The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline against the licenses held by Respondent as a Life (2-16), Life and Health (2-18), General Lines, Property and Casualty Insurance (2-20), Health (2-40) and Legal Expense (2-56) agent pursuant to provisions within Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Recommendation Based on the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Counts I through V pertaining to his obligations as a fiduciary set forth in Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, his violation of Section 626.611(7), (9) and (10), Florida Statutes, and his violation of Section 626.621(4), Florida Statutes, in effect when the violations transpired and that the various licenses held by Respondent be suspended for six months as suggested by counsel for Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 2nd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William Franklin Outland, III 10840 Northwest 100th Street Reddick, Florida 32686 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, Lower Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Klingshirn Corporation executed and delivered a mortgage dated February 1, 1974 as security for a loan from Petitioner. This mortgage was recorded March 1, 1974 in Official Records of Palm Beach County. Klingshirn Corporation executed and delivered a mortgage deed on the same property and an assignment of leases, rents, and profits for this property dated March 1, 1974 to Fulton and Goss. This mortgage was recorded March 5, 1976. Klingshirn Corporation was in the process of building condominiums for which the mortgages were executed. In 1976 Klingshirn experienced financial setbacks and became delinquent on the mortgage payment. By deeds dated November 16, 1976 Klingshirn conveyed the property that was subject to the above mortgages to Boca Village Realty, Inc., a shell corporation, for the purpose of eliminating the thught-to-be-unrecorded mortgage held by Fulton and Goss. Boca Village Realty, Inc. by deeds dated December 17, 1976 (Exhibits 1 and 2) transferred the property to Petitioner by warranty deed which expressly stated the intent of the parties that there be no merger of grantee's mortgage with the fee. Documentary stamps in excess of $6,000 were placed on this deed to cover the value of the mortgage and minimal surtax stamps of 55 cents were placed on this deed. On March 7, 1977 Petitioner filed Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County against Fulton and Goss and another to foreclose the mortgage executed to Petitioner by Klingshirn. The parties stipulated that if surtax is due the required tax, plus interest is on the balance due on the mortgage of $2,248,774.
Findings Of Fact Developers Diversified Services Limited, an Ohio limited partnership (DDS) , entered into negotiations with petitioners with a view toward acquiring certain property owned by petitioners in Pasco County (the Santos tract) for use as part of a shopping center site. It was understood on all sides that the Santos tract would he unsuitable for this purpose without another, contiguous parcel which was owned by a bank. As a result of these negotiations, on April 23, 1974, petitioner Bay Crest Plaza, Inc. executed a deed to the Santos tract in favor of DDS. Respondent's exhibit No. 2. Attached to this deed are stamps reflecting payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) and of documentary surtax in the amount of two hundred seventeen and one half dollars ($217.50). The remaining named petitioners executed a second deed to the same Santos tract in favor of DDS, on April 23, 1974. Respondent's exhibit No. 1. Attached to this deed are stamps reflecting payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of six hundred seventy-five dollars ($675.00) and of documentary surtax in the amount of two hundred forty-seven and one half dollars ($247.50). Both conveyances (of the same property) were subject to an outstanding mortgage in favor of Mr. and Mrs. James L. Stevens in the original amount of one hundred thirty-one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($131,250.00). On April 25, 1974, DDS executed a purchase money mortgage to secure payment of a promissory note in the amount of two hundred six thousand three hundred two and sixty-nine hundredths dollars ($206,302.69) , in favor of petitioners. The mortgage provided that "there is and will be no personal liability of the mortgagor. Respondent's exhibit No. 3. The deeds executed by petitioners in favor of DDS anci DDS' mortgage in favor of petitioners were all recorded in Pasco County on August 12, 1974, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court. There is no issue in the present case with respect to taxes due on account of the recording of any of these instruments. When it became clear that the bank was unwilling to sell the parcel DDS sought to buy from it, DDS reconveyed the Santos tract to petitioners by deed dated November 11, 1974. The deed from DDS to petitioners was filed in Pasco County in the office of the clerk of the circuit court on December 27, 1974. Attached to this deed are stamps reflecting payment of documentary stamp tax in the amount of thirty cents ($0.30) and of documentary surtax in the amount of fifty-five cents ($0.55). Thereafter, petitioners executed a satisfaction of the purchase money mortgage DDS had executed in favor of petitioners on April 25, 1974, and the satisfaction was filed in Pasco County in the office of the clerk of the circuit court on January 24, 1975.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's revised notice of proposed assessment be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank and Aniana Santos Frank and Ruby Johnson 36 Sandpiper Road Tampa, Florida 33609 Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents have violated provisions of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, through payment of alleged monetary inducements to insurance agents for the purpose of securing contracts which finance insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). Respondents are Puritan Budget Plan, Inc., and Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., (Respondents). Findings contained in paragraphs 3- 23, were stipulated to by the parties. Stipulated Facts Common shares in Respondents' corporations were sold to insurance agent/shareholders for between $500.00 and $2,500.00 per share, depending on date purchased. Presently, and for the purposes of this litigation, marketing and/or administrative fees paid by Respondents to agent/shareholders range from $1.00 to $13.00 per contract produced, depending on the number of payments made, and the amount of the down payment. Each per contract marketing and/or administrative fee paid by Respondents to agent/shareholders is completely unrelated to the number of contracts produced by that agent/shareholder, and is based upon the characteristics of each contract, pursuant to the terms of the shareholder purchase agreement. Perry & Co., pursuant to a written agreement, manages the day to day activities of Respondents, including solicitation of new shareholder/agents. Alex Campos is currently President of Perry & Co. Perry & Co., Dick Perry or Alex Campos have no equity ownership, either direct or indirect, in Respondents corporations. No shareholder of Perry & Co. is also a shareholder in either Respondent, and no shareholder of the Respondents is a shareholder in Perry & Co. No officer or director of Perry & Co. is an officer or director of either Respondent, and no officer or director of either Respondent is an officer or director of Perry & Co. The individual management agreements between Perry & Co. and Respondents are terminable with proper notice by either party. Respondent Puritan Budget Plan, Inc., was originally licensed by the Department as a premium finance company in 1984, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. Puritans' principle office is located at 2635 Century Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. Respondent Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., was originally licensed by the Department as a premium finance company in 1984, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. Gibraltar's principle office is located at 2635 Century Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. Customers of Respondents are typically financing automobile insurance premiums. There is little if any variation among licensed premium finance companies in the State of Florida as to the interest rate charged to customers. In 1988, the Department inquired of Respondents' activities in relation to agent/shareholder compensation arrangements. After several meetings with representatives from Respondents, the Department closed the matter without taking any action. Also in 1988, the Department proposed the adoption of Rule 4-18.009, which in part would have explicitly made payment of processing fees or stock dividends a violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, but later withdrew the proposed rule. Again in 1994, the Department proposed a rule which would have explicitly made payment of processing fees or stock dividends a violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes. After a hearing and adverse ruling by the hearing officer, the Department withdrew proposed Rule 4-196.030(8). Financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for the production of premium finance contracts may result in the unnecessary financing of contracts, and the Department believes Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, was intended to make such conduct illegal. Financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for the production of premium finance contracts may result in insurance agents adding or sliding unnecessary products to make the total cost of insurance more expensive and induce the financing of additional contracts, and the Department believes Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, was intended to make such conduct illegal. An "inducement" is presently defined as "an incentive which motivates an insurance purchaser to finance the premium payment or which motivates any person to lead or influence an insured into financing the insurance coverage being purchased; or any compensation or consideration presented to a person based upon specific business performance whether under written agreement or otherwise." Rule 4-196.030(4), Florida Administrative Code (July 27, 1995). This rule is currently effective but presently on appeal. There is no evidence that Respondents unnecessarily financed any premium finance contracts or engaged in any "sliding" of unnecessary products to induce the unnecessary financing of contracts. Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit the payment of corporate dividends based on stock ownership to shareholders who are also insurance agents. According to the Final Bill Analysis for H.B. 2471, in 1995 the Legislature amended Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, relating to rebates and inducements. This section was amended to clarify that this statute does not prohibit an insurance agent or agents from owning a premium finance company. The statute, as amended, is silent on the issue of how owner-agents may be compensated. Other Facts Approximately 80 percent of Respondents' insureds will turn to the shareholder/agent to handle premium mailing and collection. When a shareholder/agent provides these valuable services and labor to Respondents through the servicing of the premium finance contract with an insured, payment for those services and/or recoupment of the expenses involved with their provision is made, at least in part, in the form of the marketing and administrative fees paid by Respondents to the shareholder/agent. The marketing and administrative fee payment by Respondents to shareholder/agents is made from the net profit of the corporation and represents payment of ownership interest (dividends) to shareholder/agents in addition to payment for shareholder/agent services or expenses. Respondents generally finance "non-standard" private passenger automobile insurance. Such insurance generally covers younger drivers and drivers with infraction points against their license. The average non-standard premium is $500 per year. Thirty percent of non-standard insureds will cancel their insurance prior to the renewal date. Cancellation of policies and financing arrangements by non-standard insurers require the agent to return unearned commissions, about $30 generally. In contrast, payment of an insurance premium in cash guarantees an agent his/her entire commission, an average of $90 per non-standard policy. Consequently, the financial interest of most agents is best served by cash sale of auto insurance as opposed to financing the insurance. The average amount generated by 95 percent of all premium finance contracts executed in Florida would yield an agent/shareholder approximately six dollars per contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaints. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 28th day of November, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, 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 28th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-11. Accepted to extent included within stipulated facts, otherwise rejected for lack of citation to the record. 12. First sentence is rejected as not substantially dispositive of the issues presented. Remainder rejected for lack of record citation if not included within stipulated facts. 13.-15. Rejected to extent not included within stipulation, no citation to record. Incorporated by reference. Rejected, no record citation, legal conclusion. 18.-19. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 20. Rejected, no record citation. 21.-23. Rejected, not materially dispositive. Rejected, record citation and relevancy. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Incorporated by reference. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 2.-3. Accepted, not verbatim. 4. Rejected, unnecessary. 5.-7. Accepted, not verbatim. 8.-9. Rejected, unnecessary. 10. Accepted per stipulation. 11.-12. Rejected, unnecessary. 13. Accepted per stipulation. 14.-16. Accepted, not verbatim. Rejected, hearsay. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, unnecessary. 20.-22. Accepted per stipulation. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-57. Incorporated by reference. 58.-60. Rejected, unnecessary. 61.-62. Rejected, subordinate and not materially dispositive. 63.-67. Rejected as unnecessary to extent not included in stipulated facts. Accepted per stipulation. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted per stipulation. 72.-76. Rejected, unnecessary. 77. Accepted per stipulation. 78.-79. Incorporated by reference. 80.-87. Accepted per stipulation. 88. Incorporated by reference. 89.-90. Accepted per stipulation. 91.-95. Rejected, subordinate. 96. Accepted. 97.-101. Rejected, unnecessary. 102. Incorporated by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Liefer, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Steven M. Malono, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 N. Gadsden St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record filed herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: During times material, Respondent was licensed and/or qualified for licensure as a General lines (2-20), Ordinary Life, and Health Insurance (2-18) Agent in Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material to the allegations herein, 1/ Respondent was an officer and director of White Insurance Agency, Inc. (White Insurance). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On June 20, representatives of Great Wall Chinese Restaurant (Great Wall) entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown Premium Finance, Inc., (Crown), through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage for Great Wall would be provided and issued through Service Insurance Company and Corporate Group Services. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub. "a"). On June 20, Respondent signed the premium finance agreement as broker- agent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub "a"). On June 22, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of eight hundred ninety-four dollars ($894.00) which was subsequently deposited into Respondent's bank account. (Petitioner's 3, sub B). On July 13, a representative of Service Insurance Company notified Crown that they had not received the full annual premium for Great Wall and a binder charge of $81.00 was sent to White Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 sub C). On July 13, representatives of Service Insurance Company notified Respondent that coverage was bound for Great Wall's risk for only 33 days and a charge of $81.00 was sent to White Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub D). On July 13, representatives of Service Insurance Company mailed a cancellation notice to Great Wall and Crown indicating an $81.00 charge as due and owing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub) On September 14, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Corporate Group Services and Service Insurance Company. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub H & I). On November 8, representatives of Corporate Group Services notified Crown that an application for insurance was received but was rejected and returned to the agent's (Respondent) office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub F). Neither Service Insurance Company nor Corporate Group Services issued a policy for the consumer, Great Wall. Respondent refuses to return the premium monies received for the Great Wall coverage to Crown. Respondent owes Crown for the premium monies submitted by Crown. COUNT II On July 8, representatives of Chateau Madrid, Inc., a restaurant, entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through Respondent, which indicated the insurance coverage would be issued through Casualty Indemnity Exchange. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub A). On July 8, Respondent signed the premium finance agreement as broker/agent. On July 25, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to Respondent in the amount of three thousand five hundred eight dollars (3,508.00). The check was deposited into White Insurance's bank account. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub b). On August 30, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Chateau Madrid and Casualty Indemnity Exchange and their managing general agents, Program Underwriters. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub D). As a result of the standard cancellation notice, the policy was reduced to a short-term policy which was effective July 15 and expired September 13, 1983. On March 13, 1984, Program Underwriters notified Crown that they had not received a premium payment concerning this particular policy and that neither Respondent nor White Insurance was an authorized agent for Casualty Indemnity Exchange. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub e). Respondent never returned the premium monies he received to Crown. Respondent owes Crown for the premium monies he received from Crown. COUNT III On September 16, a representative of Tennis Trainer, Inc. requested that Respondent secure a multi-peril insurance policy for Tennis Trainer. Respondent secured a binder for Tennis Trainer indicating the insurance would be issued through Service Insurance Company. On September 16, Respondent signed the binder as an authorized representative. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, sub b). On September 16, Respondent was not authorized to represent Service Insurance Company. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13, sub a and b). On September 15, Jeffrey Rider, Vice President of Tennis Trainer issued a check in the amount of three hundred five dollars ($305.00) to White Insurance representing the downpayment necessary to secure the agreed business insurance coverage. Thereafter, Respondent, took no measures to secure insurance for Tennis Trainer other than issuing the binder. Respondent has failed to submit the premium to secure the agreed upon insurance coverage on behalf of Tennis Trainer. Additionally, Respondent refused to return the premium payments to Tennis Trainer despite its demand (from Respondent) to do so. Tennis Trainer has directly forwarded the remainder of the premium to Service Insurance to secure the multi-peril coverage. Service Insurance Company is owed a balance due of approximately $305.00 from Respondent. COUNT VI On May 5, Donald Powers entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance. Pursuant to the agreement, the insurance coverage would be provided through Progressive American Insurance (Progressive). On May 9, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of two hundred ninety-nine dollars ($299.00) which was subsequently deposited into Respondent's bank account. On October 1, the consumer, Donald Powers, requested that the policy be cancelled. On October 25, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Progressive. On October 19, Progressive notified both Crown and White Insurance that the gross unearned premium of two hundred twenty-six dollars ($226.00) was applied to the Agent's (White Insurance) monthly statement and Crown must therefore collect this amount from the Agent. Progressive American never received any premium payments from Respondent concerning the subject policy. On November 25, 1986, Progressive notified Petitioner that the policy was originally accepted on May 7, 1983 at an annual premium of four hundred sixty dollars ($460.00) and was cancelled on October 1, 1983, with Two Hundred twenty-six Dollars ($226.00) credited to Respondent's statement. Progressive never received any premium payment for this policy. Respondent has failed to return to Crown the returned premium credit received on behalf of the Donald Powers' policy. COUNT VII On November 28, Russell Lung entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown through White Insurance. The insurance coverage for Lung was to be provided and issued through Interstate Underwriters. On November 29, pursuant to the premium finance agreement with Russell Lung, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one hundred sixty-seven dollars (167.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On February 14, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Interstate Underwriters. The policy for Russell Lung was cancelled before its normal expiration date and the unearned premium was credited to Respondent's account. Respondent has not returned to Crown the unearned premium credit received for Lung's policy. COUNT VIII On December 6, representatives of Thomson's Lawn Care (Thomson) entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Northeast Insurance and Southern Underwriters as managing general agents. On December 8, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one hundred fifty-one dollars ($151.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On January 25, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Northeast Insurance Company/Southern Underwriters. On February 8, 1984, Southern Underwriters notified Crown that they were never paid by White Insurance for Thomson's insurance. On October 16, 1984, Crown was notified by representatives of Thomson's that immediately after making the down payment to White Insurance, Thomson notified White Insurance that the policy should be cancelled immediately since Thomson never operated as a business. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, sub e). Crown received the returned premium payment from Southern Underwriters even though the original payment to White Insurance by Crown was never forwarded to Southern Underwriters. Respondent refuses to return the unearned premium payment to Crown. COUNT IX On October 15, representatives of Comfort Inn entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Protective National Insurance Company and Interstate Fire and Casualty Company. On November 4, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one thousand six hundred sixty dollars ($1,660.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On March 1, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Comfort Inn and the Insurance Companies involved. On February 6, 1984, Comfort Inn's counsel, James W. Martin, forwarded a letter to the insurance companies involved and simultaneously notified Crown that White failed to remit funds to the insurance companies involved and as a result, the policy was cancelled and subsequently reinstated only after his client, Comfort Inn paid the premium directly to the respective insurers. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8, sub e). On February 23, 1984, Irwin Lonschien of Crown responded to attorney Martin's letter and advised that the one thousand six hundred sixty dollars premium payment was forwarded to White Insurance pursuant to the premium finance agreement on November 4, 1983. On July 23, 1984, William Edwards, a representative of Comfort Inn, wrote a letter to Dan Martinez of Eagle Underwriters advising that Comfort Inn had paid a premium to White Insurance and Comfort Inn no longer desired White Insurance to represent them in insurance matters. Respondent, has not returned premiums received from Crown and is therefore indebted to Crown in the amount of one thousand six hundred sixty dollars. COUNT X On April 14, representatives of Royal Palm Motel entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance which indicated insurance coverage would be provided through Casualty Indemnity- Exchange. On April 18, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of nine hundred seventy- seven dollars ($977.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. COUNT XI On March 16, 1982, representatives of Flip's of West Broward entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Service Insurance Company. On March 19, 1982, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White in the amount of six hundred forty-eight dollars ($648.00) which was subsequently deposited in a bank account controlled by Respondent. Sometime between March 1982 and June 20, 1982, White Insurance forwarded a premium payment for this coverage to Service Insurance Company. On June 20, 1982, Crown sent a standard cancellation to the consumer and Service Insurance indicating the policy was to be cancelled. By letter dated January 7, Service Insurance notified White Insurance that the policy had been cancelled and the returned premium for the policy was credited to the account of White Insurance. Respondent, as agent/director of White Insurance has failed and refused to return to Crown the returned premiums received for Flip's of West Broward. COUNT XII On November 7, Paula Wilcoxon entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, indicating the insurance coverage would be issued through Universal Casualty. On November 8, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of two hundred ninety-five dollars ($295.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On December 15, Crown notified the consumer and Universal Casualty, by standard cancellation notice, that the policy was being cancelled. Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to return the unearned premium to Crown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a Final Order revoking all licenses and qualifications for licensure of Respondent, Kenneth Everett White, as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 20th day of March, 1987.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 494.0043(1)(b), 494.0038(1)(a) and (b)1, and 494.0038(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), by failing to provide a mortgagee's title insurance policy; by obtaining a mortgage broker fee without a written agreement; and by failing to disclose the receipt of rates, points, or fees on behalf of a lender; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating mortgage brokers in Florida. Until September 1999, Respondent was licensed in the state as a mortgage broker pursuant to license number MB9804519. Respondent's license became inactive when Respondent did not renew her license. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the sole owner and operator of Blackstone. Blackstone is licensed in the state as mortgage brokerage business pursuant to license number MBB9901308. On January 8, 1996, Mr. Brian S. Carter and Ms. Lisa G. Carter closed on the purchase of real property located at 1503 Mobile Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117. A non-institutional lender provided a purchase money second mortgage of $19,100 through Karlis and Uldis Sprogis, as co-trustees of the K. E. Sprogis Trust. Respondent was the mortgage broker responsible for the loan in the Carter transaction (the "Carter loan"). On November 12, 1995, Respondent entered into a mortgage brokerage contract with the Carters on behalf of Blackstone. Respondent failed to obtain, or retain in the Carter loan file, a written receipt from the non-institutional lender for the title policy, an opinion of title by an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida, a binder of the title insurance or a conditional opinion of title, or a waiver thereof by the non- institutional lender. In her Petition for Hearing, Respondent admits the foregoing findings pertaining to the Carter loan. On July 11, 1996, Ms. Kay George closed on the purchase of real property located at 2753 Foxdale Drive, Deltona, Florida 32738. Ms. George obtained a purchase money first mortgage in the amount of $56,000 from an institutional lender. Respondent was the mortgage broker responsible for the loan in the George transaction (the "George loan"). On June 15, 1996, Respondent entered into a mortgage brokerage contract with Ms. George on behalf of Blackstone. The mortgage broker contract stated that the mortgage brokerage fee to be paid by Ms. George would not exceed $400. However, the contract disclosed that Respondent would receive between $500 and $2,000 in additional compensation from the lender. The loan-closing documents in the George loan disclose that Respondent received additional compensation of $1,140 comprised of $840 in loan origination fees and $300 in processing fees. The mortgage broker contract failed to disclose the loan origination and processing fees paid by the lender to Respondent. On December 29, 1997, Mr. Roy J. Piper and Ms. Laura A. Piper closed on the purchase of real property located at 30 Arrowhead Circle, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. EMB Corporation ("EMB") provided a purchase money first mortgage of $68,400. Respondent was the mortgage broker responsible for the loan in the Piper transaction (the "Piper loan"). On December 1, 1997, Respondent entered into a mortgage brokerage contract with the Pipers on behalf of Blackstone. The mortgage broker contract failed to state the amount of the mortgage brokerage fee to be paid by the Pipers. The contract also failed to disclose any additional compensation Respondent was to receive from EMB. The closing documents show that EMB paid Respondent $1,926.25 in additional compensation as a "broker service release premium." On April 9, 1998, Ms. Sunday S. Reiland closed on the purchase of real property located at 300 Chipeway Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. Ms. Reiland obtained a first mortgage in the amount of $96,000 from an institutional lender. Respondent was the mortgage broker responsible for the loan in the Reiland transaction (the "Reiland loan"). On March 9, 1998, Respondent entered into a mortgage brokerage contract with Ms. Reiland on behalf of Blackstone. The mortgage broker contract stated that the mortgage brokerage fee to be paid by Ms. Reiland would not exceed $250. However, the contract disclosed that Respondent would receive between $960 and $3,000 in additional compensation from the lender. The loan closing documents in the Reiland loan disclose that Respondent received additional compensation of $730 comprised of a $480 "cash out fee" and a $250 processing fee. The mortgage broker contract failed to disclose the "cash out fee" and processing fee the lender paid to Respondent. On April 23, 1998, Mr. Brian M. Reigel closed on the purchase of real property located at 931 Aspen Drive, South Daytona, Florida 32119. Mr. Reigel obtained a first mortgage in the amount of $39,425 from an institutional lender. Respondent was the mortgage broker responsible for the loan in the Reigel transaction (the "Reigel loan"). On April 8, 1998, Respondent entered into a mortgage brokerage contract with Mr. Reigel on behalf of Blackstone. The mortgage broker contract stated that the mortgage brokerage fee for the Reigel loan would not exceed $550. However, the contract also stated that Respondent would receive additional compensation from the lender ranging between $0 and $3,000. The loan closing documents in the Reigel loan disclose that Respondent received additional compensation of $1,038 from the borrower's funds for a loan discount fee and a processing fee. On October 16, 1998, Mr. William M. Netterville, III, closed on the purchase of real property located at 808 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida 32118. Mr. Netterville obtained a first mortgage in the amount of $66,000 from an institutional lender. Respondent was the mortgage broker responsible for the loan in the Netterville transaction (the "Netterville loan"). On September 10, 1998, Respondent entered into a mortgage brokerage contract with Mr. Netterville on behalf of Blackstone. The mortgage broker contract stated that the mortgage brokerage fee to be paid by the Mr. Netterville would not exceed $1,000. The loan-closing documents in the Netterville loan disclose that an additional mortgage broker fee of $500 was paid from the borrower's funds to Grandview Financial. The mortgage broker contract failed to disclose the fee paid to Grandview. The mortgage broker contract in the Carter loan stated that the mortgage broker "can make loan commitments." However, Respondent could not make loan commitments. Only the lender could make loan commitments pursuant to a written commitment or "lock-in" for the loan. There is no evidence that the Carters ever obtained the necessary loan commitment from the lender. Respondent represented that the mortgage broker was able to provide loan commitments without disclosing the necessity for a written commitment from the lender.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 494.038(1) in the George, Reiland, and Reigel transactions; guilty of violating Sections 494.043(1)(b) and 494.038(2) in the Carter transaction; guilty of violating Section 494.038(1) in the Piper and Netterville transactions; and issuing a written reprimand for Respondent's violations in the Carter transaction; and imposing fines totaling $2,426.25 for Respondent's violations in the Piper and Netterville transactions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chris Lindamood, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Hurston Tower South, Suite S-225 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Teresa M. Steininger 8907 Roberts Drive Dunwoody, Georgia 30350
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent was a licensed Mortgage Broker and the principal broker for Mortgage Associates of Countryside, located at 2623 Enterprise Rd., Clearwater, Florida. The Department was and is the state agency charged with regulating the activities of mortgage brokers in this state. In September, 1987, Andrew Grosmaire and Kevin Gonzalez, compliance officer and financial examiner, respectively, for the Department, pursuant to a complaint from Mark Snyder, conducted an examination of Respondent's affairs as they pertained to his operation as a mortgage broker. During the survey, which covered the period from August, 1986 through August, 1987, Mr. Grosmaire and Mr. Gonzalez examined between 50 and 60 loan files which had culminated in loan closings. In addition, they examined loan files which did not result in closings, bank account records, and other of Respondent's miscellaneous records. In order for an appropriate audit of a closed loan file to be conducted, it is imperative that the loan closing statement be included. Without it, the examiner cannot accurately determine what, if any, closing costs the borrower actually paid and if closing costs paid were consistent with those disclosed by the broker on the Good Faith Estimate Form at the initial interview. Of the closed loan files reviewed, these closing statements were missing from seven files. Respondent admits that several closed loan files did not have the required closing costs statement form enclosed. He attributes this, however, to the failure of his processor, an assistant, to place the closing statement in the file. They were not presented at hearing or thereafter. The investigators examined the Good Faith Estimate Forms in those files which culminated in loans and found that the form utilized by the Respondent failed to contain language, required by statute, which summarized the limits and conditions of recovery from the Mortgage Brokerage Guaranty Fund. Respondent contends that the pertinent statutory section was not in existence at the time he was engaged in mortgage brokerage activities. This was found to be not true. The Act became effective July 1, 1986 and the files surveyed were from the period August, 1986 through August, 1987. Examination of the Good Faith Estimate Forms used by the Respondent in each of the cases which culminated in loan closing revealed that Respondent consistently underestimated closing costs. This resulted in the borrowers generally paying higher closing costs than was initially disclosed to them. On -loans applied for by Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, Mr. Iyer, and Mr. Toland. Respondent redistributed loan points to himself in an amount higher than that which was agreed to by the parties. In the Toland case, Mr. Toland agreed to pay a 1% loan origination fee in the amount of $996.00. The settlement statement dated approximately 2 months later reflected that Toland paid Respondent a loan origination fee of $1,128.00 in addition to a 1% ($664.00) loan discount fee to the lender. This latter mentioned discount fee was not disclosed in advance to Mr. Toland on the estimate form nor was the excess loan origination fee charged. It should be noted here that a second Good Faith Estimate Form, dated nine days after the original, reflecting a 3% loan origination fee, was found in the file. Though signed by Respondent, this second form was not signed by the borrower as required. It cannot, therefore, serve to support Respondent's claim that he advised the Tolands of the higher cost by this second form. There is no showing that the Tolands were aware of it. In the Iyer case, the estimate form dated September 19, 1986 reflected a points and origination charge of $1,332.50 which is 1% of the mortgage loan amount of $133,250.00. The Iyers were subsequently approved for a mortgage in the amount of $145,600.00. The closing statement dated March 6, 1987, almost six months later, reflects that the Iyers paid a 2% loan origination fee of $2,740.00 to Mortgage Associates and a load discount fee of $685.00 to the lender. Here again the Respondent claims that a second cost estimate form reflecting a 2% point and origination fee of $2,912.00 was subsequently executed by the Iyers. However, this second form, found in Respondent's files, is undated and fails to reflect the signature of either Respondent or the Iyers. It cannot, therefore, serve as proof that the Iyers were made aware of the change. It does appear, as Respondent claims, that the bottom of the second form, (here, a copy) , was excluded from the copy when made, but there is no evidence either in the form of a signed copy or through the testimony of the Iyers, that they were aware of the change. Consequently, it is found that the Iyers had not been made aware of the second estimate and had not agreed to pay as much as they did, in advance. As to the Snyder closing, both Mr. Snyder and Respondent agree that it was their understanding at the time the loan was applied for, that Respondent would attempt to obtain a lower interest rate for them than that which was agreed upon in the application and in the event a lower rate was obtained, Respondent's commission points would remain the same as agreed upon in the brokerage agreement. In that case, as Respondent points out, his commission is based on the mortgage amount, not the interest rate, and he would be entitled to the agreed upon percentage of the loan face amount regardless of the interest rate charged by the lender on the loan. The Snyders had agreed to a 1% commission to Respondent plus a 1% loan origination fee to the lender. When the lender agreed to lend at par, without an origination fee, Respondent appropriated that 1% to himself, thereby collecting the entire 2% called for in the application. This was improper. Respondent's claim that it is an accepted practice in the trade is rejected. The Snyders initially made demand upon the Respondent for reimbursement of that additional 1% and ultimately had to hire an attorney to pursue their interests. Respondent subsequently made a $400 partial reimbursement payment of the amount owed but nothing further notwithstanding the fact that the Snyders ultimately secured a Judgement in Pinellas County Court against him for $1,082.52 plus interest, attorney's fees and costs. As a result, the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Guarantee Fund will reimburse the Snyders for their loss. According to the investigators, the Snyders Toland, and Iyer files, in addition to the problems described, also reflected that Respondent received payments for other items which should have gone into an escrow account. These included such things as credit reports and appraisal fees. The Department requires that any money received by a broker other than as commission, be placed in the broker's escrow account pending proper disbursement. Respondent did not have an escrow account. Mr. Gonzalez looked at Respondent's overall operation, including closed files, in an attempt to correlate between income and outgo to insure that Respondent's operation was in compliance with the statute. In addition to his search for an escrow account, Mr. Gonzalez also examined Respondent's "Loan Journal" which by statute is required to contain an entry for each transaction in each loan. The purpose of this journal is to provide a continuing record to show when each item in the loan processing was accomplished. In Mr. Gonzalez' opinion, the Respondent's journal was inadequate. It contained repeat and conflicting entries for specific items which hindered the investigators' ability to determine an audit trail. In addition, all required information was not put in the journal in complete form in each account. In the opinion of the investigators, the Respondent's violations were significant in that they made it impossible for the Department to determine compliance with statutes and Department rules and inhibited the compliance examination. All in all, Respondent's way of handling his accounts, his failure to maintain an escrow account, and his unauthorized increase in commission income, all indicated his actions were not in the best interest of his clients. The investigators concluded that clients funds were not being handled properly and that the purpose of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes, to protect the consumer, was not being met. In Mr. Gonzalez' opinion, Respondent's method of business constituted incompetence as a mortgage broker and "possibly" fraudulent practice. It is so found. Both Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Grosmaire indicated they had extreme difficulty in attempting to locate Respondent after the complaint was filed by Mr. Snyder, in order to conduct their examination. They finally located him at a site different from that which appeared in the records of the Department. Respondent contends that the Department had been notified in writing within the required time, of his change of location when he filed a notice of fictitious name. He contends that after filing his notice of name change, he received no response from the state but took no action to inquire whether the change had been made. In any case, his current address was in the phone book and had the agents chose to look there, they would have found him. Respondent contends that the good faith estimates required by the statute are just that, an estimate, and that actual figures may vary from and exceed these estimates. This is true, but there is a procedure provided whereby the broker is to notify the client of a change in advance and if the change exceeds a certain amount, it may constitute grounds for voiding the contract. In paragraph 7 of the complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent used a form for the estimates which failed to contain a statement defining the maximum estimated closing costs. Review of the statement offered herein reflect this to be a fair analysis. However, Respondent claims that certain items cannot be predicted accurately in that some companies charge more than others for the same item and it was his practice to insert in the estimate portion of the form a "worst case scenario." However, at no time did he address in his form what could be the maximum a prospective purchaser might be expected to pay. Respondent "doesn't like" the total picture painted by the investigators concerning his operation. He claims it is cot a fair and accurate representation. In many cases, he claims, he expended funds on behalf of clients in excess of that he received in either commission or reimbursement and even though he may have received more than entitled in some cases, it "evens out over a period of time." Though this may be so, it is no way to do business. The state requires the keeping of accurate records and, just as the broker should not be required to assume responsibility for other than his own misconduct, neither should the client be required to pay more than is his legal obligation. Respondent professes to know the mortgage business and he resents having his qualifications as a mortgage broker questioned. In his opinion, he has trained himself well and has acted in good faith on the basis of the information available to him at the time. He ignores the impact of the Judgement of the court in the Snyder matter because he feels it was "unilateral." He believes the law is designed to protect the client and he wants to know who protects the broker. It is for that very reason, he contends, that fees paid in advance are not refundable. Mr. Sample feels the Department should be more informative to the brokers and get the governing regulations updated more quickly. Respondent cherishes his license and claims he needs it to make a living. He went out of business once before, several years ago, because of bad business conditions, (the reason he uses for not complying with the court order), but did not declare bankruptcy because he wanted to go back into business and pay off the judgements against him. Though he has been back in business for several years, he has failed to make any effort to pay off any of his former creditors even though in his former operation, he improperly tapped his escrow account for other business expenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Howard E. Sample's license as a mortgage broker in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 88-2858 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Insofar as Petitioner's submission refers to testimony of a witness, that is considered as a proposed finding of fact. FOR THE PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the evidence A conclusion of law and not a finding of fact & 11a Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein - 18. Accepted 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted &-29. Accepted 30. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein FOR THE RESPONDENT: Nothing Submitted by way of Findings of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Elise M. Greenbaum, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 400 West Robinson St. Suite 501 Orlando, Florida 32801 Howard E. Sample 2465 Northside Drive Apartment 505 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Honorable Gerald Lewis Ccmptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Plaza Level, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 3 2399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, with enforcing the licensure standards embodied in Chapter 475, and regulating the manner of practice of licensed real estate brokers pursuant to the standards enumerated in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent, Stewart J. Love, at all times pertinent hereto, has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, holding license number 0145076. That license is issued to Stewart J. Love, t/a Love Realty, 2120 Westfield Road, Pensacola, Florida 32505. A previous Administrative Complaint was filed against the Respondent by Petitioner on June 23, 1988. That Complaint, in essence, also charged two violations of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes involving alleged fraud and misrepresentation, concealment, dishonest dealing, culpable negligence and the like It involved two separate real estate transactions which the Respondent engaged in. The first transaction concerned a piece of property Respondent purchased with an existing mortgage and shortly thereafter resold. The Respondent was charged with failing to assume the existing mortgage and, in essence, with not keeping the mortgage payments current, with receiving funds from his purchasers without properly accounting for them in proper escrow accounts and with failing to formally consummate the sale, as well as with issuing a check to the mortgagee bank holding the delinquent mortgage upon insufficient funds. With regard to the other transaction, the Respondent, in essence, was charged with purchasing a piece of property, recording his warranty deed from the sellers, but never properly paying the sellers monies that were due them for the property nor carrying through with the promise to assume the mortgage on that piece of property. That complaint culminated in DOAH Case No. 88-4570, in which the Respondent was charged in pertinent part with violations of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. During the course of that proceeding the Petitioner and Respondent entered into negotiations such that a stipulated adjudication of that proceeding by the agency was effected. The Respondent neither admitted nor denied the charges, but rather agreed to a fine of $500.00, as well as to making restitution of all monies owed to the alleged injured parties and to having his license being placed on probationary status for a period of one year for "culpable negligence" in violation of 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A final order is in evidence as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 1 in this proceeding. Donald and Teresa Winingar, husband and wife, in 1986 found themselves in rather straitened financial circumstances. Their home mortgage was in arrears and was threatened by foreclosure by the mortgagee. The ultimate result of their financial problems caused them to search for a new place to reside. They located six acres of land owned by Donna Day Bowers. The acreage had a small frame house approximately 20 years of age on it. They began negotiating with Ms. Bowers concerning purchasing the property from her The Winingars discussed the price with Ms. Bowers and ultimately a purchase price of approximately $12,000.00 was agreed upon. The Winingars realized that they could not pay cash for the property but would have to secure financing arrangements in order to purchase it. The Winingars had approximately $4,500.00 in cash and at first attempted to have the balance financed by the owner and seller, Ms. Bowers. That arrangement did not come to fruition and so the Winingars searched for another source of funds in order to finance the purchase of the Bowers property in this search they somehow came in contact with the Respondent Stewart Love, a real estate broker. After negotiations with Mr. Love he agreed to finance the purchase of the Bowers property for the Winingars. This resulted in a verbal agreement entered into between the Winingars and the Respondent whereby the Winingars would pay Love $4,500.00 in cash and he would finance the balance of $8,500.00 of the purchase price by a mortgage. Love, or the corporation of which he was president and part owner, Courthouse Investments, Inc., would collect interest on the $8,500.00 mortgage and note from the Winingars. Love also assessed the Winingars a $2,000.00 fee for handling the transaction, the purpose of the fee being unclear. It was apparently some sort of "broker's fee," although Love did not represent the Winingars as a realtor. On October 16, 1986 Respondent entered into an agreement called a "Warranty Deed to Trustee Under Land Trust Agreement pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statues," with the seller of the property, Donna Day. That instrument conveyed title to the property to the Respondent as Trustee in fee simple. The "warranty deed to trustee" document granted the trustee, Love, full power and authority to sell, lease, encumber and otherwise manage and dispose of the property in accordance with the terms of that instrument and with a trust agreement. The trust agreement itself, providing for powers and duties of the trustee and beneficiary of the trust is not evidence and the terms of it are unknown. In any event, having purchased the property from Donna Day (also known as Donna Day Bowers) the Respondent the following day, October 17, 1986, agreed to sell the property to Donald and Teresa Winingar. The Winingars on that day gave the Respondent $4,500.00 in cash as a down payment for the Bowers property. Thereafter, on or about October 31, 1986, the Winingars executed a mortgage note for the amount of $8,500.00 remaining on the purchase price, payable in favor of Courthouse Investments, Inc., a corporation partially owned by and represented by the Respondent Love and of which the Respondent was President. That mortgage note provides that the note was to be for a principal balance of $8,500.00 with payments of $130.00 per month for 265 months at an interest rate of 18% per annum. The note provided for no prepayment penalties and for $6.00 for late fees for each late payment. Additionally, the Winingars executed a promissory note payable to Stewart J. Love for the above-mentioned fee, in the amount of $2,000.00. That note provided that one balloon payment was to be due six years from October 30, 1986 at the rate of 12% per annum, payable in one payment. The Winingars began making monthly payments on the mortgage note of $130.00 per month and made those payments to Stewart J. Love. They were frequently behind in their payments but made payments sporadically until approximately May of 1988. When the Winingars and Mr. Love first engaged in negotiating the financing arrangement, Love informed the Winingars that he would have his attorney draft an agreement whereby the property would be held in trust by Love on behalf of the Winingars allegedly so that it could not be attached by any creditors of the Winingars. This was apparently because the Winingars were involved in a foreclosure action concerning their previous residential property and feared a deficiency judgment from that foreclosure proceeding which might endanger their rights to the land in question. Whether or not their credit was in such peril, Love assured them that he would obtain title to the property from the seller in the form of a trust arrangement, with the beneficial interest to be conveyed to the Winingars, in order to allegedly protect their interest in the six acres from the claims of creditors. Love then at some point showed a photocopy of a document entitled "Warranty Deed to Trustee Under Land Trust Agreement pursuant to Section 689.071, Florida Statutes," to the Winingars and advised them that form of agreement would be drafted to represent their mutual arrangement regarding the sale and ownership of the property, pending final payment by the Winingars. After the initial down payment of $4,500.00 was made by the Winingars, however, they had to make repeated demands of the Respondent for the execution of an agreement or contract to to formalize their arrangement regarding the purchasing of the Bowers property. The purchase arrangements from October 1986 to May 1987 were merely verbal aside from the execution of the mortgage note in question. Finally, on May 1, 1987, a document entitled "Agreement to Convey Beneficial Interest" was signed and executed by the Respondent as President of Courthouse Investments, Inc., "beneficiary," and the Winingars. That agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the total purchase price should be $8,500.00, which acknowledged, in effect, that the remaining $4,500.00 of the originally agreed upon purchase price had already been paid. The agreement also provided that when the principal sum of the purchase price had been paid in full that the beneficiary would instruct the trustee (Stewart Love) to deliver to the grantees (the Winingars) a warranty deed showing good and marketable title to the property. The beneficiary held the beneficial equitable interest in the property with the legal title being held by the Respondent as trustee. The beneficiary was Courthouse Investments, Inc., of which the trustee, the Respondent, was the President. He signed the agreement to convey beneficial interest as the President of that corporation. The agreement also provided that the grantees would be, permitted to go into possession of the property immediately on the date of its execution (May 1, 1987) and would assume all liability for insurance, taxes and maintenance after that date. ,It was also expressly agreed that all oil, gas and mineral rights were to be conveyed to the grantee. Presumably, that meant that all gas and mineral rights were to be conveyed upon the conveying of the warranty deed to the grantees when the purchase price was paid in full. In any event, the agreement clearly provided that when the principal sum of the purchase price was paid in full that a warranty deed conveying good and marketable title would be immediately conveyed to the grantees and, in that connection, the mortgage note already executed at that time by the grantees and the respondent provided that there would be no penalty for early payment of the purchase price or principal amount of the mortgage note referenced in the Agreement to Convey Beneficial Interest. This Agreement to Convey Beneficial Interest reveals additionally that Courthouse Investments, Inc. was the beneficiary of the trust set up by the above-mentioned warranty deed instrument from the original owner to the Respondent, as well as the fact that the Respondent is the President of the beneficiary corporation. Thus, there is no doubt, based upon the terms of the Agreement to Convey Beneficial Interest and the manner in which it was executed by the Respondent as President of the beneficiary corporation, that the Respondent knew that the parties thereto had agreed that all oil, gas and mineral rights were to be conveyed to the grantee upon the payment of the principal sum of the mortgage involved and that the trustee (the Respondent) would be obligated to transfer fee simple title to the grantees by warranty deed upon full payment, at any time, by the grantees. The "Warranty Deed to Trustee . . . " referenced above, however, clearly reveals that the seller, Donna Day (a/k/a Donna Day Bowers) had retained one-half the mineral rights and thus neither the Respondent/Trustee nor the beneficiary corporation had any ability to convey all gas and mineral rights to the grantees simply because the Respondent as trustee with legal title and the beneficiary corporation, the holder of equitable title, only owned one-half of the oil, gas and mineral rights. Since the Respondent/trustee arranged and conducted the purchase transaction with Ms. Bowers whereby he took fee simple title as trustee to the property in question under an instrument which revealed on its face that Ms. Bowers retained half the mineral rights, and since that same Respondent executed the agreement to convey beneficial interest (analogous to a contract for deed) to the Winingars as president of the beneficiary corporation which was the Grantor under that instrument purporting to convey all oil, gas and mineral rights (upon payment of the full purchase price), the Respondent is chargeable with knowledge that the representation concerning oil, gas and mineral rights contained in the Agreement to Convey Beneficial Interest did not accurately represent the ownership situation with regard to those oil, gas and mineral rights. After the Winingars made the initial down payment of $4,500.00 cash in October 1986 and during the time when they were making repeated demands for the execution of a contract to formalize their agreement regarding purchasing of the Bowers property, Mr. Love brought a representative of a financial institution known as "C&S Family Credit" (C&S) to the Winingars' home, sometime in January 1987. This representative and the Respondent informed Teresa Winingar that C&S Family Credit was considering the purchase of their mortgage from the Respondent. The Respondent and the C&S representative, however, advised Ms. Winingar to continue making her monthly payments of $130.00 to the Respondent and not to C&S. The Following year, in May, 1988, Teresa Winingar went to the Respondent's office to pay off the balance of the $8,500.00 mortgage note. Mr. Love informed her at that time that he could not accept the payoff because he did not have a clear title to the property to transfer to the Winingars at that time. The Agreement to Convey Beneficial Interest required the Respondent to transfer marketable title by general warranty deed upon tender of the payoff of the principal balance on the mortgage note. This he did not do. Thereafter, in June of 1988, a representative from C&S again visited the Winingars at their home. This time he informed Mrs. Winingar that his company was about to foreclose on the property at issue because a mortgage on the Winingar's property was in arrears. This was a mortgage executed by the Respondent in favor of C&S as mortgagee and which encumbered the property the Winingars were purchasing. At some point after that June 1988 visit by the C&S representative, C&S filed a foreclosure action against Stewart J. Love and the Winingars. Prior to the May 1988 offer by Mrs. Winingar to pay off the mortgage note, the Respondent's because he could not convey clear title, and the visit by the C&S representative informing Ms. Winingar of the delinquency of the Respondent's mortgage, the Winingars had no knowledge that the Respondent had executed a mortgage on their property in favor of another party. The mortgage executed in favor of C&S encompassed several pieces of property owned by the Respondent, including the piece of property being purchased by the Winingars. The evidence does not reflect that the Respondent made any arrangements with C&S to obtain a partial release of that mortgage as to the Winingar's property at such point as they should tender full payment of the balance of their purchase money mortgage note. While the Respondent, as trustee and holder of fee simple title to the Winingars' property might have had legal authority to mortgage the property to C&S, he was equally obligated under the agreement to convey beneficial interest to insure that their equitable interest in the property was protected, such that he would be able to convey good and marketable title by warranty deed upon the payment by the Winingars of the principal sum of the purchase price. This he was unable to do because he had failed to make arrangements with C&S for a partial release of mortgage or other means of insuring that the Winingars' property was unencumbered at the point of their tendering payment of the remaining purchase price. This negligent failure to insure that the Winingars' equitable interest in the property was protected resulted in the foreclosure action filed by C&S against the Respondent and the Winingars' interest in the property because the Respondent had not made payments on the C&S mortgage in a timely manner. The conveyance of fee simple title to the Respondent by the "Florida Land Trust Agreement" containing the reservation in the original owner of one- half of the oil, gas and mineral rights was recorded, so that any prospective purchaser or his representative searching the title of the subject property could have determined that the Respondent only owned one-half of the mineral rights to the property. Nevertheless, the Winingars were under the impression that they were to receive all mineral rights to the property. This impression may have arisen from the fact that the clause in the agreement to convey beneficial interest provides that . . . "All oil, gas and mineral rights are to be conveyed to the grantee." This agreement appears to be a form or "fill-in- the-blank" agreement prepared by the Respondent himself and not an attorney. Thus, it appears that the mineral rights clause referenced above is a "standard one" which was probably inadvertently left in that form in the agreement when it was executed due to the Respondent's negligence. It has not been established that he intentionally misrepresented the state of his ownership of mineral rights which he would be able to convey to the grantees. In fact, some eighteen months after the original purchase transaction between the Winingars, the Respondent and Courthouse Investments, Inc. was entered into, the Respondent executed the renewal of a preexisting oil lease with regard to the subject property. He, or his corporation, collected the sum of $238.00 lease payment as a result of that renewal. At the time of that lease renewal the Respondent still had legal title to the property and one-half of the mineral rights. This would not have been the case, however, had he timely transferred title to the Winingars in May of 1988 when they tendered payment in full of the remaining balance of the purchase price and at which point he was unable to convey marketable title for the reasons delineated above. In any event, the Winingars were shown to have been entitled to the Respondent's mineral rights at the point of their tender of full payment of the remaining purchase price in May of 1988, at which point title should have been transferred, together with the mineral rights held by the Respondent, which did not occur. As a result of the Respondent's failure to convey title upon the fulfillment of the condition in the above-referenced agreement regarding payment and the dispute which arose between the parties concerning the mineral rights and the proceeds from the lease, the Winingars apparently obtained counsel and instituted legal proceedings against the Respondent of an undisclosed nature. Criminal proceedings were instituted by the State's attorney against the Respondent. These proceedings resulted in a plea of "Nolo Contendere" by the Respondent in order to avoid the expense and anguish of trial and was a negotiated settlement of the criminal charges. Through the plea negotiation arrangement which was accepted by the Court, on February 14, 1990, an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the defendant (Respondent) on probation was entered in the case of the State of Florida v. Stewart J. Love, Case NO. 88-5765 CFA. See Petitioner's exhibit (3) in evidence. That order was entered pursuant to the plea of Nolo Contendere entered by the Respondent to the offense of petit theft. The subject matter of the theft charge was the $238.00 lease payment which the Respondent had maintained he or his corporation was entitled to and which the Winingars believed they were entitled to. In any event, the Respondent was placed on probation for a period of six months and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of the $238.00 to the Winingars. He was also ordered to pay certain costs and was ordered to set a firm closing date by which the Winingars could obtain clear title to the property upon their payment of the balance due, as well as applicable closing costs, including one- half title insurance. The Respondent was ordered by the Court to attend and assist in the closing of the transaction. The Court also ordered that the Respondent would not be liable to clear any encumbrances to the title to the property which had been caused by the Winingars. Ultimately, the Winingars failed to tender the remaining purchase price and therefore the closing never occurred.
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.
