Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas Holliday Veal, held a license as a general lines agent issued by petitioner, Department of Insurance. He currently resides at 2515 South Atlantic, No. 203, Cocoa Beach, Florida. When the events herein occurred, Veal owned and operated Mr. Auto Insurance, Pine Hills, Inc., located at 1449 Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida. In order to purchase a tag for an automobile, a driver must, at a minimum, show evidence of having personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. This type of coverage is commonly referred to as tag insurance. Respondent's agency sold this type of insurance, and others, including accidental death and dismemberment policies. On or about May 28, 1982, Timothy L. Lake visited Mr. Auto Insurance for the purpose of purchasing PIP coverage for his 1969 Ford. He spoke with an unidentified lady, who apparently worked for Veal, and asked for tag insurance. She quoted a price of $44. The cost of the PIP coverage was actually $20 while the remaining $24 was the cost of a $2000 accidental death and dismemberment policy. She then handed him a series of documents which included forms for purchasing an accidental death policy as well as the PIP coverage. Upon her request, Lake named a beneficiary, and was told that in the event be was killed, his beneficiary would receive $2,000. He then read and signed both applications. In the line immediately above his signature on the accidental death application appeared the following: "Fee $20.00". He also received a written receipt indicating he had purchased "PIP; (8000 ded) No lia, No UM, Acc. death" for a total of $44. In addition, he signed the following statement: I understand the accidental death benefit through life insurance company is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand the additional charge for this coverage is included in with my down payment. The accidental death policy contained the following words in hold face type at the top of the document: Accidental Death and Dismemberment Coverage". However, at no time was Lake specifically told by the lady that he was buying a separate policy in addition to the PIP coverage that he had requested. He left the premises believing that he had only purchased PIP coverage. At the final hearing, Lake admitted he was not rushed, and that he understood what an accidental death policy was. An investigation of Veal was later conducted by the Department. After a Department investigator visited Lake, and both reviewed his coverage, Lake claimed that for the first time, he realized he had also purchased an accidental death policy. On or about August 3, 1982, George D. Morris visited Mr. Auto Insurance for the purpose of purchasing tag insurance. He spoke with a lady who apparently worked for Veal and asked for PIP coverage so that be could purchase tags for his two automobiles. The lady quoted a price of $69. The actual cost of the PIP coverage was only $39. The remaining $30 represented the cost of a $10,000 accidental death and dismemberment policy. Morris was handed a series of forms to fill out and was asked to name a beneficiary in the event he was accidentally killed. The employee explained to him that the beneficiary would receive $10,000 if be died. Morris then read and signed the accidental death application. In the line immediately above his signature appeared the following: "Fee $30.00." He also received a written receipt indicating that he bad paid $39 for PIP coverage and $30 for an accidental death policy. In addition, he read and signed the following statement: I understand the accidental death benefit through life insurance company is a separate item, that pays in addition to my auto insurance policy. I understand that the additional charge of this coverage is included in with my down payment. At no time, however, was Morris told by the lady that he was specifically purchasing something other than tag insurance. He left the premises under the impression he had only purchased PIP coverage. In the course of a later investigation of Veal, a Department investigator visited Morris and reviewed the coverage he had purchased from Veal. After meeting with the Department investigator, Morris claimed that for the first time he realized he had purchased an accidental death policy. Sliding is the practice of tricking insureds into buying coverages other than those that they wished to purchase. According to an expert in the field of insurance, an agent engaged in sliding generally gives the insured a single document containing more than one policy so that the insured believes he is only purchasing one. In the case at bar, because (a) both Lake and Morris were given separate documents for each policy, (b) the types of policies were identified in large bold face print, (c) their signatures were required on each policy, (d) a beneficiary had to be named, (e) receipts for both policies were given, and (f) the insured read the agreements prior to signing the same, the expert concluded that no sliding had occurred, especially where both Lake and Morris appeared to have reasonable intelligence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating subsections 626.611(9), 626.621(2) and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes, on two separate occasions and that his insurance license be suspended for twenty (20) days. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed insurance agent, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a general lines insurance agent (2-20), a life and health insurance agent (2-18), and a health insurance agent (2-40). In June 2000, the statewide prosecutor filed an information against Respondent in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida, where it was assigned Case No. CR-0-00- 9771/A. The information charged that Respondent was guilty of organized insurance fraud involving $50,000 or more in violation of Section 817.034(4)(a), Florida Statutes, which is a first degree felony and a crime involving moral turpitude. Simon Blank, an investigator employed by Petitioner's Division of Insurance Fraud, participated in the investigation that culminated in the charges being filed against Respondent. Respondent cooperated with Mr. Blank's investigation and candidly answered questions that were put to him. On July 31, 2001, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges against him. At Respondent's plea hearing the prosecutor summarized the facts he expected to be able to prove, including the fact that Respondent engaged in fraudulent activity involving workers' compensation insurance.2 Thereafter, Respondent stipulated that there was a factual basis for his plea. The Court accepted Respondent's plea, but withheld adjudication of guilt. The Court sentenced Respondent to two days in jail with credit for time served and placed him on probation under the supervision of the Florida Department of Corrections for a period of ten years. Respondent was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and to pay restitution in the total amount of $16,179.00, which included the costs of investigation. As a condition of his probation, Respondent was ordered not to write or renew any policy of workers' compensation for a period of five years. Prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint against him, Respondent had not notified Petitioner in writing that he had entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charges that had been filed against him. Respondent has been the owner of A Maples Insurance Agency in Pompano Beach, Florida, since 1987. Consistent with his probation, Respondent no longer writes or renews workers' compensation insurance. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent was current with his continuing education classes. Respondent has not been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. Respondent testified that his plea in the criminal proceeding was a plea of convenience and that he could not afford to contest the charges. Respondent did not believe the plea would lead to the suspension of his license because the suspension of his license was not a condition of his probation. He mistakenly believed that the entry of his plea in the criminal proceeding would resolve all issues with the Petitioner since Petitioner participated in the investigation of the case. Respondent testified that his attorney said he had received something from the Department of Insurance that gave reason to believe that they already knew about the plea. That correspondence was not admitted into evidence and Respondent's self-serving testimony was not corroborated. Respondent's license was previously disciplined in Case No. 93-L-222JDM, which involved allegations of misappropriation of funds. Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent was placed on probation for one year as a result of that proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 626.611(14), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, and guilty of violating Section 626.621(11), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Respondent's licensure for a period of 24 months for the Count I violation, and for a period of three months for the Count II violation. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order provide that the periods of suspension shall run concurrently. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of February, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Currently the Respondent is eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as a life and health agent. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was eligible for licensure and licensed as a life and health agent and a general lines agent. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed by Lewis C. Webb and served as an authorized sales agent for Allstate Insurance Company. During his employment with Allstate, Respondent received premium payments from insurance applicants and policy holders. Contrary to company policy, Respondent did not immediately remit premium payments to the insurer. During the period March 6, 1989 through July 14, 1989, the Respondent received approximately $4700.00 from Allstate customers but failed to remit the monies to the company. On or about July 19, 1989, the Respondent executed a statement which provided, in part: "I am authorized by the Company to accept both cash and checks from Allstate customers. I understand I am required to submit the money from customers daily." The statement also listed specific monies which Respondent acknowledged he had received. Those monies totalled $4255.65. At the time Respondent gave the statement described above, he tendered $500.00 and the paperwork related to those monies to Mr. Webb. Further, Respondent acknowledged that he had a drug and alcohol abuse problem which had limited his ability to timely complete the paperwork associated with the premiums received. Respondent offered to remit all monies owed to Allstate at that time (on or about July 19, 1989). Subsequently, Respondent completed a drug and alcohol treatment program and is currently employed by Ken Dimond & Associates, Inc. selling both life and health insurance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order finding the Respondent, Robert Henry Jones, guilty of violating Section 626.621, Florida Statutes, and suspending his license and eligibility for licensure for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17 day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17 day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5029 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are With regard to paragraph 4 it is accepted as a correct statement of the statement executed by Respondent; however, Respondent's explanation has been deemed creditable as to the monies not remitted in a timely and appropriate manner. It is accepted that Respondent attempted to repay the monies owed to Allstate. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 3 through 7 are accepted but are irrelevant. Paragraphs 8 through 13 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Henry Jones 1054 Revilla Lane Rockledge, Florida 32955 Willis F. Melvin, Jr. Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Hon. Tom Gallagher 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 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 This cause concerns a dispute as to whether the petitioner was properly denied application for examination as a general lines insurance agent by his exclusion from the examination because of alleged cheating thereon.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for Licensure by examination as a general lines, property, casualty and miscellaneous lines insurance agent in Florida. The Petitioner sat for the general lines examination, which was held at Pensacola Catholic High School in Pensacola, Florida on January 7, 1989. Mary Chadwick and Marilyn Archer were employed by the examination administrator, the Educational Testing Services, as test proctors. Both were present at Pensacola Catholic High School on January 7, 1989, at the examination site and administered the general lines examination. Prior to the start of the examination, candidates for the examination were verbally advised by Mary Chadwick, the test proctor, not to consult any course materials or other written materials during the taking of the examination. Miss Chadwick then read a prepared statement, prior to the start of the examination, warning the candidates that any incidents of cheating, including giving or receiving help, copying or retaining test questions, would result in disqualification and dismissal from the examination. The test candidates were admonished not to use dictionaries, books, pamphlets, slide rules, calculators, calculator watches, compasses, rulers or papers of any kind during the test. Anyone found using these items would be disqualified from licensure and dismissed from the examination. The examinees were then admonished that if any such materials were in their possession that they should place them under their chair and that only the test booklet and a pencil should be on their desks. During the course of the examination, an examination candidate, Mr. Francis Kelly, observed that the Petitioner was referring to certain 3" X 5" note cards on top of his desk, concealed beneath his hand. The Petitioner was observed by Mr. Kelly to look at the note cards and then write in his examination booklet. Mr. Kelly observed this happening on repetitive occasions during a period of several minutes. Having formed the opinion that the Petitioner was cheating on the examination, Mr. Kelly left the examination room and reported the incident, and his observations, to the "hall proctor" outside the examination room. The hall proctor informed Marilyn Archer, the test supervisor, that a gentleman had told her that another candidate was cheating on the examination. The hall monitor and Ms. Archer then walked into the examination room and, together with Ms. Chadwick, they observed, through a window in the door, the Petitioner surreptitiously referring to the note cards. After observing the Petitioner for 2 or 3 minutes, Ms. Chadwick went into the room and confronted him. The Petitioner denied having any materials or cards in his possession. Ms. Archer then entered the room and asked the Petitioner for the note cards. The Petitioner denied having any cards, but ultimately relinquished them to Ms. Archer. He relinquished two note cards with information handwritten on them. The two note cards surrendered contained information pertaining to the 240 hour property and casualty insurance course, which was relevant to the insurance subject matter of the examination. They would definitely be of assistance to a candidate taking the general lines examination, which the Petitioner was then taking when he had the cards in his possession and was observed by Mr. Kelly and the other witnesses. The Petitioner was then dismissed from the examination and his test materials and the two note cards were collected. Ms. Chadwick and Ms. Archer then reported this incident involving the Petitioner to the Educational Testing Services by telephone and followed up with a written "irregularity report." Mr. Kelly, Ms. Chadwick, Ms. Archer all testified to the above-referenced effect. None of them had ever met the Petitioner before January 7, 1989. There has been no demonstration they have any bias or that any other reason exists for finding their testimony to be of dubious credibility. The Department thereafter denied the application of the Petitioner for admission to the examination and licensure, by its letter of denial dated January 13, 1989. The Petitioner requested a formal proceeding to contest that denial and in due course this proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED, that the Department deny the Petitioner, Paul John Roberto's, application for licensure as a general lines - property, casualty, and miscellaneous lines agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX Case NO. 89-0788 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: The Petitioner did not actually propose any findings of fact, but rather sought to discuss the testimony of the three witnesses presented against him by the Department. In essence, the Petitioner contends that witness Kelly could not have seen the evidence of cheating from his seating position and that the other witnesses based their testimony concerning his possession of the incriminating note cards during the taking of the examination, and his use of them for that purpose, on hearsay. If this could be deemed to constitute a finding of fact, it is rejected because it does not comport with the preponderant weight of the evidence, which establishes that the report of Mr. Kelly merely prompted the examination supervisors, who testified, to go and observe Mr. Roberto in the act of cheating themselves. Their testimony is certainly not hearsay, and in any event, Mr. Kelly also testified, thus the hearsay contention by the Petitioner is groundless. The Petitioner proposed no actual findings of fact so there are none to rule upon in addition to this. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS: The Respondent's proposed findings of fact 1 through 15 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul J. Roberto, Pro Se 22 Country Club Road Shalimar, Florida 32579 James A. Bossart, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated March 22, 1995; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mark Edward McKinley, is licensed in Florida as a general lines insurance agent. At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint the Respondent was so licensed. The Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, has jurisdiction over insurance licenses issued in this state. On or about December 9, 1991, an Order of Liquidation, Injunction and Notice of Automatic Stay was entered in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, regarding the receivership of Great Oaks Casualty Insurance Company (Great Oaks). Pursuant to such order all policies written with Great Oaks were cancelled effective January 9, 1992. Subsequent to the order the Department conducted an audit of the Respondent's agent account. The audit consisted of a calculation of the unearned commissions on all Great Oaks policies issued through Respondent. Such unearned commissions were due and owed to the Department as the receiver. On or about June 10, 1992, a statement of the amounts owed together with a letter outlining what the commission statement consisted of was mailed to the Respondent. On or about December 22, 1992, after the Respondent failed to respond to the first letter, the Department mailed a first demand letter to the Respondent. On or about July 2, 1993, when the Respondent failed to respond to the first demand letter, the Department issued, by certified mail, a demand letter to the Respondent requesting remittance of the monies owed to the receiver. The certified receipt was returned to the Department, and it is found the Respondent received the demand letter of July 2, 1993. The Respondent failed or otherwise refused to pay the amount owed. As a result, a Summary Order directing immediate delivery of funds was entered against the Respondent on December 21, 1993. The Respondent failed to pay after entry of the Summary Order and a Final Order was issued on April 8, 1994. The Respondent failed to pay the final judgment within thirty (30) days of entry of the judgment. To the date of hearing the Respondent has failed or otherwise refused to make payment on the amount owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's license as a general lines insurance agent. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 1st day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2363 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Michael K. McCormick, Esq. Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Mark Edward McKinley 2641 South University Drive Davie, FL 33314
