Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs ALAN WAYNE LAW, 00-001938 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Myers, Florida May 08, 2000 Number: 00-001938 Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2001

The Issue The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of misconduct in the enrollment of various minors into health maintenance organizations and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, each Respondent has been licensed in Florida as a life, life and health, and health insurance agent. In March 1998, Respondents were employed by Wellcare HMO, a health maintenance organization, to solicit and procure applications for enrollment in its subsidiary, StayWell HMO. There is little dispute between the parties as to the direct evidentiary facts of the cases. Respondent Larotunda has sold multiline insurance for 16 years. Respondent Law has sold predominantly health insurance for 32 years. Respondent Larotunda has sold insurance in Florida since 1989, and Respondent Law has sold insurance in Florida since 1981. The StayWell coverage is a Medicaid supplement characterized by easy enrollment features. Respondent Larotunda sold this insurance from November 3, 1997, through April 1998. Respondent Law sold this insurance from January 26, 1998, through April 1998. At times selling the StayWell insurance together, Respondents would work low-income housing projects. Most of the time, they would sell the StayWell insurance door-to-door. Sometimes, they would park a Winnebago in the neighborhood, play rap music, provide minor entertainment in the form of a clown, set up a nurse at a table to take blood pressure readings, and give away small gifts, such as frisbees, or hotdogs and sodas. StayWell paid for these promotional expenses. In this manner, Respondents submitted roughly 1000 applications monthly. They earned a salary plus a commission. However, probably ninety percent of the applications that they submitted contained erroneous information, resulting in the rejection of the application. Their employment agreements provide for recoupment of commissions if enrollees drop their coverage in the first three months. To sign up dependents, StayWell required the child's first name, last name, and date of birth. Respondents were not required to check some form of identification cards, which would have been impractical for their market. Frequently, children did not bear the same last names as the parents or guardians. In each of the alleged transactions in these cases, the facts are the same: children were enrolled in the StayWell program without the knowledge of their parents. Sometimes the change in coverage cost the parents substantial sums of money, as they had to pay out-of-pocket for expenses their previous coverage had paid. However, in each case, Respondents deny any knowledge concerning these particular applications, having taken so many applications in relatively short periods of time. Respondents freely concede that the adult enrolling a child may have merely been the child's noncustodial uncle or babysitter, but Respondents would have no way of knowing this. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were in any way culpable for the improper enrollments that took place in these cases.

Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaints against both Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Department of Insurance State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 James A. Bossart Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Roy W. Foxall 2222 Second Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901

Florida Laws (3) 120.57626.611626.621
# 1
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs RICHARD DAY, 02-000066PL (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Jan. 04, 2002 Number: 02-000066PL Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 2
DAVID N. WEIKER, SR. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 03-002708 (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jul. 24, 2003 Number: 03-002708 Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2004

The Issue Whether Petitioner should be licensed as a life, variable annuity and health agent by the Department of Financial Services?

Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is 51 years old; has Associate of Arts degrees from Seminole Community College, Sanford, Florida, and Davenport University, Grand Rapids, Michigan; will soon acquire a bachelor of business administration degree from Belhaven College; and is applying for a doctoral program at the University of Central Florida. Petitioner holds a real estate sales associate license issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. The effective date of the license is September 29, 2003; it will expire on September 30, 2005. On November 28, 2001, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a license classified as a "life and variable annuity and health insurance agent." One of the screening questions on the license application was the following: "[H]ave you ever had any professional license subjected to any of the following actions by any state agency or public authority in any jurisdiction?" In response, Petitioner circled "Yes." The screening question was then followed by the following "actions": suspension, revocation, placed on probation, administrative fine or penalty levied, cease and desist order entered. In response, Petitioner circled "suspension." On July 17, 1997, a Final Order was entered in Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. David Nelson Weiker, Case No. 95-85173, which reads, in part, as follows: . . . the Commission finds the Respondent guilty of violating ss 475.25(1)(c) and 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. Therefore the Commission ORDERS that the license of David Nelson Weiker be suspended until the liens are removed. At the conclusion of the period of suspension, the Respondent is directed to contact the Records Section of the Division of Real Estate . . . to secure proper forms for reinstatement of Respondent's suspended license. The Commission further ORDERS that the Respondent pay a $1000 administrative fine and investigative costs of $768 within 30 days of the filing date of this order or the Respondent's license shall be suspended until such time as the fine and costs are paid in full. In Weiker, Case No. 95-85173, Petitioner, David N. Weiker, Sr., initially requested a formal hearing, then failed to respond to a request for admissions. As a result, he admitted being a licensed real estate salesperson who, as an employee of a builder, Mercedes Homes, Inc., filed 14 liens in a total amount of $23,301 against homes owned by Mercedes Homes, Inc., in an attempt to collect sales commissions he deemed he was owed. The administrative fine of $1,000, in Weiker, Case No. 95-85173, was paid by a check dated August 5, 1998, drawn on the account of David S. Piercefield, P.A. On August 13, 1998, an Amended Final Order was entered in Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. David Nelson Weiker, Case No. 96-83238 (DOAH Case No. 97-4742), which reads, in part, as follows: . . . the Commission finds the Respondent guilty of violating s.475.25(1)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint. The Florida Real Estate Commission therefore ORDERS that the Respondent pay a $1,000.00 administrative fine. . . . Therefore the Commission ORDERS that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of ninety days . . . In Weiker, Case No. 96-83238 (DOAH Case No. 97-4742), the Real Estate Commission adopted the Recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge. In that Recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge found that "he [Weiker] furthered a scheme of misrepresentation, false promises, and dishonest dealing." The administrative fine of $1,000, in Weiker, Case No. 96-83238 (DOAH Case No. 97-4742), was paid by a SouthTrust Bank check dated October 14, 2003. The remitter was Irene L. Weiker. On several occasions, in correspondence with representatives of Respondent, and while testifying at the final hearing, Petitioner testified that his real estate license had not been suspended. He also maintained, without substantive evidence or reasonable explanation, that the two administrative fines had been paid several times or by the wrong individuals. His attempts to explain the facts and circumstances of the two administrative actions disciplining his real estate license were unreasonable and not credible.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's decision to deny Petitioner's application for a life, variable annuity and health insurance agent license is well-founded; Petitioner's license application should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Terry Butler, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0399 David N. Weiker, Sr. 1506 Elfstone Court Casselberry, Florida 32707 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300

Florida Laws (5) 120.57475.25475.42626.611626.831
# 3
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs HOWARD HILTON CHRISTIE, JR., 01-002474PL (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jun. 25, 2001 Number: 01-002474PL Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 4
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER vs THOMAS KEITH MCOWEN, 94-004189 (1994)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jul. 27, 1994 Number: 94-004189 Latest Update: Apr. 19, 1995

The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a life and health insurance agent should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.

Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Thomas Keith McOwen, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a life and health insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was a sales representative for Western and Southern Life Insurance Company (WSLIC), an insurance firm having headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Respondent's contractual agreement with WSLIC began on April 18, 1988. Under the agreement, respondent was required to account for and remit all premiums collected and received on behalf of WSLIC. On March 3, 1993, WSLIC terminated respondent's appointment as a sales representative, thereby cancelling his agent's contract. In August 1988, Ruth Houston, a/k/a Tracy Houston, purchased a WSLIC life insurance policy from respondent. In 1991, respondent collected around $440.00 in cash from Houston as premium payments but remitted only $128.00 to WSLIC. In an affidavit given to petitioner's investigator, respondent acknowledged that he failed to account for the remaining $312.00 and had converted it to his own personal use.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(4), (7), (9), (10) and (13), and 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and that his licenses and eligibility for licensure be revoked. The charge as to Subsection 626.611(8), Florida Statutes, should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4189 Petitioner: 1-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. NOTE: Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Nelson Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Mr. Thomas Keith McOwen 2913 Langley Ave., #107 Pensacola, FL 32504

Florida Laws (4) 120.57626.561626.611626.621
# 5
JOSEPH A. INFANTINO vs. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 88-004905 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-004905 Latest Update: Apr. 05, 1989

Findings Of Fact Petitioner resigned from State Government on July 23, 1987. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was covered under the Florida State Group Health Insurance Plan. His wife, who is a diabetic, was also covered under Petitioner's insurance. Upon termination Petitioner was eligible for continuation of coverage benefits under the federal COBRA Act. However, prior to receiving any notice of his COBRA rights, Petitioner elected to continue his State Employees' Insurance for two months from July 1, 1987 and then begin coverage under his new employer's insurance plan. 2/ Petitioner made advance payment on the 2 months additional coverage. The payments carried his State Employees' health insurance through September 1, 1987 when it was terminated. DOA notified Petitioner on August 27, 1987, of his right to elect continuation of coverage under the COBRA Act. This notice complied with the notice requirements under the COBRA Act. COBRA provides continued health insurance coverage for up to (18) months, after a covered employee leaves employment. However, coverage does not continue beyond the time the employee is covered under another group health plan. COBRA simply fills the gap between two different employers group health insurance plans so that an employee's group health insurance does not lapse while the employee changes jobs. Petitioner's new employer's health coverage began around September 1, 1987. After Petitioner had begun coverage under his new insurance plan, he discovered that his wife's preexisting diabetic condition would not be covered. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner, within 60 days of September 1, 1987 requested the Division of State Employee's Insurance to continue his insurance coverage pursuant to COBRA. Moreover, Petitioner's COBRA rights terminated when he began his coverage under his new employer's health plan.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for continuation of coverage under COBRA. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1989, 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 5th day of April, 1989.

USC (3) 26 U.S.C 16226 USC 16242 USC 300bb Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 6
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs VINCENT BONDI, 02-003622PL (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Sep. 19, 2002 Number: 02-003622PL Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs JEANETTE CLAUDETTE BRUNET, 04-003257PL (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Titusville, Florida Sep. 15, 2004 Number: 04-003257PL Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 8
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs ANTHONY ROBERT LAROTONDA, 00-001851 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Myers, Florida May 01, 2000 Number: 00-001851 Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2001

The Issue The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of misconduct in the enrollment of various minors into health maintenance organizations and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, each Respondent has been licensed in Florida as a life, life and health, and health insurance agent. In March 1998, Respondents were employed by Wellcare HMO, a health maintenance organization, to solicit and procure applications for enrollment in its subsidiary, StayWell HMO. There is little dispute between the parties as to the direct evidentiary facts of the cases. Respondent Larotunda has sold multiline insurance for 16 years. Respondent Law has sold predominantly health insurance for 32 years. Respondent Larotunda has sold insurance in Florida since 1989, and Respondent Law has sold insurance in Florida since 1981. The StayWell coverage is a Medicaid supplement characterized by easy enrollment features. Respondent Larotunda sold this insurance from November 3, 1997, through April 1998. Respondent Law sold this insurance from January 26, 1998, through April 1998. At times selling the StayWell insurance together, Respondents would work low-income housing projects. Most of the time, they would sell the StayWell insurance door-to-door. Sometimes, they would park a Winnebago in the neighborhood, play rap music, provide minor entertainment in the form of a clown, set up a nurse at a table to take blood pressure readings, and give away small gifts, such as frisbees, or hotdogs and sodas. StayWell paid for these promotional expenses. In this manner, Respondents submitted roughly 1000 applications monthly. They earned a salary plus a commission. However, probably ninety percent of the applications that they submitted contained erroneous information, resulting in the rejection of the application. Their employment agreements provide for recoupment of commissions if enrollees drop their coverage in the first three months. To sign up dependents, StayWell required the child's first name, last name, and date of birth. Respondents were not required to check some form of identification cards, which would have been impractical for their market. Frequently, children did not bear the same last names as the parents or guardians. In each of the alleged transactions in these cases, the facts are the same: children were enrolled in the StayWell program without the knowledge of their parents. Sometimes the change in coverage cost the parents substantial sums of money, as they had to pay out-of-pocket for expenses their previous coverage had paid. However, in each case, Respondents deny any knowledge concerning these particular applications, having taken so many applications in relatively short periods of time. Respondents freely concede that the adult enrolling a child may have merely been the child's noncustodial uncle or babysitter, but Respondents would have no way of knowing this. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were in any way culpable for the improper enrollments that took place in these cases.

Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaints against both Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Department of Insurance State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 James A. Bossart Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Roy W. Foxall 2222 Second Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901

Florida Laws (3) 120.57626.611626.621
# 9
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs MILDREY ARMAS, 00-002617 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Jun. 27, 2000 Number: 00-002617 Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer