard and account for the monies collected. On November 22, 1985, Ms. Lunsford filed a criminal complaint against Lashman for his failure to secure the subject insurance policy. Incident to that complaint, Lashman was interviewed by a criminal investigator with the State Attorney's Office and served with a subpoena duces tecum which required the production of: ANY AND ALL RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE INSURANCE POLICY SOLD TO . . . MARTHA D. LUNSFORD ON JULY 3, 1985 BY FRANK LASHMAN, ACTING AS AGENT FOR AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY. During the course of his interview, Lashman told the investigator that he had not procured the policy because the initial premium had not yet been paid in full. Lashman further stated that although he kept no records of the payments made, all funds received from Ms. Lunsford had been deposited in his account with Florida National Bank. As of December 20, 1985, Lashman's account with Florida National Bank carried a balance of $5.81. At hearing Lashman averred that he had erred when he advised the investigator that he had deposited the monies he received from Ms. Lunsford in his account with Florida National Bank. According to Lashman, he put the money, as he collected it, into an envelope, which he kept in the file with Ms. Lunsford's insurance papers. Lashman's explanation for not exhibiting the envelope and money to the investigator when questioned was ". . . he didn't ask me for that." Lashman's explanation is inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. On January 12, 1986, the investigator advised Lashman's attorney that a warrant had been issued for Lashman's arrest on the complaint filed by Ms. Lunsford. On his counsel's advice, Lashman sent Ms. Lunsford a cashier's check in the sum of $149.00, as a refund of premiums paid. Ms. Lunsford did not negotiate the check, nor was it of a sufficient sum to represent a return of all premiums paid by Ms. Lunsford.
The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specifically at issue in this proceeding are the proposed amendments to Rule 4-7.009 which restrict, under certain circumstances, compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and which require premium refunds to some purchasers of credit insurance.
Findings Of Fact Credit insurance is a form of group insurance marketed and sold to consumers by creditors or, in the case of motor vehicle financing, by vehicle dealers. The insurance can be purchased by a debtor at the time the debtor enters into a loan agreement. Credit insurance is purchased by debtors as protection against risk of loss caused by unexpected events occurring during the term of the insurance contract. Credit insurance provides for the payment of the balance of the debt upon the death or disability of the insured debtor. Otherwise stated, the benefit of such insurance to the debtor is the assurance that, if the debtor becomes unable, due to death or disability, to make the required periodic payments, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. Sellers of credit insurance products are compensated in the form of commissions paid to sellers by insurers. Additional compensation is periodically paid by some insurers to sellers based upon the profitability of each seller's line of business. Beginning in late 1990, the Department of Insurance ("Department") proposed amendments to administrative rules relating to credit life and credit health and accident insurance products. The Petitioners have challenged the provisions of the proposed rule restricting the level of compensation paid to the sellers of credit insurance products and requiring insurers to make "experience refunds". As set forth in the Department's Notice of Change, published in the November 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 17, No. 48), the proposed rule amendment provides in relevant part as follows: 4-7.009 Determination of Reasonableness of Benefits in Relation to Premium Charge General Standard. Under the Credit Insurance Law, benefits provided by credit insurance policies must be reasonable in relation to the premium charged. In determining whether benefits are reasonable in relation to premium, the Department shall consider loss experience, allocation of expenses, risk and contingency margins, and policy acquisition costs. This requirement is satisfied if the premium rate charged develops or may be reasonably expected to develop a loss ratio of not less than 1. (a) 55% for credit life insurance and 2. (b) 50% for credit accident and health insurance, and either the insurer does not pay compensation in excess of 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011, or the insurer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Department that payment of compensation in excess of said 30% is actuarially sound. "Compensation" means money or anything else of value paid by the insurer and/or by any reinsurer to any agent, producer, creditor, or affiliated body. On the basis of relevant experience, uUse of rates not greater than those contained in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 ("prima facie rates") shall be deemed currently reasonable premium rates reasonably expected to develope the required loss ratio, subject to a later determination of experience refunds, if any, as described herein. An insurer may only file and use rates with such forms which are greater than the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 upon a satisfactory showing to the Department Commissioner that the use of such rates will not result on a statewide basis for that insurer of a ratio of claims incurred to premiums earned of less than the required loss ratio. Furthermore, the extent to which an actual rate is greater than that set forth may not exceed the difference between (a) claims which may be reasonably expected and (b) the product of the required loss ratio and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 for the coverage being provided. (2) The Department Commissioner shall, on a triennial basis, review the loss ratio standards set forth in subsection (1), above, and the prima facie rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 and determine therefrom the rate of expected claims on a statewide basis, compare such rate of expected claims with the rate of claims for the preceding triennium, determined from the incurred claims and earned premiums at prima facie rates reported in the annual statement supplement, and adopt the adjusted actual new statewide prima facie rates for Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 to be used by insurers during the next triennium. The new rates will be set at levels that would have produced the loss ratios set forth in subsection (1), above. To make this comparison and redetermination, insurers shall report in the annual statement supplement format, each year, claims and earned premiums, separately, for business written with premiums based on Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. * * * Insurers will calculate a dollar amount of loading each year based upon the insurer's earned credit life and credit accident and health premium in this state for the same year. Loading will be calculated as 45% of earned premium for life insurance and 50% of earned premium for credit accident and health insurance. For this calculation, earned premium shall be based on the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011. Insurers shall calculate an Experience Refund Amount each year for credit life and credit accident and health insurance written in this state after the effective date of this rule. Experience Refunds can be positive or negative. Positive Experience Refunds are to be refunded in the following manner: Experience refunds are to be allocated to accounts which have positive Experience Refund Amounts in proportion to the ratio of each account's refund amount to the total of all positive refund amounts. For the purpose of this allocation, all individual policies are to be treated as one account. The Experience Refund Amount allocated to a particular account is to be refunded to all certificate holders or individual policyholders of such account in proportion to the premiums earned for each certificate holder or individual policyholder to the total of all premiums earned for such account. Earned premiums for Experience Refund purposes are to be equal to paid premiums for the calendar year less unearned premium reserves at the end of the calendar year plus unearned premiums at the beginning of the calendar year. Unearned premium reserves are to be calculated pro rata. Credit policies issued on a non-contributory basis are excluded. Non-contributory means that individual insureds pay no part of the insurance premium. Premiums are paid by the policyholder out of policyholder funds. Individual credit policies issued on a participating basis are to be excluded. All new loans insured after the effective date of this rule are subject to the Experience Refund calculation and distribution, if any. Individual refunds of less than $10 do not have to be made. Experience Refunds are to be determined for each calendar year as follows: Earned Premium, less Loading as determined above, less Incurred claims, less The sum of any carry forwards for the three previous years. An insurer that uses rates which are 10% or more below the rates set forth in Rules 4-7.010 and 4-7.011 shall not be required to calculate or make an Experience Refund. The Florida Bankers Association ("FBA") is the trade association of the Florida banking industry, many of whom sell credit insurance to their customers. The Florida Automobile Dealers Association ("FADA") is a trade association of franchised new car and truck dealers, approximately 65% of whom sell credit insurance. The Florida Recreational Vehicle Dealers Trade Association ("FRVDTA") is a trade association of recreational vehicle dealers, approximately 35% of whom sell credit insurance. The FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment at issue in this case. Specifically the FBA, the FADA, and the FRVDTA are substantially affected by the proposed regulation of compensation paid to sellers of credit insurance products and by the proposed requirement that, under some circumstances, refunds be made to credit insurance purchasers. The Consumer Credit Insurance Association ("CCIA") is a trade association of credit insurance companies, at least 50 of whom sell credit insurance in Florida. The CCIA is substantially affected by the proposed rule amendment provision related to premium refunds to some insureds. Credit insurance is priced and sold without regard to sex or age of the debtor. There is little underwriting of credit insurance risks. Due primarily to the age of the population and the effect of mandated coverages, Florida's credit insurance claims are higher than in other states. There are currently in excess of eighty million credit insurance policies in force in the United States. Credit insurance is sold under master policies issued by insurers to producers, such as banks and vehicle dealers. Producers sell the insurance product and maintain records of the credit insurance purchasers, who hold certificates issued under each master policy. Credit insurance premiums are based upon the amount financed by the debtor and are calculated according to rates established on a statewide basis by the Department. Credit insurers may not charge more than the prima facie rates for credit insurance, therefore, there is no benefit to consumers to "shop around" for credit insurance. Although credit insurers are not prohibited from charging less than the prima facie rates, there is no evidence that any insurer charges less than the Department's adopted rates. Since 1982, the Department-approved prima facie credit life premium rate was $.60 for every $100 financed. The rate was based on the Department's determination that a $.60 prima facie rate would result in insurers paying out approximately 60% of premium dollars in claims paid to insureds, and that a 60% "loss ratio" was reasonable. The "loss ratio" is the fraction of premium dollars paid out in claims. The $.60 prima facie rate did not yield a 60% loss ratio. The loss ratios for some insurers was substantially less that 60%. On September 1, 1991, the Department reduced the prima facie credit life and credit health and accident rates. In establishing new prima facie rates, the Department established a 55% loss ratio for credit life insurance and a 50% loss ratio for credit disability. The revised prima facie rates are based upon data from calendar years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Such data includes information related to paid claims, earned premium, and insurer administrative overhead expenses. The setting of such rates is an actuarial exercise intended to provide a reasonable projection of premium rates and loss ratios. There is no evidence that the revised prima facie rates result in premiums which are excessive in relationship to the amount of the loans insured. The revised prima facie rates are reasonably expected to yield the revised loss ratios. The rule provides a triennial review mechanism to ascertain whether the expected loss ratios are being met and to adjust prima facie rates if such is indicated. The review is a reasonable method of assuring that such loss ratios are met. Currently, commissions are paid by insurers to producers (i.e. banks and dealers) as compensation for selling the product. The amount of commission is determined by agreement between the insurer and producer. Commissions for the sale of credit insurance vary widely and, in some cases (generally involving the sale of credit insurance related to automobile purchases) may be as high as 60% of the premium paid by the consumer. In addition to payment of commissions, some insurers retrospectively compensate producers by periodically paying an amount based upon the profitability of each producer's business. Compensation levels largely determine which credit insurer's product a producer chooses to sell. The proposed rule limits total compensation levels, absent specific authorization by the Department, to 30% of the net direct written premium based upon the applicable prima facie rates. Compensation levels have no impact on the premiums charged to consumers purchasing credit insurance. Premiums charged are based on the Department's prima facie rates. The proposed rule permits a credit insurance company to exceed the 30% compensation restriction where the insurer can establish that the payment of compensation in excess of the 30% is "actuarially sound". The determination of whether payment of commission in excess of 30% is "actuarially sound" is left to the discretion of the Department. There is no statutory, rule, or commonly accepted definition of the term, although the Department's actuary stated that a product determined to be "actuarially sound" would be a "self-supporting" product, either profitable or "breaking even". He further opined that he would consider investment income in a determination of actuarial soundness, although the proposed rule does not require such consideration. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed compensation restriction was to protect insurers from insolvency and financial instability. The commission restriction was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The commission restriction was not intended to, and will not, ensure that the loss ratios deemed reasonable by the Department will be met. In adopting a 30% compensation restriction, the Department calculated that, assuming the 55% loss ratio was met, $.55 of each premium dollar would be paid in claims. The Department assumed that $.15 of each premium dollar would cover overhead expenses and profit. According to the Department, the remaining $.30 is the most an insurer could pay as compensation to the producers without affecting the solvency of the insurer. In calculating the commission restriction, the Department did not consider the effect of an insurer's investment income on the ability to pay commission. There is no evidence that payment of commissions in excess of 30% of net direct written premiums has adversely affected the solvency of any credit insurer doing business in Florida. There is, in fact, no history of credit insurer insolvency in Florida. Nationwide, there has been little problem of insolvency in the credit insurer business, with no more than four insurers having become insolvent. In each of those cases, the insolvency resulted from poor management of assets, and was not related to payment of excess commissions to producers. The Department asserts that, absent such restrictions, insurers will pay excessive compensation in order to compete for producers, and that such excess compensation, coupled with administrative expenses and a 55% loss ratio, will threaten the solvency of the companies. The assertion is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. The proposed rule also requires insurers, under some circumstances, to make experience-based refunds to credit insurance purchasers. In determining whether a refund is required, an insurer first calculates whether the insurer has met or exceeded the 55% loss ratio for the prior year. If the loss ratio is met or exceeded, no refunds are required. If an insurer determines that the 55% loss ratio was not met, the insurer calculates the difference between targeted 55% loss ratio and the actual percentage of premium dollars paid out in claims. The insurer then identifies each producer account which had a loss ratio of less than 55%, determines the identity and location of each certificate holder (insured) in each producer's account, and makes a refund to each identified certificate holder. Individual refunds of less than $10 to an individual consumer are not required. The proposed rule permits insurers to carry excess losses forward for a period of three year, to offset years when the targeted loss ratio is not met. However, such excess losses may not be carried forward beyond the three year period. Whether a consumer receives a refund is unrelated to the premium paid by the consumer. An individual consumer ("A") purchasing a car and credit insurance at Dealer "A" may receive a refund, while a Consumer "B" purchasing the same car and credit insurance from Dealer "B" may not receive a refund, if Dealer A's line of business with the insurer meets the target loss ratio and Dealer B's line of business with the same insurer fails to meet the loss ratio. The benefit of the credit insurance is the assurance that, under certain conditions, the insurer will pay off the balance of a loan or other debt obligation. If Consumer A receives a refund and Consumer B does not, Consumer A pays more than Consumer B for the same insurance protection. The Department's purpose in enacting the proposed experience refund was to ensure that the 55% loss ratio would be met. However, the experience refund provision, combined with the three year limit for charging off excess losses, will eventually result in loss ratios which will exceed the 55% ratio which the Department has determined to be reasonable. There is no need for experience refunds when the prima facie rates established by the Department are appropriately set. Such rates are designed to produce an acceptable loss ratio. It is reasonable to believe that the Department's revised prima facie rates will result in acceptable loss ratios. The refund proposal was not designed to protect against excessive charges in relation to the amount of the loan, duplication or overlapping of insurance, or the loss of a borrower's funds by short term cancellation of a policy. The proposed rule provides that an insurer charging a premium based on rates at least 10% below the prima facie rates are not required to calculate the experience refund. There is no credible rationale supporting the use of 10% as the threshold under which an insurer escapes the refund calculation, although the resulting loss ratio likely approaches the 60% loss ratio suggested by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Of the actuaries testifying at hearing, one opined that a rate 10% less than the prima facie rate was viable, the other opined that it was not. Because the Department's revised prima facie rates are reasonably calculated to result in a 55% loss ratio, an insurer charging less than the prima facie rate will likely exceed the 55% loss ratio. In connection with the final version of the proposed rule, the Department did not prepare an economic impact statement. The Department did not estimate the costs of insurer compliance with the refund provisions. The expense required of insurers in order to establish experience refund payment systems is significant. Information management systems will require extensive modification to permit such data to be maintained. Substantial amounts of data, which is not currently provided to insurers, must be collected and accurately maintained to permit refunds to be made. Such costs were not included in administrative expenses considered by the Department when the revised prima facie rates were established. Presently, credit insurers maintain limited data related to insureds purchasing credit insurance in connection with installment loans. Although such data may be initially collected by producers, insurers are typically provided only with the name of the debtor and loan number. Data is transmitted to insurers either electronically or through paper files. In either case, data must be converted to usable form by insurers. In approximately seventy percent of credit insurance business, addresses of insureds are not transmitted to insurers. There is no credible evidence that current addresses of insureds are continuously maintained by either insurer or producer in installment debt insurance, since there is little need to question original data as long as periodic payments are being timely made. In a form of credit insurance known as "monthly outstanding balance" insurance, bulk accounts are received by insurers, who generally does not receive either names or addresses of insureds. Consumers whose monthly outstanding balance indebtedness is insured are more likely to provide producer/creditors with current addresses, but such data is not provided to insurers. As to credit insurers, although most insurers currently process refund checks, the additional expense of establishing or modifying systems capable of compliance with the proposed refund requirement could amount to as much as five percent of each premium dollar. One bank official estimated that, as to his bank, the expense of complying with the refund provisions would include an initial cost of $1.1 million and an annual cost of $350,000 to $500,000. A credit insurance information systems and processing executive estimated that the 31 producers writing business for his company would incur costs of $1,860,000 to comply with the rule, and that his own company's costs would be in the range of $4-5 million. The Department suggested that, rather than modify existing mainframe computer systems, such data could be maintained by insurers on personal computers and microcomputer networks. The Department asserted that such systems would be less expensive and require less modification than the process outlined by industry representatives. However, there is credible testimony establishing that significant resources would be involved in determining whether such conversion to microcomputers would be feasible or warranted. In any event, there is no evidence that such conversion could be accomplished in a timely manner permitting the insurers to comply with the proposed rule requirements. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the expenses estimated by the industry representatives are reasonable based upon the existing management information systems maintained by the industry.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated December 27, 1977, VIRGINIA E. BELL, of VIRGINIA BELL REALTY, INC., forwarded to Mr. and Mrs. George Kuruzovich a contract for sale and purchase of real estate which had been executed by Robert and Patricia Gaudet. The cover letter from this respondent to Mr. and Mrs. Kuruzovich, stated that the contract provided for ". . . a net cash to you of not less than $7,500. This contract provided in paragraph twenty-two, "It is agreed that the seller shall net not less than $7,500 cash from sale herein upon closing." By letter dated January 3, 1978, Mr. George Kuruzovich informed Virginia E. Bell that the sellers approved the terms of the contract, with the understanding that they would receive net cash not less than $7,500. The contract dated December 27, 1977, was not consummated. However, a new contract, dated February 18, 1978, was executed by the sellers, George and Loretta Kuruzovich, with purchaser Patricia A. Gaudet. This contract likewise provided in paragraph twenty-two, ". . . sell [sic] shall net no less than $7,500 cash from sale herein payable upon closing." The contract dated February 18, 1978, was executed by all parties. The matter proceeded to closing, with the sellers authorizing Virginia E. Bell, to act as their agent. On May 4, 1978, Virginia E. Bell signed a letter to American Title Insurance Company stating that: "I, Virginia Bell, hereby certify that the proceeds of sale regarding the above captioned property is $7,053.34 and not $7,500.00 as required under the special provisions of the Sales Contract and that Virginia Bell Realty will assume any liability as far as payment concerning the net proceeds to Mr. and Mrs. George Kuruzovich, and furthermore, I will not hold American Title Insurance Company responsible for same." On May 4, 1978, the closing on the February 18, 1978, contract was consummated. Mr. and Mrs. George Kuruzovich, the sellers, received $7,053.34 in cash for the sale of their home. By letter dated May 5, 1978, to Mr. and Mrs. Kuruzovich the Respondent, Virginia Bell, explained that the cash discrepancy was due to prorations of $155 for taxes, $219.60 for interest in addition to the mortgage balance, and $94.22 for an FHA insurance premium paid by Respondent. In mitigation, Virginia E. Bell contends that she informed the sellers that the net cash required by the contract did not include tax, interest and insurance prorations, but this self-serving oral representation must be disregarded as contrary to the expressed terms of the contract and against the weight of the evidence. This respondent admits that the transaction which is the subject of this proceeding was not handled properly, and she asserts that it will not happen again.
Recommendation Upon Consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Virginia E. Bell be fined the sum of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that the administrative Complaint against Virginia Bell Realty, Inc., be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 16th day of September, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-1779 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16thday of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Ralph Fetner, Esquire 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia E. Bell 1927 U.S. Highway 17 Orange Park, Florida 32073 George E. Marcellus 64 Sleepy Hollow Road Middleburg, Florida 32068
