Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent William J. Hartnett, Sr. was licensed as an ordinary life including disability, general lines, surplus lines and disability insurance agent. He has been in the insurance business since 1942 and was first licensed in 1947. Respondent originally organized the Southern American Fire Insurance Company. For the first year or so, he was its sole employee on a nonsalary basis and was nonsalaried for the first ten years of the company's operation. From 1965 on, respondent did not hold a 220 lines license with Southern American, as he did with other insurance entities. Respondent did not sign policies as agent for Southern American. With Southern American, respondent acted as a general agent and was authorized by the board of directors to receive a five percent override commission on the total volume of business. On or about October 27, 1975, a seizure order was entered by the Circuit Court of Leon County which directed the Florida Department of Insurance to take over the business and financial affairs of Southern American. This company has since gone into liquidation pursuant to Chapter 631, Florida Statutes. The Southern American March 31 and June 30, 1975, quarterly statements were prepared by Mr. R.L. Huard, the then assistant treasurer of Southern American, were signed by the respondent, and were filed with the Department of Insurance. The work papers for those statements had been approved by the respondent. Mr. Huard had been instructed by respondent when he was first hired in 1972 not to show on the quarterly statements the over 90-day old balances because they would all be "cleaned up" at the end of the year. Such balances had, in fact, been paid at the end of each of the two years that Mr. Huard was with the company up until the time the Department took over in 1975. It was the respondent's testimony that had the seizure order not been entered, the agencies' lines of credit would still have been open and that all balances could have been collected through September of 1975. The March 31, 1975, and June 30, 1975, quarterly statements of Southern American filed with the Department of Insurance reflected a substantial amount of agents' balances that at the time of reporting were over 90 days old. The elimination of such balances from those two statements would have left Southern American impaired under usual insurance accounting practices as reflected in the Florida Statutes. The over-90 day old agents' balances were due from agencies in which respondent had an interest as an officer, director or stockholder. In 1969, various officials of the Department of Insurance had discussions with the respondent regarding agents' balances which were over ninety days old. On or about December 28, 1973, respondent did deposit the proceeds of certain reinsurance treaties in the amount of $13,218.98 into the account of Southern American. This findings is determined from the testimony of respondent and from a copy of the check and a deposit slip received into evidence as Exhibit M. The deposit slip illustrates that the $13,218.96 check was one of two checks comprising a total deposit of $30,857.12. As a result of information made available to the parties shortly before the hearing, it was stipulated that there never was a direct reinsurance treaty between Southern American and Cottonbelt Insurance Company. It was further stipulated that Southern American did submit single risk policies on a facultative basis through General Aviation Insurance Brokers for Southern American to D.O. Howell and Company, Ltd., in London, England, which in turn placed policies so submitted with Cottonbelt through other brokers. The Department offered no other evidence concerning the checks amounting to $16,600.00 referred to in Count V. As noted above, respondent was authorized by the board of directors to receive as general agent for Southern American a five percent override on all premiums. He was also authorized to receive an annual salary and certain bonuses. For the years 1974 and 1975, respondent did not receive his total annual salaries. The total premium written in Southern American through North Star Insurance Agency from 1968 through 1975 was approximately $700,000.00. Monies owed Southern American by North Star were paid by checks made payable to the respondent, as agent. In his capacity as general agent of Southern American, respondent did receive funds in the approximate amount of $45,000.00 from subagent North Star in payment of premiums due Southern American on policies of insurance issued by Southern American through North Star. Such funds were not deposited into the account of Southern American by respondent, but were instead retained by respondent as an offset against commissions end salary due him from Southern American. This occurred in 1975. When the seizure order was entered in October of 1975, the monies due Southern American from North Star were carried on the books of Southern American as accounts receivable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of respondent to engage in the business of insurance be suspended for a period of six (6) months. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S. Strom Maxwell, Esquire Department of Insurance Suite 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Kelly, Esquire Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1979.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Respondent's license as a life and health debit agent and a general lines, (fire), agent should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of commercial insurance sales agents and the regulation of the insurance industry and profession in Florida. Respondent, Doyle Carlton Newell, was licensed in Florida as a life and health (debit) agent and a general lines agent limited to industrial fire. On April 26, 1991, Respondent entered into an agency contract with United Insurance Company of America, (United), which authorized him to sell authorized insurance policies for the company in Florida within his assigned territory. The terms of the agency contract obligated Respondent to remit to the company, on a weekly basis, all premium money collected by him on the company's behalf. For reasons not stated, United terminated Respondent from employment on May 11, 1992 by use of company form 38A, and Respondent's agency contract was cancelled immediately. The termination was followed by an audit of Respondent's account because for some time, company management had had some concern as to the condition of those accounts. Respondent had admitted to improperly taking money belonging to the company, and the audit was conducted during the period immediately following his termination in May, 1992 through August, 1992. Either prior to or as a part of the audit, Respondent submitted a list of all discrepancies he could recall. The audit revealed an actual deficiency of $3,731.67. After application of the bond submitted by and on behalf of Respondent, the ultimate shortage was $3,257.67. Respondent had, the day he left employment with the company, indicated he would reimburse it for any shortage when he overcame some personal matters and gambling problems. After the exact amount was determined, he was again asked, both orally and, several times through certified mail, to satisfy the obligation but as of the date of hearing, he had made no payments. All policies written by Respondent were honored by the company regardless of the fact he had not remitted the premiums paid therefor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of all misconduct and violations alleged except that relating to a lack of knowledge or technical competency, and revoking his license as an insurance agent in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0222 Doyle Carlton Newell 8414 Waterford Avenue, T3 Tampa, Florida 33604 Doyle Carlton Newell 2106 Two Lakes Road, Apartment 2T Tampa, Florida 33604 Doyle Carlton Newell 13637 Twin Lakes Lane Tampa, Florida 33624 Doyle Carlton Newell American General Life and Accident Insurance Co. 802 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether petitioner should take action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Kenneth E. Schneider has been a general lines agent and so licensed by respondent, at all pertinent times. He has been doing business in Pensacola, Florida, as Friendly Auto Insurance of Pensacola, Inc. (Friendly). Mr. Schneider was "agent for Friendly," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, and he and his wife ran the office (T. 124) with the help of a clerical assistant. Respondent was the licensed agent who "waited on customers." (T. 125) At the time of the final hearing, he was licensed to represent Protective Casualty Insurance Company, and Allied Fidelity Insurance Company. Petitioner's Exhibit 20. Additionally, and "only during 1982," petitioner was licensed to represent Dixie Insurance Company, Kenilworth Insurance Company, Colonial Insurance Company of California, and Fortune Insurance Company. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19. When Mr. Schneider wrote policies for insurance companies other than those he was licensed to represent, he did so by agreement with "a managing general agency." (T. 141). Not all of these agreements he had with managing general agencies were in writing and the Department of Insurance was apprised of none of them. (T. 142, 143). Respondent "broker[ed] . . . business through a general agency in the State of Florida . . . [or] in Atlanta." (T. 141). Time Premium Company (TPC) of Hollywood, Florida, finances insurance premiums. TPC supplies Friendly (and other insurance agencies) with form contracts and blank drafts. Customers of Friendly wanting to borrow money to pay part of their insurance premiums sign a form contract filled in by a Friendly employee obligating the customer to repay TPC the portion of the premium it finances, on an installment basis. Among other things, the form contract provides: That in consideration of the payment by TIME to the respective insurance companies, or their agents, of the balance of the premiums upon the policies of insurance hereinbefore described, the assured agrees with TIME as follows: The assured hereby assigns to TIME as security for the total amount payable hereunder, any and all unearned return premiums and dividends which may become payable under the policies listed in the schedule and loss payments under said policies which reduce the unearned premiums. . . . 4. The assured hereby appoints TIME his attorney in fact to cancel and give notice of cancellation of said policies for non-payment of any amounts due hereunder, and said insurance companies are hereby authorized and directed, upon the demand or request of TIME, to cancel said policies and to pay TIME the unearned return premiums pursuant to the assignment contained in paragraph 1 about thereon without proof of default hereunder or breach thereof or of the amount owning hereunder. In the event that the unearned return premiums are not sufficient to pay the total amount due hereunder, the assured shall pay the deficiency with interest at the highest allowable rate. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. A Friendly employee consummates the loan by drawing on TPC and forwarding the draft to the insurance company (or agency) for whom Friendly is writing the insurance. In the event that a company fails to repay TPC, TPC causes the insurance coverage to be cancelled and applies return premiums against the outstanding indebtedness, including, when received, unearned commissions in Friendly's hands at the time of cancellation. TPC notifies Friendly of any shortfall, once it has received return premiums from the insurance companies (or agencies), and Friendly forwards all or part of its unearned commission to TPC, as appropriate. By print-out mailed four times monthly, TPC notifies Friendly of unearned commissions Friendly owes TPC. If return premiums, including unearned commissions, do not satisfy the debt, TPC duns the customer. Friendly is under an obligation to return to the customer any part of an unearned commission it does not owe to TPC or some other premium finance company. BARAHONA On November 29, 1982, Victor Barahona bought insurance from Friendly. Friendly wrote policy No. FAP508054 on Horizon Insurance Company (Horizon) on behalf of Guaranteed Insurance Underwriters (Guaranteed) for liability coverage; and, for comprehensive and collision coverage, policy No. SPP0401130 on Southern Insurance Company (Southern), on behalf of Florida General Agency. Mr. Barahona made a downpayment of $159.00 and Friendly effected a loan to him from TPC in the amount of $386.00 for the remainder of the combined premiums. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Barahona's obligation to TPC aggregated $437.60, which he was to repay in eight monthly installments of $54.70 each, the first being due on December 30, 1982. On January 6, 1983, TPC notified Mr. Barahona that it had not received an installment payment, and that the policies would be cancelled if the payment was not received within ten days. On January 17, 1983, TPC requested cancellation of both policies. Later TPC notified Mr. Barahona that the policies were cancelled effective February 25, 1983. As a result of the cancellation of the Barahona policies, TPC received a total of $311.63 in return premiums, $127.95 from Florida General Agency and $183.68 from Horizon or Guaranteed. As of September 2, 1983, Barahona still owed TPC $114.78, and TPC had not received any part of the unearned commission on Barahona's policies from Friendly, but it was not until August that TPC had received the last insurance company return premium. Some time thereafter it billed Friendly on the entire unearned commission. In July of 1984, Friendly paid TPC the money it owed TPC on account of the cancellation of the Barahona policies. TAYLOR December 6, 1982, Friendly wrote policy No. SPP0401329 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency and policy No. 389868 on Protective Casualty Insurance Company (Protective) on behalf of Specialty Insurance Underwriters (Specialty) for James M. Taylor. Mr. Taylor made a down payment of $97.00, and Friendly effected a loan to him from TPC in the amount of $226.00 for the remainder of the combined premiums. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Taylor's obligation to TPC aggregated $264.43, which he was to repay in eight equal monthly installments of $33.06, the first being due January 7, 1983. On January 12, 1983, TPC notified Mr. Taylor that it had not received an installment payment, and that the policies would be cancelled if the payment was not received within ten days. At TPC's behest, both policies were cancelled effective February 28, 1983, leaving an outstanding balance of $274.48. As a result of the cancellation of the Taylor policies, TPC received a total of $185.62 in return premiums, $88.02 from Florida General Agency and $97.60 from Protective in March of 1983. A notice of cancellation was sent to Friendly as well as to Protective and Southern, but Friendly did not pay the unearned commission it owed TPC until July of 1984. (T. 19). BIVINS On November 29, 1982, Friendly wrote policy No. 0401124 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency for Walter L. Bivins. Of the $159.00 total premium, Delores T. Bivins paid $99.00 as a cash downpayment, and Friendly effected a loan to her from TPC in the amount of $60.00 for the remainder of the premium. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Bivins' obligation to TPC aggregated $81.93, which he was to repay in three equal installments of $27.31, the first of which was due December 30, 1982. Delores T. Bivins mailed TPC a check for $30.31 ($27.31 plus a $3.00 late charge) dated December 31, 1982. TPC deposited this check, but it was returned unpaid. As a result TPC assessed a $10.00 delinquency charge, and an additional $10 charge, because the check was returned, and caused the cancellation of Mr. Bivins' policy, effective March 2, 1983, claiming a balance due of $104.93. TPC received a return premium from Southern or Florida General Agency later the same month. TPC received the $12.80 unearned commission Friendly owed it in July of 1984. GORECKI On January 6, 1983, Friendly wrote policy No. SPP0403316 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency and policy No. 031555 on Allied Fidelity Insurance Company on behalf of Specialty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. for James T. Gorecki. The combined premiums amounted to $481.00. Mr. Gorecki made a down payment of $144.00 and financed the remaining $337.00 through TPC. Friendly effected the loan from TPC. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Gorecki's total obligation to TPC aggregated $384.56, which he was to repay in eight equal monthly installments of $48.07, the first being due February 6, 1983. Mr. Gorecki sold his car and requested cancellation of both insurance policies in February of 1983. He executed documents at Friendly's office to effect the cancellation. Mr. Gorecki made no payment to TPC and TPC requested cancellation of both policies as a result, although at least one of them had already been cancelled. The Southern policy, No. SPP0403316, was cancelled March 3, 1983, and on March 17, 1983, a check for Southern's return premium, in the amount of $145.33, was sent to TPC, and TPC received it shortly thereafter. The return premium check for Allied Fidelity's policy No. 031555 reached TPC no later than May of 1983. (T. 26). On June 21, 1983, Mr. Gorecki's mother filled out an "insurance consumer service request" complaining that "[t]hey have been telling us since February they would send us a check for the unearned premium." After applying both return premium checks against Mr. Gorecki's indebtedness, a balance of $45.16 remained. TPC notified Friendly by written statement mailed June 23, 1983, that unearned commissions up to $45.16 should be forwarded to TPC. Unearned commissions in excess of $45.16, if any, should have been returned to Mr. Gorecki. (T. 41). BOURGEOIS On January 5, 1983, Friendly wrote policy No. SPP0403324 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency and policy No. 031572 on Allied Fidelity Insurance Company on behalf of American Underwriters, Inc. for Edward Bourgeois. The combined premiums amounted to $397.00. Mr. Bourgeois made a down payment of $119.00 and financed the remaining $278.00. Friendly effected the loan from TPC. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Bourgeois' total obligation to TPC aggregated $320.64, which he was to repay An eight equal monthly installments of $40.08, the first being due February 8, 1983. Mr. Bourgeois made no payments to TPC and TPC caused the cancellation of both policies, effective March 29, 1983, as a result. Notice of cancellation went to both insurance companies and Friendly. On April 27, 1983, TPC received an insurance company return premium of $135.29 and the other insurance company return premium arrived in May of 1983. (T. 27). Friendly paid TPC the unearned commission in July of 1984. A YEAR BEHIND TPC deals with some four or five hundred insurance agencies in Florida. TPC normally receives unearned commissions from agencies within 45 to 60 days after billing, although a TPC employee testified that 90 days was "acceptable." (T. 30). TPC bills the agencies with a computer printout, representing an accumulation of accounts. Possibly one other agency has taken longer than a year to repay moneys owed under similar circumstances. (T. 29). When respondent Schneider fell behind in forwarding unearned commissions, TPC telephoned to discuss the problem. He began sending money to reduce his indebtedness and continues to do so. TPC "would like him to do better, but . . . [is] working with him on this." (T. 31-32). Respondent Schneider sent TPC checks for $800.00 on April 26, 1983, for $500.00 on July 21, 1983, for $400.00 on May 25, 1983, for $400.00 on June 15, 1983, and for $500.00 on July 21, 1983. At the time of the hearing, he was paying $3,000.00 a month "[a]gainst old accounts that . . . [TPC needs] money on on the unearned commissions," (T. 42) but TPC has "asked him to raise it to four or five." (T. 38). TPC applies money it gets from respondent to the oldest accounts first, and Mr. Schneider was aware of this. (T. 38). The money TPC received in 1983 was applied to "possibly `81 or `82 files." (T. 32). A TPC employee testified without contradiction that unearned commissions insurance agencies like Friendly owed it would be TPC's money in the hands of the agent. LE On September 9, 1982, Hang Thi Le purchased Allied Fidelity Insurance Company's policy No. 09-104802 from Friendly for automobile liability, property damage and personal injury protection coverage. She paid Friendly $123.00 on September 9, 1982. Friendly forwarded $104.55 to Allied Fidelity and retained the balance as its commission. On January 26, 1983, Ms. Le made a written request that coverage be cancelled, by executing a form which stated, "I have sold my car." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. Allied Fidelity Insurance Company cancelled the policy and, on April 22, 1985, mailed Friendly a check "in the amount of $532.10 with a notation on the bottom of the check indicating that this involved return premium[s] . . . for two policyholders, one being Hang Thi Le . . . indicating the amount of return [for Ms. Le] to be $50.15." (T. 51). Ms. Le was due a total return premium of $59.00, of which $8.85 was unearned commission still in respondent's hands. After she had telephoned Friendly three times and been told at least once that Mr. Schneider was not in, Ms. Le received a refund check in the amount of $50.15 dated July 21, 1983. The check bore the notation "returned premium" and was signed by respondent Schneider, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, but did not include the $8.85 respondent owed Ms. Le. In a separate transaction with Friendly, Ms. Le bought insurance and financed the premium. She "put a down payment and . . . ma[d]e a[nother] payment," (T. 69) before deciding to cancel her insurance and stop payment on a check. LOGOS On March 29, 1982, Edward T. Logos went to Friendly's office because he had seen an advertisement on the back of the Pensacola News-Journal's "TV Tab", to wit: [Graphic image of Petitioner's Exhibit 16, as displayed on page 16 of the original Recommended Order, has been omitted. To view this portion of this document, please contact the Clerk's Office.] Mr. Logos "told the lady [in Friendly's office that he] wanted to buy PIP and that's all. [He] assumed they were honorable enough that they would sell [him] what [he] asked for." (T. 91). He was quoted $52.00 and complained about the price. He had waited an hour and a half or two for his turn to buy insurance and signed multiple documents where a woman in respondent's employ had marked them with "x"s. Among the papers he signed was an application for membership in Nation Motor Club, Inc., even though he never asked to join and would have declined an offer to purchase a membership. He also signed the following document: [Graphic image of Petitioner's Exhibit 15, as displayed on pages 17-18 of the original Recommended Order, has been omitted. To view this portion of this document, please contact the Clerk's Office.] The premium for the PIP policy with its $8,000 deductible, was $17.00. The $35.00 difference between the PIP premium and what Mr. Logos paid was apparently the cost of the motor club membership. More than a month later Mr. Logos received his policy in the mail, along with papers indicating he was a member of the Nation Motor Club. Mr. Logos never asked to join Nation Motor Club and would not knowingly have paid to do so. He made inquiries, then complained to the Insurance Commissioner. Respondent refunded the entire $52.00 by check dated August 27, 1982.
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's life, life and health and general lines insurance agent's licenses should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed in this state as a life agent, as a health agent, as a life and health agent, and as a general lines agent. A general lines license permits him to sell most kinds of insurance in Florida, as well as sign policies and manage other insurance salespersons. Respondent has held a general lines license since 1988. Respondent was first licensed as a solicitor in 1985 or 1986. Mr. Weeks has never been fined or suspended in connection with his insurance licenses and his insurance licenses have never been suspended or revoked or disciplined in any manner. Respondent worked for Farm Bureau from 1985 until 1991 selling home, automobile, life and health insurance. He never sold any surplus lines insurance while employed at Farm Bureau. In November, 1991, Mr. Weeks started communicating with Arthur J. Gallagher & Company about its poultry insurance program. Mr. Weeks first became aware of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company and its poultry insurance program when a customer of his at Farm Bureau told him about it. He reviewed that customer's policy and was impressed by it because he knew that the poultry industry in Florida had virtually no insurance or inadequate insurance available to it. The Gallagher poultry program offered all risk insurance protection to poultry farms with replacement value protection and income protection. The insurance was significantly better than any other poultry insurance product in Florida. The program was underwritten by Lloyds of London as surplus lines insurance and sold by Arthur J. Gallagher & Company who was the managing general agent for Lloyds. By late 1991, Mr. Weeks was interested in going into business for himself. In January, 1992, Mr. Weeks established Weeks Insurance Agency in Chipley, Florida. He only operated Weeks Insurance Agency for a few months before he went to work for Morris, Temple and Company, in April, 1992. Initially, he worked on a part-time basis, while he phased out his business. He commenced full-time employment with Morris, Temple in August, 1992. During the time he was self-employed Mr. Weeks wished to sell Gallagher & Company's poultry insurance. He contacted Gallagher and spoke primarily to Julie Schatz. Julie Schatz negotiated with Lloyds to write property coverage. She was assigned the poultry program to develop it into a nationwide program. However, she has no knowledge as to the duties and responsibilities of a surplus lines agent. However, it is Gallagher's policy to correspond with the states and its affiliate in each state to make sure that commissions or fees are being properly charged. Initially, Gallagher provided Mr. Weeks with an agent's package consisting of a brochure and a document entitled "Sub-Agent Guidelines." The Sub-Agent Guidelines provided Mr. Weeks with instructions as to what his duties were in the program. On January 23, 1992, Mr. Weeks received a letter from Gallagher dated January 20, 1992, appointing him as a sub-agent and authorizing him to sell poultry insurance (Appointment Letter). Mr. Weeks contracted with Arthur J. Gallagher as a sub-agent because he was not licensed as a surplus lines agent. He was working under the license of Gallagher's surplus lines agent in Tampa, Florida. Arthur J. Gallagher & Company was the company Mr. Weeks dealt with exclusively. They generated the policies, the declaration sheets, and all of the paperwork associated with the program. The Gallagher Poultry Department bound the coverage and had the policies and declaration pages completed in Texas and countersigned in Miami. Gallagher then mailed the notices directly to the insured. On January 23, 1992, upon receiving the appointment letter, Mr. Weeks called the Florida Department of Insurance to find out if his license was adequate to sell poultry insurance and what he could charge or not charge as a fee. He was passed from person to person until he "finally wound up" with a person Mr. Weeks believes was Ms. Shirley Kerns. He made it clear to Ms. Kerns that he was speaking about a fee he would charge as opposed to a commission. She told him that the question was not within her department, but she knew where to find an answer and that he should call her back in about thirty minutes. He called her back in about thirty minutes. The person believed to be Ms. Kerns assured him that his 220 license was adequate and that he could probably collect his fees up front. She advised him that he needed to make sure that he notified the client that he was charging him a fee. She suggested that a good practice would be to notify the clients in writing to avoid an argument later. As a result of this conversation, Mr. Weeks decided to send out invoices showing his fee. She referred him to another office because she did not know about the amount of fees he could charge. Mr. Weeks was transferred to Jeff Overstreet, a very new Insurance Specialist III at the Department of Insurance at the time. Mr. Overstreet's duties involved answering insurance questions over the telephone or finding who in the Department the caller should talk to. Mr. Overstreet told Mr. Weeks that the amount of commission was a matter of contract between agent and company. He was not sure about the maximum charge on any particular product, so Mr. Overstreet referred him to Mr. Battaglin, an actuary in the property and casualty division of the Department of Insurance. Mr. Battaglin told him that Florida does not regulate surplus lines insurance, whatsoever. During these conversations with the Department, Mr. Weeks' wife was sitting next to him helping him. He gave her an analysis of the conversations and she wrote them down at the time of the conversations. The notes taken by his wife are set down on the Appointment Letter. Because Mr. Weeks was not completely satisfied with the answers given by the Department of Insurance, he had his wife call and ask the same questions to the same people, and she received the same answers. It was clear from the evidence presented that none of these Department people recall talking to Mr. Weeks or his wife. However, their inability to recall 1991 telephone conversations is understandable due to the passage of time. Additionally, as to the person believed to be Ms. Kern's, Respondent may very well have spoken to someone else with a similar sounding name or have gotten the name wrong. In any event, Mr. Weeks testimony about the inquiries he made to the Department regarding charging fees is believed. Mr. Weeks informed Julie Schatz of the information he received from the Department and she felt the charge of an agency fee by Mr. Weeks was appropriate. Therefore, Gallagher and Company authorized the agency fee charged by Mr. Weeks for the insurance and should have disclosed the information on the declaration page for the insurance. See Section 626.930, Florida Statutes. Mr. Weeks sold Gallagher & Company insurance to at least seven (7) customers in northwest Florida. Mr. Weeks charged each customer a fee between ten and fifteen cents per hundred dollars in coverage which he added to premium of forty cents per hundred dollars, depending on the size of the premium. His idea as to the amount of fee to charge came from a policy he had seen in Graceville, Florida, written directly by Gallagher. He discussed the determination of the amount of his charges with Julie Schatz at Gallagher and she had no problem with the amount. Mr. Weeks met with each potential customer in person, explained the program and went over each item of cost for the insurance item by item, including his fee, on a piece of paper. As part of his explanation he told the customer that Lloyds was not a part of the Florida Guaranty Association, but he felt like it was a safe program. He then mailed every customer an invoice after returning to his office based upon the computations he had done in their presence. The invoices for the seven (7) sales of poultry insurance at issue demonstrate the following: Each item of cost is set forth on a separate line, including the agency fee. An initial payment is set forth as a line item on each invoice, except for the Mitchem Invoice. All are dated. The earliest date is February 13, 1992, and the latest date is May 30, 1992. Each invoice states the name and address of the applicant and the amount of coverage applied for. The date on the invoices represents the date that the insured's policy was to be effective, not the date it was created. However, in some cases these dates were the same. Mr. Weeks had met W.E. Bartlett while he was an agent for Farm Bureau. Mr. Weeks called Mr. Bartlett about the poultry insurance program and arranged a meeting. Mr. Bartlett's only interest seemed to be the cost. However, Mr. Weeks went through his entire presentation including the costs and agency fee. Around May 16, 1992, Bartlett was sent an invoice detailing all the costs for the insurance. The invoice included a charge of $199.50 which was listed as an agency fee. Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of $828.50 in cash including the $199.50 agency fee. Clifton Parrish was referred to Mr. Weeks. Mr. Weeks went through his entire presentation including the costs and agency fee. Mr. Parrish's total cost for the Gallagher poultry program was $1,600 less than his current insurance. Around March 10, 1992, Mr. Parrish was sent an invoice. The invoice included a charge of $305.00 which was listed as an agency fee. Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of the $305.00 agency fee by check number 1204. Cleo and Mayme DePriest had received a letter from Showell Farms describing Gallagher's poultry insurance. However, Mr. Weeks was referred to them by a neighbor. The DePriest's had received notice that their current coverage would not be renewed. Mr. Weeks went through his entire presentation including the costs and agency fee. Around May 30, 1992, Mr. Weeks sent them an invoice. fee. 35. The invoice included a charge of $456.00 which was listed as an agency cash 36. and Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of $260.00 $440.00 by check for a total of $700.00, including the $456.00 agency fee. 37. Mr. Weeks met Ms. Ella Smith out at the Smith poultry houses and then explained the program to her and Mr. Smith at the residence. Mr. Smith tried to bargain with him to reduce his fee. Around February 15, 1992, he sent them a detailed invoice. The invoice included a charge of $360.00 which was listed as an agency fee. Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of the $360.00 agency fee as part of check number 0958. Monroe Smith was a customer that called Mr. Weeks as a result of a letter to from Showell Farms describing the Gallagher poultry insurance. Mr. Weeks explained the poultry insurance to him including the costs and agency fee. He paid Mr. Weeks his fee. Around April 1, 1992, Respondent issued an invoice to Monroe Smith, Jr. of DeFuniak Springs, Florida for a surplus lines policy providing poultry house coverage. The invoice included a charge of $184.50 which was listed as an agency fee. Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of the $184.50 agency fee by check number 1196. Mr. Weeks knew Wendell Mitchem prior to getting into the insurance business. The Lloyds policy would reduce his costs for poultry insurance to about one-third of what he had been paying. Mr. Mitchem wanted to write a check before he had time to explain the whole program. However, Mr. Weeks explained the insurance to him anyway, including the costs and the agency fee. Around February 3, 1992, Mr. Mitchem received a detailed invoice issued to Farm Credit Services of DeFuniak Springs, Florida. Farm Credit required the insurance coverage as Mr. Mitchen's creditor. The invoice included a charge of $220.00 which was listed as an agency fee. Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of $192.00 as partial payment of the agency fee. Mr. Robert Helmes called Mr. Weeks. Mr. Helmes had practically no insurance, and the insurance he did have was so expensive he could not afford it. Mr. Helmes had a bad year, and money was tight. His insurance was not sufficient to replace his chicken houses if they were destroyed. Mr. Weeks gave his entire presentation for the insurance and Mr. Helmes bought the insurance. The insurance program he bought from Mr. Weeks increased his coverage extensively and reduced his premiums substantially. Mr. Weeks collected his agency fee and, around March 24, 1992, sent Mr. Helmes an invoice. The invoice included a charge of $240.00 which was listed as an agency fee. Respondent acknowledges on the face of the invoice, receipt of the $240.00 agency fee by check number 1RH. Mr. Weeks provided copies of all of the invoices to Gallagher until April, 1992, when Gallagher notified his office that Gallagher did not have any need for the invoices. Mr. Weeks considered his fee to be part of the premium or authorized charges for the insurance and expected them to be printed on the declaration page of the poultry policies. Mr. Weeks became upset with Gallagher & Company because he knew that not putting his charges on the declaration sheet of the policy was going to cause confusion. He called Ms. Schatz about the discrepancy. Ms. Schatz assured him that the difference could be explained simply if an insured questioned it. On June 1, 1992, Gallagher notified Mr. Weeks about their concern over the agency fee for the first time and terminated his representation. Julie Schatz made the decision to terminate Mr. Weeks' sub-agency appointment. The only reason Ms. Schatz gave him for his termination was excessive commission charges. In June, 1994, Mr. Weeks was terminated from his employment with Morris, Temple and Company because the large insurance companies, for which Morris, Temple served as managing agent, notified Morris, Temple that Mr. Weeks was no longer allowed to sell their products because of the complaint filed in this cause. The Department has taken no action against Gallagher with regard to the alleged illegal charges by Mr. Weeks or its failure to disclose those charges on the declaration page for the insurance. The agent's fee was charged by Clinton Weeks without knowing that the fee was not being disclosed by Gallagher on the declaration page for the insurance. Therefore, Clinton Weeks, did not knowingly collect a charge not disclosed in the insurance policies. The actions of Mr. Weeks in charging the agency fee were not willful or intentional violations of the law, they were not dishonest, unfair, deceptive or fraudulent, and they did not demonstrate that Mr. Weeks was unfit, untrustworthy, or that he lacked adequate knowledge or competence to be a general lines agent. Mr. Weeks acted in good faith on the information he received from the Department and on his belief that Gallagher & Company had authorized the fee charge for the insurance he was selling on its behalf. Given these facts, Respondent did not violate any provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes and the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Clinton Emmett Weeks, be found not guilty of the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 16th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 37 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30 and 38, of Petitioner's proposed Findings of fact were not shown by the evidence or were subordinate. 3. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 a-d, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. 4. The facts contained in paragraphs 23, 31e and 35 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Jr., Esq. Igler & Dougherty, P.A. 1501 Park Ave. E Tallahassee, FL 32301 John R. Dunphy, Esq. Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Bldg. 200 E. Gaines St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Dept. of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Charles Edward Hinchey, was licensed by the State of Florida as: a Life and Health (Debit Agent), a Life agent, a Life and Health Agent, a General lines - Property, casualty, surety, and Miscellaneous Agent, a Health Insurance Agent At no time pertinent to the allegations herein was he either licensed or eligible for licensure as a Surplus lines - Property, Casualty and Surety Surplus lines Agent. The Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, (Department), is the state agency charged with regulating the activities of licensed insurance agents in Florida. At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Respondent, Hinchey, was President and a Director of C. Edward Hinchey & Company, Inc. Sometime in September, 1986, Charles R. Safarik, a sales representative and energy consultant operating his own firm, contacted Respondent on the basis of a reference from his prior insurance agent, relative to securing completed products insurance for his business. As a result of these discussions, he and Respondent entered into an agreement for Mr. Safarik to purchase the desired coverage from Respondent at an acceptable yearly premium of $1,789.00. Mr. Safarik gave a check for this amount dated September 8, 1986, payable to C. Edward Hinchey & Co., and endorsed for deposit to that company's account. When the check was handed over, Respondent gave Mr. Safarik a binder which he signed which reflects Lloyds of London, (Lloyds) as the underwriter. Lloyds of London is authorized to insure for Surplus Lines in Florida. Mr. Safarik thought, as a result, that he was insured by Lloyds of London and though he never received a policy to that effect, in February, 1987, upon his request, he received from the Respondent a photo copy of a Lloyds policy reflecting Respondent as agent, which purports to insure Mr. Safarik's company as requested. When he received this document, Mr. Safarik called Lloyds directly to inquire, giving the policy number. In response, he was advised the company would not issue any policy with the stated number, and was referred to Lloyds' counsel in New York. When Mr. Safarik requested an original policy from Lloyds' American counsel, he was advised, after investigation, by letter in April, 1987, that he had no insurance with Lloyds. The letter in question further indicated that the certificate of insurance issued by Respondent's company and signed By Respondent was issued without the authorization of Lloyds. In March, 1987, after receiving the purported policy and bogus Certificate of Insurance from Respondent, Mr. Safarik advised the Department of Insurance personnel of the situation as it then appeared. Before he received an answer, however, in mid-March, 1987, Respondent gave Mr. Safarik a check for a full return of the premium paid, a letter to Hinchey for Safarik to sign requesting the policy be voided, and a proposed letter to the Department of Insurance indicating the matter had been resolved to his satisfaction. Mr. Safarik signed neither. Though Mr. Safarik cashed Respondent's check, he did not have the insurance coverage he thought he had when dealing with Respondent. Should anything go wrong with any of the equipment sold during that period, he may have liability for any loss occasioned. Though Respondent never stated he was a representative of Lloyds, his actions in delivering a binder and certificate of insurance, both of which bore his agency as correspondent/agent, and the Lloyds name as insurer, implied an agency representation relationship. Respondent did nothing to discourage that conclusion. The Florida authorized underwriter for Lloyds categorically denies having signed any of those documents. The documents appear to bear the signature of his policy typist, but they were not signed as they appear now. For example, the Florida Surplus Lines Number C-562-85, which appears on the photo copy of the policy given to Mr. Safarik, was actually the number on a different company's policy issued to Tanner Trucking, Inc., in August, 1985. He also believed the tax stated thereon is incorrect for the premium charged, (Counsel for Respondent disputed this in a post-hearing letter to the undersigned), but that is irrelevant except as to indicate manipulation of the policy. It is clear, and the testimony of Mr. Rowley and Ms. Walker, the policy typist, confirms, that the policy which Respondent delivered to Mr. Safarik was fraudulent and invalid. It is an obvious cut and paste forgery. George B. Reed owns and operates D&B Trucking in Brandon, Florida. His rolling stock includes three tractors and 16 trailers, some of which are financed under an agreement which requires him to carry liability and other insurance on them. When he bought 10 trailers in April, 1986, he purchased insurance for them through the Respondent. On April 14, 1986, he gave Respondent a check for $4,292.29, as partial premium, made payable to Real Insurers, (Real), with whom Respondent was affiliated at the time. Thereafter, he received a binder dated April 18, 1986, issued on American Trucking Insurance Company, signed by the Respondent. Since Mr. Reed had never heard of the company, he asked around about it but could get no information. Though he asked Respondent several times for a policy to support the binder, he never received one. Respondent repeatedly claimed it had something to do with his files. Mr. Reed also made additional premium payments monthly in May, June, July, and August, 1986, but he did not receive a policy from either the Respondent or the company. The policy was in force for, he believed, one year during which Mr. Reed had some claims he thought were covered. When he notified Respondent of these claims, Respondent said he was covered and he, Respondent, would have to get into the files to process them. Mr. Reed received no reimbursement at all on these claims, however, and had to pay for the supposedly covered damage himself. Mr. Reed ultimately determined there was no such company as American Trucking Insurance Company. Repeated inquiries to the Respondent were met with repeated stalling. Respondent told Mr. Reed he had placed the insurance through Day and Associates in St. Petersburg which had gone out of business when Mr. Day died. This information was communicated to Mr. Reed by the Respondent by letter dated January 14, 1987. In that letter Respondent also pointed out that he had returned the premium paid for the nonexistent coverage and attempted to lay the entire blame for the lack of coverage on Day. When Mr. Reed found out he had no coverage, he nonetheless stayed with Respondent who purportedly got him coverage with AllState. It subsequently was determined that this latter coverage was only for one truck, however, and if the binder introduced by Respondent at the hearing is for the coverage referred to here, it must be noted that the binder reflects Lloyds of London rather than AllState as the underwriter. It also was determined that of the $4,292.29 paid by Reed in the initial check to Real, all but $1,962.00, which was reimbursed by Read to Hinchey, was for cargo and liability insurance with Occidental Insurance Company, not American Trucking Insurance Co. The terms of Hinchey's agreement with Real called for him to independently procure the truck insurance that Reed thought he was getting and against which the claims were filed. He placed the coverage, if placed at all, with a firm not licensed in this state, and, as will be seen, there is some question he did even that. When Mr. Hinchey paid Mr. Reed back the $4,292.29, he enclosed a letter which, when signed by Reed, would have constituted a release of all claims Reed had against him. Reed had not solicited this though he signed it. All of these dealings with Mr. Reed took place when Respondent was an agent working for Real Insurers. The co-owner of that agency had no idea Respondent was conducting his own incorporated business out of her agency until confronted with the Reed situation. She knew nothing of any dealing with American Trucking Insurance Company or of Day and Associates. While Day and Associates was at one point in business in Florida, the Department of Insurance certifies that American Trucking Insurance Company is not authorized to act as an insurer in any capacity in Florida. It is clear, therefore, that Respondent accepted $1,962.00 from Mr. Reed under false pretenses of providing coverage on 10 trailers; issued a binder on a company which did not exist; and then attempted to cover up his actions by paying Reed back after Reed complained to the Department. Respondent denies any intentional wrongdoing. He stated that when Mr. Safarik first contacted him, he contacted several agents and brokers from a list of agents offering the desired coverage, which he had compiled over the years. Because of the dangerous nature of Safarik's business, he had a difficult time finding someone to issue the coverage. Day and Associates was on the list though Respondent had never dealt with them and knew nothing about them. He contacted Day by phone and transacted all their business that way, without ever meeting Mr. Day. He claims this is not unusual. According to Respondent, the placement of Safarik's coverage with Lloyds was accomplished by Day, and Respondent issued the binder on the basis of a price quoted him by Day. The policy number and company name were also given to him, he claims, by Day to whom he transmitted 85 percent of the premium paid by Mr. Safarik. Respondent has no evidence by way of cancelled checks, letters, or other written memoranda to back up this claim. It is patently false. Mr. Hinchey relates that in 1975 he worked directly with a Lloyds underwriter and was, therefore, familiar with their policy form. The policy he received for Mr. Safarik was not unusual, and bearing the Lloyds seal, it did not raise any suspicions. When Mr. Safarik told him that he had not received his policy, Respondent made a copy of his copy and sent it on without, he asserts, making any changes thereto or placing any entries thereon. His typed company name which appears thereon as correspondent, instead of Day and Associates who procured the policy must, therefore, have been placed there by Day or the company. This is unlikely. Respondent claims he first found out the policy was not genuine in April, 1987, when he received a phone call from Lloyds' New York attorney about it. He corresponded with the Department's investigator in Tampa who was looking into the matter and heard no more about it. In his mind, he had no reason to doubt that Day and Associates had authority to write the policy. As to the trucking company policy, Respondent indicates he placed the insurance with American Trucking Insurance Company, out of the Grand Cayman Islands through Day and Associates. The policy he wrote showed coverage from 4- 18-86 to 4-18-87 at a premium of $4,200.00 and an attached schedule reflects 10 trailers covered. The binder Respondent introduced in support of this coverage, however, reflects a coverage period of 8-27-87 to 9-24-87, less than one month, relates to only one vehicle, and shows no premium. This document in no way supports Respondent's position. Again, Respondent contends that 85 percent of the premium he received from Real Insurers for the American Trucking Insurance Company policy was paid to Day and Associates. There is, again, no cancelled check for this payment as it was paid in cash to a "woman [who] came by and picked it up." There are no receipts or anything with the Day name on it to verify this. Anything of that nature would have been in a file, according to Respondent, which was not presented for consideration. Respondent does not know what is in there. Again, it is clear from the evidence that Respondent, working his own operation out of the Real Insurers office, accepted premiums from Mr. Reed and issued a policy on a company which, if it exists at all, is not licensed to do business in Florida. This resulted in the client not being covered. He thereafter attempted to cover his actions up by blaming the matter on Day and Associates, a defunct organization previously headed by an individual now deceased. His story is unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that all licenses to engage in the business of insurance currently held by the Respondent, CHARLES EDWARD HINCHEY, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2587 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. For the Petitioner: 1-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4-7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13-14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15-16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22-24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25-27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Rejected as a summary of the Respondent's presentation from the Petitioner's point of view and not a proposed Finding of Fact. For the Respondent: 1-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and Incorporated herein. 14-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19-20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Rejected as how Mr. Phillips testified. The testimony related was given by Mr. Charles Rowley who works for Gordon B. Phillips Co. Also while there is no direct evidence that Respondent forged Mr. Rowley's signature to the policy, the circumstantial evidence is great that he did and it was so found. 22-23: Accepted and incorporated herein. 24-26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. Accepted except for the statement that one of his associate agents referred Respondent to Day & Associates. There was no affirmative indication of that point. Cited reference to transcript is inferential only. 28-29. Rejected as unsupported by credible evidence of record. 30-32. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the proposed finding that Respondent procured valid substitute insurance for Mr. Reed which is not supported by credible evidence of record. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Kennan G. Dandar, Esquire The Ashley Tower, Suite 1360 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Boyer Produce, Inc. and its surety, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, owe petitioner $1,751.80 as alleged in the complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In July 1993, petitioner, Patricia Thomas, was given authority by her brother to sell all remaining watermelons on his farm located in Citra, Florida. This amounted to approximately one truckload. She eventually sold them to respondent, Boyer Produce, Inc., a dealer (broker) in agricultural products located in Williston, Florida. Its owner and president is Kennedy Boyer (Boyer), who represented his firm in this proceeding. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and is in the amount of $75,000.00. Although the parties had never had business dealings before this transaction, through a mutual acquaintance, Randy Rowe, respondent learned that petitioner was interested in selling her watermelons. After Boyer visited the field and examined three watermelons which he described as "good," Boyer offered to purchase a truckload for 4 per pound if all melons were of the same quality. Thomas declined and counteroffered with a price of 5 per pound. The parties then agreed to split the difference and arrived at a sales price of 4 per pound. During the negotiations, Rowe acted as an intermediary between the parties and observed the formation of the contract as well as the loading of the goods onto the truck. Although the matter is in dispute, it is found that both parties agreed that Thomas would be paid 4 per pound for "good" watermelons delivered. This meant that petitioner would not be paid unless and until the watermelons were delivered to their final destination in "good" condition. In the trade, being in "good condition" meant that the watermelons would meet U. S. Grade No. 1 standards. Respondent also agreed to provide a truck and driver at petitioner's field and to transport the produce to Brooklyn, New York, the final destination. At the same time, petitioner was given the responsibility of loading the watermelons on the truck. To assist petitioner in meeting her up- front labor costs, respondent advanced $500.00 as partial payment for the shipment. Winston Smith was hired by respondent to transport the melons to New York. He arrived at petitioner's field on Saturday, July 16, 1993, and remained there while approximately 46,000 pounds of melons were loaded on an open top flat bed trailer. One of the loaders said the melons were "packed real tight," and four bales of straw were used in packing. According to Rowe, who observed the loading, the watermelons packed that day were in "good" condition, and any nonconforming watermelons were "kicked" off the truck. Also, by way of admission, the driver, as agent for Boyer, acknowledged to Rowe that the melons loaded were in "good" condition. Late that afternoon, a thunderstorm came through the area and, due to lightening, no further loading could be performed. Since around 46,000 pounds had already been loaded, petitioner desired for the truck to be sent on its way north. Smith, however, told petitioner he wanted 50,000 pounds in order to make his trip to New York worthwhile and he would not go with anything less. Acceding to his wishes, petitioner agreed to meet Smith the next morning and load an additional two hundred watermelons, or 4,000 pounds, on the truck. Smith then drove the loaded truck to a nearby motel where he spent the night. That evening it rained, and this resulted in the uncovered watermelons and straw getting wet. The next morning, Smith telephoned petitioner and advised her to meet him at 9:00 a. m. at a local Starvin' Marvin store, which had a weight scale that could certify the weight of the shipment. Petitioner carried two hundred watermelons to the store at 9:00 a. m., but Smith did not arrive. Around noon, she received a call from Smith advising that his truck was broken down at the motel and would not start. The watermelons were then taken to the motel and loaded onto the trailer. In all, 50,040 pounds were loaded. Smith's truck would still not start after the watermelons were loaded, and Smith refused to spend any money out of his own pocket to repair the truck. Not wanting to delay the shipment any longer, petitioner gave Smith $35.00 to have someone assist him in starting the vehicle. In order for the repairs to be made, the loaded trailer had to be jacked up and the truck unhooked from and later rehooked to the trailer. This was accomplished only with great difficulty, and Smith was forced to "jostle" the trailer with the power unit for some two hours altogether. According to Rowe, he warned Smith that such jostling could bruise the melons and "mess them up." Smith was also cautioned early on that he should make the necessary repairs as soon as possible so that the load of watermelons would not continue to sit uncovered in the sun. The truck eventually departed around 9:00 p. m., Sunday evening after the uncovered trailer had sat in the sun all day. The shipment was delivered to Brooklyn on the following Tuesday afternoon or evening, and it was inspected by a government inspector on Wednesday morning. According to the inspection report, which has been received in evidence, the load was split evenly between crimson and jubilee melons, and 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of the two types of melons failed to meet grade. No greater than a 12 percent "margin" is allowed on government inspections. Almost all of the defects cited in the report were attributable to the melons being "over-ripe." The buyer in New York rejected the entire shipment as not meeting standards. Respondent then sold the shipment for only $1350.00 resulting in a loss of $350.00 on the transaction. In addition, respondent says the driver (Smith) accepted $1200.00 instead of the $2,000.00 he would have normally charged to transport a load to New York. When petitioner asked for her money a few weeks later, respondent declined, saying the goods had not met specification when delivered to their destination, and if she had any remedy at all, it was against Smith, the driver. If petitioner had been paid 4 per pound for the entire shipment, she would have been entitled to an additional $1,751.80, or a total of $2,251.80. Petitioner contends that the melons failed to meet grade because of the negligence of the driver. More specifically, she says the loaded melons sat in the sun for almost two days, including all day Sunday after being soaked from the Saturday evening rain. If wet melons are exposed to the hot sun for any length of time, they run the risk of "wet burning," which causes decay. But even if this occurred, only 1 percent of the shipment was found to have "decay" by the government inspector. Petitioner also says that by being jostled for two hours on Sunday, the melons were bruised. Again, however, the melons were rejected primarily because they were over-ripe, not bruised. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the inspection report, it is found that the jostling and wet burning did not have a material impact on the quality of the melons. Respondent contended the melons were close to being fully ripened when they were picked and loaded. In this regard, Charles Strange, Sr. agreed that if the melons sat in the field for another four or five days, they would have started "going bad." By this, it may be reasonably inferred that, unless the melons were loaded and delivered in a timely manner, they would have become over-ripe and would not meet grade within a matter of days. Therefore, a timely delivery of the melons was extremely important, and to the extent respondent's agent, Smith, experienced at least a twenty-four hour delay in delivering the melons through no fault of petitioner, this contributed in part to their failure to meet grade. Petitioner is accordingly entitled to some additional compensation, a fair allocation of which is one-half of the value of the shipment, or $1125.90, less the $500.00 already paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioner $625.90 within thirty days from date of the agency's final order. In the event such payment is not timely made, the surety should be liable for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Post Office Box 1985 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1985 Patricia Thomas Post Office Box 522 Archer, Florida 32618 Kennedy Boyer 15A South West 2nd Avenue Williston, Florida 32696
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., or its sureties are indebted to Petitioner, Suwanee Farms, for corn sold to Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based upon consideration of the testimony of witnesses and the documentary evidence, the following relevant findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Suwanee Farms, is a producer of agricultural products in Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, was licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as a dealer of agricultural products. During the period between September 20, 1994 and October 12, 1994, inclusive, Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, was bonded by Co-Respondent, General Accident Insurance Company of America. Between October 13, 1994 and October 29, 1994, inclusive, Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, was bonded by Co-Respondent, Armor Insurance Company. Petitioner sold corn to Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, between the period September 20, 1994 and October 29, 1994. Respondent was given a Bill of Lading for each order of corn it received. Petitioner sent an invoice to Mo-Bo Enterprises for each shipment of corn that was delivered to Mo-Bo Enterprises. The amount of each invoice represented the price of the corn to which Petitioner and Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, had agreed. Petitioner received a complaint from Mo-Bo Enterprises regarding corn which Petitioner had shipped to Mo-Bo Enterprises on October 4, 1994. Based on this complaint, Petitioner reduced the price of the corn by seventy-five cents (.75) per crate. As a result of this reduction, the adjusted total price for the shipment of corn reflected on Invoice No. 002392 is $1050.00, rather than the $1,200.00 shown. The terms of payment are set forth on the face of the invoice and require payment within thirty (30) days of the invoice date. The total amount of the invoices for shipments of corn sold and delivered to Mo-Bo Enterprises by Petitioner between September 20, 1994 and October 12, 1994, is $23,950.00. The total amount invoiced by Petitioner to Mo-Bo Enterprises, for corn sold and shipped to Mo-Bo Enterprises between October 13, 1994 and October 29, 1995, is $13,716.00. Despite repeated demands by Petitioner, Mo-Bo Enterprises has refused to pay for any of the shipments of corn. As of the date of the formal hearing, the invoice for each shipment of corn made between September 20, 1994 and October 29, 1994, remained due and owing and unpaid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order (1) requiring Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., or its surety Co-Respondent, General Accident Insurance Company of America, to pay Petitioner $23,950.00, and (2) further directing Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., or its surety, Co-Respondent Armor Insurance Company, to pay Petitioner $13,716.00. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 1899 Pompano Beach, Florida 33061 Don Bieda, Esquire Legal Department General Accident Insurance Co. 436 Walnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1109 Joseph S. Hall & R. P. Wight Suwanee Farms Route 2 Box 3641 O'Brien, Florida 32071 Mark J. Albrechta, Esquire Legal Department Armor Insurance Company P.O. Box 15250 Tampa, Florida 33684-5250 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Bill Reinhardt, Esquire Rob Reinhardt, Esquire P.O. Box 1287 Tipton, Georgia 31793 Charles Barnard, Esquire 200 SE 6th Street Ste. 205 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Bradford A. Thomas, Esquire Suite 900 Brickell Centre 799 Brickell Plaza Miami, Florida 33131-2805 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Second Amended Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background Information Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed by the Department as a general lines insurance agent. Regional Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Regional") is an incorporated insurance agency located at 3955 Southwest 137th Avenue, #3, Miami, Florida. Respondent is Regional's principal owner, president, secretary, and registered agent and serves on its board of directors. In addition, she works as an insurance agent for Regional. Since on or about April 10, 1990, Respondent has maintained signatory authority over Regional's bank account (account number 50002713) at Continental National Bank. Greater Miami Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Greater Miami") was an incorporated insurance agency located at 1887 Southwest 1st Street, Miami, Florida, from on or about June 26, 1979, until it was administratively dissolved on or about October 11, 1991. Respondent acted as an insurance agent for Greater Miami. Following Greater Miami's administrative dissolution, Regional took over Greater Miami's accounts and serviced them from Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. Count I Marta and Orlando Cuevas own a home located at 1907 Northwest 46th Avenue, Opa Locka, Florida, in which they have lived since approximately October of 1972. Since their purchase of the home, the Cuevases have not replaced the roof, nor have they painted the exterior of the home. Barnett Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as "Barnett") holds the mortgage on the Cuevas home. The Cuevases make monthly payments to Barnett. Barnett uses a portion of these payments to purchase homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases. On or about October 23, 1991, Barnett sent a check (check number 808446) in the amount of $186.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1991-92 policy year. Barnett had obtained homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases through Greater Miami for the 1990-91 policy year. Respondent received the check and, on or about October 31, 1991, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent attempted to secure homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases. She telephoned a prospective insurer and provided information regarding the Cuevas home. The prospective insurer declined to provide coverage because of the location and condition of the home. Respondent mailed Barnett a letter advising it of her inability to obtain homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases. Barnett, however, never received the letter. Neither Respondent, nor Barnett, took any further measures to attempt to obtain homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1991-92 policy year. Unbeknownst to the Cuevases, who relied on Barnett to take care of their homeowner's insurance needs, they were without homeowner's insurance for the 1991-92 policy year. Although she did not use the $186.00 that she had received from Barnett to obtain homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases, Respondent neglected to return, in the regular course of business, the $186.00 to either Barnett or the Cuevases. It was not until March of 1995, after the Department had charged her with wrongdoing in connection with her handling of the $186.00, that she refunded the money to Barnett. On or about August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew made landfall in south Florida. The Cuevas home was damaged as a result of the hurricane. There were damages to the roof and to the exterior of the home. As the Cuevases discovered after filing a claim with the insurance company that had provided them with homeowner's insurance for the 1990-91 policy year, they were not insured against such damages to their home. These damages have not been repaired inasmuch as the Cuevases have not been able to afford to pay for the repairs. As a result of these unrepaired damages, when it rains, rainwater leaks into the Cuevas home. On or about September 30, 1992, Barnett sent another check (check number 901842) in the amount of $186.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent received the check and deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent was successful in obtaining homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1992-93 policy year. She obtained such insurance from Monticello Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Monticello"). The annual premium was more than Respondent had received from Barnett to pay for homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent used her own funds to pay the difference. Effective December 17, 1992, Monticello cancelled the Cuevases' policy for "noncompliance with underwriting information." The unearned premium was refunded to Respondent. Respondent thereupon mailed to Barnett a check in an amount ($97.00) 2/ that represented what she believed was due Barnett (and ultimately the Cuevases) as a result of the cancellation of the Cuevases' policy. Count II Luisa Lopez and her husband, Orlando Ruiz, own a home located at 245 Northeast 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida. For approximately the past 15 years, Lopez and Ruiz have used Respondent's services to purchase insurance for the home. During this time, they have dealt directly with Respondent. On or about August 5, 1991, Lopez and Ruiz received a notice advising them that they needed to remit a check in the amount of $336.00 to renew their homeowner's insurance policy with Utah Home Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Utah"). On or about September 26, 1991, Ruiz sent a check (check number 541) in the amount of $336.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Regional. It was to pay for the renewal of Lopez's and Ruiz's homeowner's insurance for the 1991-92 policy year. Lopez and Ruiz reasonably anticipated that, upon receiving the check, Respondent would take whatever steps were necessary to have their homeowner's policy renewed. Respondent received the check and, on or about October 1, 1991, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent neither forwarded the $336.00 to Utah or any other insurer, nor refunded the money to Lopez and Ruiz, in the regular course of business. Her failure to take such action was the product of neglect. Effective November 2, 1991, Utah cancelled Lopez's and Ruiz's homeowner's policy for "non-payment of premium." A Notice of Cancellation was mailed to Lopez and Ruiz, but never received by them. Respondent was not sent a copy of the Notice of Cancellation. Unaware of the cancellation, Respondent made no effort to obtain replacement coverage for Lopez and Ruiz. When Hurricane Andrew made landfall in south Florida in August of 1992, Lopez's and Ruiz's home was not insured. The home suffered extensive damage as a result of the hurricane. After discovering, following the hurricane, that their home was not insured, Lopez and Ruiz retained counsel and filed suit against Respondent. The dispute was amicably resolved in early 1995 when Lopez and Ruiz entered into a settlement agreement with Respondent. Count III Martha L. and Martha Y. Penate own a home located at 13265 Southwest 53rd Street, Miami, Florida. They have lived in the home for approximately the past six years. Throughout this period of time, Respondent has been their insurance agent. Citicorp holds the mortgage on the Penate home. The Penates make monthly payments to Citicorp. Citicorp uses a portion of these payments to purchase homeowner's insurance for the Penates. On or about August 11, 1989, Respondent received payment from Citicorp to cover the cost of homeowner's insurance for the Penates. On that same date, a policy insuring the Penate home was issued by Guardian Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Guardian"). The policy was effective from August 11, 1989, until August 11, 1990. The policy was renewed for the period commencing August 8, 1990, and ending August 11, 1991. On or about August 8, 1991, Citicorp sent a check (check number 50921327) in the amount of $334.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Penates for the 1991-92 policy year. Respondent received the check and, on or about August 21, 1991, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. As a result neglect, Respondent neither forwarded the $334.00 to Guardian or any other insurer, nor refunded the money to Citicorp or the Penates, in the regular course of business. It was not until on or about April 5, 1995, after the Department had charged her with wrongdoing in connection with her handling of the $334.00, that she refunded the money to Citicorp. Effective August 23, 1991, Guardian cancelled the Penates' homeowner's policy for "non-payment of renewal premium." A written notice advising of the cancellation was prepared and sent to Respondent. Respondent, however, never saw the notice. Respondent apprised neither Citicorp nor the Penates of the cancellation of the Penates' homeowner's policy inasmuch as she herself was unaware that the policy had been cancelled. On or about August 11, 1992, Citicorp sent a check (check number 51110066) in the amount of $334.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Penates for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent received the check and, on or about August 14, 1992, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent's review of her records revealed that the Penates' homeowner's policy had not been renewed for the 1991-92 policy year. Therefore, on or about August 17, 1992, Respondent wrote a letter asking Citicorp if it wanted her to "rewrite the account" or return the $334.00. Before she received a response from Citicorp, Hurricane Andrew made landfall in south Florida. The Penate home suffered extensive damage as a result of the hurricane. The Penates were not insured against such damage. After discovering, following the hurricane, that they did not have insurance to cover their losses, the Penates approached Respondent and asked her to bear the cost of repairing the damage to their home. The amount that the Penates sought from Respondent was beyond Respondent's financial capacity to pay. The matter is currently in litigation. Respondent ultimately (but not in the regular course of business) obtained homeowner's insurance for the Penates from Scottsdale Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Scottsdale"). The annual premium was more than Respondent had received from Citicorp to pay for homeowner's insurance for the Penates for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent used her own funds to pay the difference, which was $221.00. Scottsdale subsequently cancelled the Penates' policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations noted in Conclusion of Law 82 of this Recommended Order; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by revoking her license; and (3) dismissing the remaining allegations of misconduct advanced in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of August, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 9th day of August, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure as a resident general lines agent.
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 1998, Robert Manns, a representative for Butler County, Missouri, filed a consumer complaint with the Missouri Department of Insurance, which alleged that Petitioner financed a premium for an insurance policy when the premium had, in fact, been paid by the county. On June 9, 1999, Petitioner was assessed a fine of $10,000.00 by the Missouri Department of Insurance based on Petitioner's having practiced forgery and deception in an insurance transaction. Specifically, it was found that Petitioner signed the names of the city finance director and county commission clerk to premium finance documents and letters representing that the city and county had financed a premium when, in fact, the city and county had paid the insurance premium for the city and county accounts in full on an annual basis. At the time Petitioner forged the premium finance agreement, he was licensed as an insurance agent in the State of Missouri. The Missouri Department of Insurance did not revoke Petitioner's license as an insurance agent in the State of Missouri. On February 14, 2000, the Indiana Department of Insurance denied Petitioner’s application for licensure based upon the Missouri administrative action. On September 19, 2003, Petitioner applied for licensure as a resident general lines agent in the State of Florida. Based on its review of Petitioner's application and the administrative documents from the Missouri Department of Insurance described in paragraphs 2 above, the Department denied Petitioner’s application. In regard to the incident described in paragraph 2 above, Petitioner denied that he forged the insurance contract, but he admitted that he forged the premium finance agreement associated with the subject insurance contract. However, Petitioner testified that "no one lost money" as a result of his forging the premium finance agreement. Petitioner testified that he was not proud of the incident, that he was very sorry for doing it, and that his actions could not be justified. The Department considers the forgery of documents and deception related to insurance documents and transactions by an insurance agent to be serious matters. This is particularly true in light of the fiduciary role of an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that final order be entered denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a resident general lines insurance agent in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 23rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny R. Howe 4367 Winding Oaks Circle Mulberry, Florida 33860 Michael T. Ruff, Esquire Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
