The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensee on the basis of alleged violations set forth in a one-count Administrative Complaint. It is alleged that the Respondent has violated numerous specified provisions of Chapters 626 and 631, Florida Statutes, by failing to satisfy a judgment entered against him in favor of the Department in its capacity as receiver for an insurance company.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Peter Alicino, has been licensed to engage in the insurance business in the State of Florida. On or about December 21, 1993, a Consent Order was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, appointing the Florida Department of Insurance as Receiver for General Insurance Company. On or about August 12, 1996, a Final Judgment was entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, in the amount of $2,377.40 in favor of the Department of Insurance as Receiver for General Insurance Company, and against Stephen Peter Alicino and Budget Insurance, jointly and severally. The judgment was for unearned insurance commissions retained by the Respondent and owed to General Insurance Company. On or about May 12, 1997, the Department of Insurance sent a certified letter to the Respondent demanding payment of the judgment described above. The Respondent received the letter on or about May 15, 1997. The judgment remains outstanding and unpaid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued revoking the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Stephen Peter Alicino 634 Castilla Lane Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be licensed as a title agent by the Department of Financial Services?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ms. Shirley Auxais, the Petitioner, was born on November 20, 1971, in Brooklyn, New York. She is presently a resident of Coral Springs, Florida. Formerly married, Ms. Auxais' married name was Shirley A. Seraphin. The Department of Financial Services, the Respondent, was created by the Florida Legislature in the 2002 Session. Section 20.121, Florida Statutes. It is responsible for taking action on the license application submitted by Ms. Auxais and has been substituted as the Respondent in this proceeding for the Department of Insurance, the agency that issued the notice of denial. See B., 1Note to Section 120.121, Florida Statutes (2002), p. 400. Unemployment Compensation Fraud On February 17, 1998, the State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit filed an information against Ms. Auxais for unemployment compensation fraud, a felony. See Section 443.071(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the filing, Ms. Auxais' name was Shirley A. Seraphin. The information charged the following: Shirley A. Seraphin from on or about the 13th day of August, A.D., 1995 up to and including the 16th day of September A.D., 1995, . . ., did . . . make a false statement or representation on her Pay Order Card(s), Florida Department of Labor Form UCB60 and/or UCB61, knowing said statement or representation to be false, or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact to obtain or increase benefits or other payments for her or any other person, in that the said Shirley A. Seraphin did knowingly state on her pay order cards that she was unemployed and not earning wages during the aforesaid period, when in fact and truth she was employed . . ., and earning wages which she willfully failed to report, and the said false statement was made or material fact not disclosed with the intent to obtain or increase benefits pursuant to the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law Respondent's Exhibit 3. Ms. Auxais, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County (the "Court") entered a plea of "No Contest" to the charges. On June 18, 1998, Ms. Auxais upon the motion of the State, was ordered by the Court to pay restitution to the Division of Unemployment Compensation "in the total sum of Eight hundred twenty-five and 00/100 ($825)." Respondent's Exhibit 5. On June 18, 1998, an Order of Probation was rendered by the Court in Ms. Auxais' case pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere to Unemployment Compensation Fraud as reflected on the face of the order. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Ms. Auxais was placed on "18 months mail in probation." Respondent's Exhibit 6. Slightly more than four months later, an order was entered by the Court that terminated Ms. Seraphin's probation. Application for Licensure as a Title Agent On May 13, 2002, Ms. Auxais submitted an application for a new license as a title agent to the Department of Insurance's Bureau of Agent and Agency Licensing. The license applied for, according to the application is "04-10-Resident Title Agent." Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 7. The application poses a number of screening questions. Two are immediately adjacent to each other in the order that follows: In the past 12 months, have you been arrested, indicted, or had an information filed against you or been otherwise charged with a crime by any law enforcement authority anywhere in the United States or its possessions or any other country. Have you ever been charged, convicted, found guilty or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered. Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 8. The answer shown on the application to both questions is "N" which stands for "no." Six months later, on November 14, 2002, the Notice of Denial was issued. The factual basis for the denial consists of two interrelated facts. First, Ms. Auxais responded "no" to the question of whether she had ever pled no contest to a crime. Second, Ms. Auxais had pled no contest to Unemployment Compensation Fraud, a felony, in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County. Explanations In the interim between the submission of the application and the denial, Ms. Auxais, in a letter to a Regulatory Consultant at the Department of Insurance, offered "explanations . . . in regard to the cases filed against [her] . . .". Respondent's Exhibit 9, page 25. The first explanation concerns a criminal charge of "larceny by credit card." The charge is not related to the Department's basis for denial. Nonetheless, the explanation sheds light on Ms. Auxais' credibility. It has value to this case, moreover, because Ms. Auxais chose in her testimony at hearing to explain further her written explanation. She did so as she attempted, at the same time, to explain away the false answer on her application with regard to the nolo contendere plea for Unemployment Compensation Fraud, the second explanation in her letter in November of 2002 to the Department of Insurance. The explanation to the unrelated charge (the first explanation offered in the letter to the Department of Insurance) follows: Arrest Date: 3/13/95. Charge: Larceny Credit Card I went shopping with an ex-associate. I was not aware of the fact that she had obtained a credit card and attempted to use it unlawfully. When security began to question the nature of the card she fled the scene and I was held, arrested and charged for Larceny Credit Card. I explained the nature of the incident to the defense attorney appointed to me who suggested I plead no-contest. The courts ruled adjudication withheld. (Respondent's Exhibit 9). With regard to a question about whether her ex-associate had ever been charged with some type of theft crime for the incident, Ms. Auxais testified, "No she was never found. I can't find her to this day." (Tr. 44, 45). The second explanation relates to the felony of Unemployment Compensation Fraud: Arrest Date: 4/29/98 Charge: Fraud/Unemployment I worked for a group of physicians one of whom split from the group. At that time the other physicians felt threatened since I worked directly for the physician who decided to leave and I got fired. During this time I filed for unemployment. While I was on unemployment and receiving benefits the physician gave me a gift (so I thought) in the sum of $400.00. I was not aware that her accountant documented the $400.00 as employment. Some months later after she re-opened her new practice and I resumed working for her I among other employees received a letter from the unemployment office notifying us of unemployment fraud and they demanded repayment of the monies I received in the amount of $800.00. When I explained the situation to the physician she agreed to repay unemployment. I set up a payment plan with unemployment however the physician's accountant did not keep up with the payment which caused me to get arrested for unemployment fraud. (Id.) At hearing, in the midst of elaborating on these two explanations, Ms. Auxais offered an explanation for how it happened that her application had been submitted with the false answer of "no" to the screening question of whether she had ever pled "no contest" to a crime when, in fact, she had pled nolo contendere or no contest to crimes twice. Her explanation in this regard was: I personally did not fill out the application for the title insurance thing on line. My supervisor did it for me[.] [A]t the time that the application was filled out for me on line[,] I was in title insurance training in Tampa . . . But you just don't go around telling everybody that yes I was charged with unemployment compensation fraud after you thought everything was done. I guess the person who filled out the application for me was not aware that I was charged with a felony, so when the question was asked, had I ever been charged with a felony, they checked no. When it came back, I had already signed the last page of that prior to leaving, because you can actually print out the application. The application was sent out with that. (Tr. 30). Before transmitting it to the Department of Insurance, Ms. Auxais did not read the filled-out application. She testified she did not have the opportunity to so "[b]ecause [she] was in the midst of trying to go out of town and [she] was in the midst of trying to get [the] application out for a deadline . . .". (Tr. 64). There are at least two problems with this explanation. Both relate to the declaration that appears above the signature line in the application: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for licensure and that the facts stated in it are true. Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 000011 of Respondent's Exhibits. If Ms. Auxais is to be believed, she had not, in fact, read the application with answers before signing it so that her attestation by way of her signature was false. The other problem occurs with her reading of the application after it had been signed, filled out, sent in and discovered by the Department of Insurance to be false. On this point, Ms. Auxais had yet another explanation. This explanation has as its basis Ms. Auxais' reading of the two screening questions quoted in paragraph 10, above. The first of the two has a time frame with regard to the question it asks about criminal arrests or charges. "In the past 12 months," is the predicate to the question. The second question, has no such time limitation. It asks whether the applicant has "ever" pled nolo contendere or no contest to a crime. When confronted by a Department of Insurance employee, "a Mr. Thomas" with the false answer to the second question, Ms. Auxais testified, "I . . . explained to him that even after going back and re-reading everything I would have still said no because the prior question asked within the past 12 months." (Tr. 60, 61). In other words, Ms. Auxais construed the second question to be limited by the time frame of the first so that contrary to its plain inquiry as to whether she had "ever" pled nolo contendere or no contest to a crime, it really asked whether she had so pled within the previous 12 months. Ms. Auxais is a college graduate. She plans to continue her education post-graduate by attending law school and regards employment as a licensed title insurance agent as a stepping stone to a career in law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a title insurance agent. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Auxais 9022 West Atlantic Boulevard, No. 227 Coral Springs, Florida 33065 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 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what punishment should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent is now, and has been for approximately the past 20 years, licensed by Petitioner as a general lines insurance agent. On July 3, 1986, Petitioner received a complaint concerning Respondent from Elsa Garcia. Garcia reported that she had purchased automobile insurance through Dixie Insurance Brokers and had been given a temporary insurance binder bearing the signature of a "Paul J. Lovelace" reflecting that her coverage was to be effective March 11, 1985. According to Garcia, however, she had subsequently discovered, after having been involved in an automobile accident on March 23, 1985, that her insurance coverage had not taken effect until after the accident. Garcia's complaint was assigned to one of Petitioner's employees, Burton Powell, to review and investigate. As part of his investigation, Powell contacted Alan D. Kruger, Garcia's attorney. Kruger supplied Powell with Garcia's affidavit and other pertinent documents, including a copy of Garcia's automobile insurance application and the temporary insurance binder she had been given by Dixie Insurance Brokers. The application reflects that Garcia was seeking coverage for the period from April 2, 1985, to October 2, 1985. The binder, on the other hand, indicates that it was to be effective for one month commencing, not April 2, 1985, but March 11, 1985. Someone other than Respondent signed his name to both the application and the binder. 1/ On various occasions prior to December 18, 1987, Respondent was the general lines insurance agent of record for Dixie Insurance Brokers. 2/ On these occasions he never personally signed any insurance applications, nor did he otherwise play any role in the operation and control of the agency. By his own admission, he simply allowed the agency to use his license, without any restrictions imposed by him, in exchange for monetary consideration. In so doing, he willfully engaged in a scheme designed to circumvent the licensing requirements of the Florida Insurance Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order (1) dismissing Count I of the administrative complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of Count II of the administrative complaint; and (3) revoking Respondent's general lines insurance agent license for his having engaged in the conduct specified in Count II of the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of November, 1989. 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 2nd day of November, 1989.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Fredric Stuart Zelanka, has been licensed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, as an insurance agent, holding license number A293609. Jerrod Keith Zelanka is Respondent's son. Jerrod Keith Zelanka also uses the name Rod Keith. Using one name or the other, Jerrod Keith Zelanka was the owner, president, and director of American Professional Insurance Services, Inc., also known as AmPro Insurance. Respondent's insurance agency had been Accredited Insurance Group, Inc. Due to his health problems in 2000, Respondent turned his insurance business over to his son and thereafter was employed by AmPro. On September 11, 2003, the Department entered a Final Order suspending Jerrod Keith Zelanka's insurance license and eligibility for licensure for a period of nine months. Respondent knew that Jerrod Keith Zelanka's insurance license and eligibility for licensure had been suspended, not only because of their relationship but also because the administrative proceeding which resulted in Jerrod Keith Zelanka's suspension had been consolidated with a disciplinary proceeding against Respondent. Respondent received a three- month suspension as a result of that proceeding. Due to a stay of Jerrod Keith Zelanka's suspension entered by the appellate court, which was terminated after the court affirmed the Department's Final Order in that case, his suspension did not begin until July 16, 2004, and ended April 15, 2005. Both the Final Order suspending Jerrod Keith Zelanka's license and the Final Order suspending Respondent's license advised them that, during their periods of suspension, they were prohibited from engaging in or attempting to engage in any transaction or business for which a license is required or to directly or indirectly own, control, or be employed in any manner by an insurance agent or agency. In March 2005, Jerrod Keith Zelanka requested that the Department reinstate his suspended insurance license, effective April 16, 2005. On April 19, 2005, the Department issued its Notice of Denial, denying reinstatement. Jerrod Keith Zelanka requested an administrative hearing on that denial. A hearing was held, and on February 23, 2006, the Department entered a Final Order denying his application for reinstatement of his suspended license. Accordingly, Jerrod Keith Zelanka has not been a licensed insurance agent since July 16, 2004. On October 13, 2005, Charmaine Davis-Matthei called AmPro, which was located very close to her office, during her lunch break to obtain a quote to insure her two vehicles. Since the quote she was given was favorable, she went there when she finished working at 5:00 p.m., that day. The only person at AmPro's office during the time she was there was Jerrod Keith Zelanka, who identified himself as "Rod" and proceeded to wait on her. He reviewed her necessary information, explained different options to her, explained the coverage being purchased, typed the information into the computer, created her policy, printed it and had her sign it, obtained the down payment on the policy from her, and gave her a receipt for her premium payment. On October 21, 2005, after purchasing a new vehicle, Davis-Matthei returned to AmPro to change her auto insurance policy. On that date, Respondent waited on her, made the required changes, and gave her a receipt for the additional money she was required to pay for the change in her policy. The applications for coverage dated October 13 and October 21, 2007, both carry Respondent's name and license number as the insurance agent binding the coverage. Both carry an unreadable but dissimilar signature. Since Respondent was not present at AmPro on October 13, 2005, during the Davis-Matthei transaction and only Jerrod Keith Zelanka was, there are few possible conclusions. One is that Respondent allowed Jerrod to sign Respondent's name when Jerrod engaged in the business of insurance. Another is that Respondent signed his name although he was not present when Jerrod sold insurance to Davis-Matthei. Since the record in this case suggests that Respondent was the only licensed agent at AmPro at the time in question, it can only be concluded that he knew that Jerrod was engaging in the unlicensed transaction of insurance business at AmPro. In addition to the 2003 three-month suspension imposed upon Respondent briefly described above, the Department imposed a $750 administrative fine and one-year probation against Respondent pursuant to a Consent Order entered February 19, 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.611(7) and 626.621(12), Florida Statutes; finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 626.611(8), Florida Statutes; and suspending Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 24th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Robert Alan Fox, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Fredric Zelanka 5099 Monterey Lane Delray Beach, Florida 33484
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 90-3698: Whether Howell Vinson Peavy's insurance licenses should be disciplined for violations of Sections 626.611(7) and (14) and 626.621(8) F.S., and As to DOAH Case No. 90-6615: Whether Howell Vinson Peavy should be licensed to represent Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company as a general lines insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Peavy is currently licensed and eligible for licensure and appointment in Florida as a life and health and general lines agent. Mr. Peavy began work at the Citizens (formerly Ellis) Bank of Bunnell, Florida in 1952. A director of that bank owned an insurance agency in town. In 1964, the owner of the bank, Mr. Creal; his mother; the bank attorney; and Mr. Peavy bought the insurance agency. Mr. Peavy continued to work at the Citizens Bank in the mornings and at the insurance agency in the afternoons and evenings. Mr. Peavy has been licensed by the Department of Insurance since purchasing the agency in 1964 and has had no previous disciplinary complaints against his insurance license(s) in the ensuing 26 years. Approximately ten years ago, in 1980, during a stressful and transitional period of the Citizens Bank operation, a customer came into Mr. Peavy's office at the bank and sought to pay in excess of $10,000 in cash in connection with a land transaction. Mr. Peavy received the money and turned it over to a bank secretary to make the deposit. The secretary subsequently put the money in the bank's loan department cash drawer instead of taking it to the head teller, who was the bank employee responsible for filing the Currency Transaction Report required by the federal Internal Revenue Service for such cash transactions. Mr. Peavy did not initially know that a Currency Transaction Report had not been filed. Indeed, he had never personally filled out or filed such a report before, and doing so was not normally his responsibility. Mr. Peavy received no personal gain from the failure to file the report. On July 13, 1985, approximately five years after Mr. Peavy's failure to file the Currency Transaction Report and five years before the instant state disciplinary charges were filed, a seven-count indictment was filed against Mr. Peavy in U.S. District Court in and for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 85-99CR-JAX-12. Approximately five years ago, on October 4, 1985, Mr. Peavy entered a plea of guilty to one count of violating Title 18, USC Sections 1001 and 1002 in that he knowingly and willfully concealed and covered up and caused to be concealed or covered up, material facts within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasurer of the United States to wit: knowingly and willfully failing to file a Currency Transaction Report for a transaction in excess of $10,000. It appears that a total of $50,000 cash somehow wound up in an escrow account at the bank, but there is no evidence or admission to show that either Mr. Peavy or the bank realized any profit or benefit from the transaction. The transaction also was unconnected to Mr. Peavy's insurance business. Mr. Peavy's federal guilty plea was accepted, and on December 4, 1985, he was adjudicated and convicted of the named felony. U.S. District Court Judge Howell Melton imposed a $5,000 fine and placed Mr. Peavy on three years' probation. Prior to entering his guilty plea, Mr. Peavy had executed a "Stipulated Factual Basis for the Plea of Guilty to Count One of the Indictment." This document was not offered in evidence at formal hearing, but upon Mr. Peavy's testimony, it is found that he had the opportunity to review and sign this document before entering his guilty plea and knew that it confirmed his willful failure to file the Currency Transaction Report and that his willful failure to file the Currency Transaction Report was for the purpose of concealing the $50,000 cash transaction from the Internal Revenue Service. At formal hearing, Mr. Peavy elaborated on his reasons for entering his plea of guilty in 1985 as being, in part, due to monetary reasons; his lawyer had advised him of the difference in cost of going to court and fighting the charges contained in seven counts as compared to working out a plea agreement to one count. There is no dispute that Mr. Peavy pleaded guilty and was convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the law of the United States of America. However, at the time Mr. Peavy entered his plea, Florida's insurance disciplinary statutes did not specifically address federal felonies. The material state statutes in effect at the time of Peavy's failure to file, at the time of his plea, and at the time of his conviction read: 626.611 Grounds for compulsory refusal, suspension, or revocation of agent's, solicitor's, or adjuster's license or service representative's, supervising or managing general agent's, or claims investigator's permit.--The department shall deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent, solicitor, or adjuster or the permit of any service representative, supervising, or managing general agent, or claims investigator, and it shall suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or permittee any one or more of the applicable grounds exist: * * * (14) Having been found guilty or, or having pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, a felony in this state or any other state which involves moral turpitude, without regard to whether a judgement of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction of such cases. * * * 626.621 Grounds for discretionary refusal, suspension or revocation of agent's, solicitors, or adjuster's license or service representatives, supervising or managing general agent's, or claims investigator's permit.--The department may, in its discretion, deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent, solicitor, or adjuster or the permit of any service agent, solicitor, or adjuster or the permit of any service representative, supervising or managing general agent or claims investigator, and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or permittee any one or more of the following applicable grounds exist under circumstances for which such denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal is not mandatory under Section 626.611: * * * (8) Having been found guilty of, or having pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony in this state or any other state, without regard to whether a judgment of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction of such cases. Mr. Peavy paid his fine, successfully completed his probation, and was granted restoration of his civil rights on January 13, 1989, pursuant to Article IV, Section 8, Constitution of the State of Florida. Robert Gayle Mercer is a Florida-licensed insurance agent in good standing. He was tendered and accepted over objection as an expert in the business of insurance. Mr. Mercer also has served for many years as a director of a state bank located in Kissimmeee, Florida. The bank of which Mr. Mercer is a director is substantially similar in all respects to the bank in Bunnell, Florida, where Mr. Peavy's legal difficulties arose. As a bank director, Mr. Mercer is familiar with the necessity that banks file Currency Transaction Reports. It was Mr. Mercer's expert professional opinion, rendered within his education, training, and experience as an insurance agent, that the failure to file a Currency Transaction Report is not directly related to the business of insurance and that such failure has not rendered Mr. Peavy unfit or untrustworthy to engage in the business of insurance. In assessing the weight and credibility to be assigned to Mr. Mercer's expert opinion, the undersigned is not unmindful that at some point in time the witness Mercer, and the accused, Peavy, practiced the insurance business together, but due to the lapse of time and the removal of Mr. Mercer from the immediate geographical community wherein Mr. Peavy resides and practices, Mr. Mercer's testimony is found to be credible in all respects. The agency offered no expert testimony/evidence to refute Mr. Mercer's opinion. Mr. Peavy was held in the highest esteem by business, professional, and community service colleagues at the time the federal charges arose, plea was entered, and conviction adjudged. At that time, Mr. Peavy attempted to resign as a member of the Flagler County Chamber of Commerce; his colleagues, knowledgable of the federal charges, refused to accept his resignation. Many prominent community leaders knowledgeable of the nature of the federal charges also wrote to Judge Melton extolling Mr. Peavy's virtues and urging that he be placed on probation. Mr. Peavy has lived in Bunnell, Florida, since 1939, except for a short period of military service. During the whole of that time, he has been a community leader and volunteer, serving at various times on the City Commission, the County School Board, the County Chamber of Commerce, and as a Governor- appointed member of the County Housing Authority. He is active in church and in service and charity organizations, particularly as a fund raiser for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the March of Dimes, and the Humane Society. Mr. Peavy's current reputation in his community is one of trust, confidence, fair dealing, and a respect for the rights of others. Upon the direct testimony of Captain C. B. Eisenbach, a retired captain of the Flagler County Sheriff's Department, and Mrs. Etta Peterson, Flagler County Supervisor of Elections, each rendered by deposition, and upon the hearsay evidence which may legitimately be characterized as "explaining or supplementing" direct evidence pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S., it is found that Mr. Peavy has consistently maintained and currently maintains an exemplary reputation in the community for honesty, trustworthiness, and good moral character, as well as a reputation for truth and veracity. In making the foregoing finding of fact, the undersigned has considered the somewhat vague understanding Ms. Peterson expressed with regard to the nature of Mr. Peavy's very stale federal crime/conviction but does not find that her vagueness on that legal concept detracts from the credibility or significance of her testimony concerning Mr. Peavy's current reputation and good character.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint in Case No. 90-3698 and granting Peavy a license to as a general lines agent for Bankers and Shippers Insurance in Case No. 90-6615. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1991 at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Department of Insurance PFOF: 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all accepted. Peavy's PFOF: 1-5, 7-10, and 12 are accepted and adopted with minor modifications to better express the record as a whole and to eliminate legal conclusions. 6, and 11 are rejected as subordinate or unnecessary to the facts as found; admissible and reliable hearsay has been assessed within the RO. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert J. Datz, Esquire Datz, Jacobson and Lembcke Suite 2902 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 W. Douglas Hall, Esquire R. Vincent Russo, Esquire Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John C. Jordan, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Licensure Respondent has held a Florida 2-20 general lines (property and casualty) insurance agent license since July 24, 1998, and a Florida 2-15 life (including variable annuity and health) insurance agent license since August 17, 2005. Facts Common to Counts I through V and VIII At all times material to Counts I through V and VIII of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by O. J. Insurance (O. J.), a Miami insurance agency she had previously owned for approximately 15 years before having sold it in January 2003. Respondent went to work for O. J.'s new owners in or around June 2003. She remained an employee of the agency for approximately two years. During this two-year period, Respondent was the only licensed insurance agent at the agency. The agency's two other employees (one of whom was Respondent's sister, Sonia Pupo) held Florida 4-40 customer representative licenses. Respondent and the agency's two customer representatives were all salaried employees. None of them received a commission. The agency itself, however, received commissions from the insurance companies whose policies it sold. Respondent's performance as an employee of the agency was evaluated on an annual basis. Among the factors considered in the evaluation process was Respondent's productivity (that is, the number of insurance policies she sold). After her first year as an employee of the agency, Respondent received a salary increase based upon the annual evaluation she had received. Facts Relating to Count I On or about December 30, 2003, Blanca Duron went to O. J., where she purchased automobile insurance from United Automobile Insurance Company (United) through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Ms. Duron. On the application, Respondent put down that Ms. Duron's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Ms. Duron's correct address. Ms. Duron actually resided on Southwest 7th Street in Miami. At no time did she ever tell Respondent that she lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Ms. Duron actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Ms. Duron's address on the application was to enable Ms. Duron to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had her correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count II On or about December 6, 2004, Brisaida Castillo went to O. J., where she purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Ms. Castillo. Respondent put down on the application that Ms. Castillo's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Ms. Castillo's correct address. Ms. Castillo actually resided on Northwest 22nd Court in Miami. At no time did she ever tell Respondent that she lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Ms. Castillo actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Ms. Castillo's address on the application was to enable Ms. Castillo to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had her correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count III On or about December 10, 2004, Ricardo Fernandez went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Fernandez. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Fernandez's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Mr. Fernandez's correct address. Mr. Fernandez actually resided on Essex Avenue in Hialeah, Florida. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Mr. Fernandez actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Mr. Fernandez's address on the application was to enable Mr. Fernandez to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had his correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count IV On or about February 1, 2005, Pedro Cruz, Sr., went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United. It is unclear from the record whether it was Respondent or her sister, Ms. Pupo, who filled out Mr. Cruz, Sr.'s insurance application.4 The application indicated that Mr. Cruz, Sr.'s address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. This was not his correct address. He actually resided on Northwest 18th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Mr. Cruz, Sr., actually lived. Consequently, Mr. Cruz, Sr., paid a lower premium than United would have charged had his correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count V On or about December 6, 2004, Pedro Cruz, Jr., went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Cruz, Jr. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Cruz, Jr.'s address was 5521 Southwest 163rd Court, Miami, Florida.5 Mr. Cruz, Jr., actually resided on Northwest 18th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5521 Southwest 163rd Court, Miami, Florida.6 Facts Relating to Count VIII On or about February 3, 2005, Eulogio Martinez went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Martinez. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Martinez's address was 5205 Southwest 142nd Place, Miami, Florida. Mr. Martinez actually resided on Northwest 5th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 142nd Place, Miami, Florida.7 Facts Relating to Count XI Since September 2005, O.D.C. Insurance Services, Inc. (O.D.C.) has operated an insurance agency (selling Allstate insurance products) at 13860 Southwest 56th Street in Miami, Florida, for which it has not obtained a license. During this period of time, Respondent has been owner, sole officer (president), and registered agent of O.D.C. and responsible for the day-to-day operations of O.D.C.'s Allstate insurance agency. At all times material to Count XI of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was unaware of the requirement that insurance agencies, such as O.D.C.'s, be licensed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint, revoking her licenses for having committed these violations, and dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of July, 2008.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Daniel Bruce Caughey has been licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent at least since 1981. He began working for Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. in 1971 as a file clerk. Once he was licensed, he worked as a salesman. In 1977, he assumed the executive vice-presidency of the agency, a position he still holds. Until the middle of March, 1983, respondent'- father, William Edward Caughey, managed the agency. He continues to own all 1,000 shares the corporation has issued, although he has not written a policy since he turned management of the agency over to the respondent and his brother Randy in 1983. In 1982 and thereafter until Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. (JORO), a multi-line general agency, stopped underwriting automobile insurance, Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. brokered automobile insurance through JORO. When an account current bookkeeping dispute arose between Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. and JORO, William Edward Caughey retained an accounting firm, Sizemore. On Sizemore's advice, he rejected JORO's claim for more than $20,900. On October 21, 1983, a JORO representative told Daniel Bruce Caughey that JORO would no longer deal with Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. unless he signed an "Individual Guarantee Agreement," personally guaranteeing the insurance agency's corporate indebtedness; and executed a promissory note in JORO's favor in the amount of $16,941. Respondent executed the documents. On December 3, 1986, JORO brought suit against the corporation and respondent personally. No. 86-21454 (Fla. 13th Cir.). On August 13, 1987, the court entered judgment against both defendants in the amount of $6,595.94. Jordan Roberts & Co. v. Cauqhey, No. 86-21454 (Fla. 13th Cir.; Aug. 13, 1987). Neither respondent nor the agency has paid the judgment. With the possible exception of filing the complaint that eventuated in the present proceedings, JORO has made no effort to collect. In Count I, JORO's complaint alleges the existence of a brokerage agreement between JORO and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc., entered into "[o]n or about April 27, 1982"; execution and delivery of respondent's guarantee "[o]n or about October 21, 1983"; and the agency's indebtedness "for premiums on policies underwritten by [JORO] for the sum of $20,975.36." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. In Count II, the complaint also alleges execution and delivery of a promissory note "[o]n or about October 21, 1983," without, however, explicitly indicating its relationship (if any) with the guarantee executed the same date. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The final judgment does not specify which count(s) JORO recovered on. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Attached to the complaint are copies of the promissory note, executed by ?CAUGHEY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., By: D B Caughey Vice President"; the guarantee, executed in the same way; and the brokerage agreement, executed on behalf of Caughey Insurance Agency by "William E. Caughey, President." Although the Individual Guarantee Agreement names respondent as guarantor in the opening paragraph, the corporation is shown as guarantor on the signature line. At hearing, both Daniel Bruce Caughey and William Edward Caughey testified that neither had withheld premiums owed JORO, and this testimony was not controverted.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint filed against respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 2nd day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, respondent became an officer after the brokerage agreement had been executed. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the judgment could also be based on the promissory note. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, respondent did not sign as an individual guarantor. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 10 and 12 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, evidence respondent himself adduced showed that the judgment had not been satisfied. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Elias, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire McDonald, Fleming & Moorehead 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3-C Pensacola, FL 32501 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found Upon the suggestion of a special investigator with the Department of Insurance, a letter dated April 23, 1984, and signed by Northeast Regional Director Thomas P. Poston was written to the respondent at the address listed for him in the Tallahassee licensing office. This letter advised the respondent that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer had received complaints from Orange and Seminole Counties that he was recruiting clients during initial court appearances and that this appeared to be a violation of Section 648.44(b) of the Florida Statutes. The letter admonished respondent to immediately terminate such solicitation and advised him that any additional complaints would bring further action. The evidence does not establish whether respondent received this letter of April 23, 1984. The respondent was involved in another administrative proceeding with the petitioner, the facts of which were not brought into evidence in the instant proceeding. In the former proceeding, Case No. 84-L-3155, a Consent Order was entered which required respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and placed him on probation for a period of one year with the condition that he strictly adhere to the Florida Insurance Code. On or about December 4, 1984, Kenneth Martin was working on the property of Ray Dittmore. Respondent had previously, in July of 1984, written three bailbonds for Mr. Martin, all of which had been forfeited due to Mr. Martin's failure to appear in court. Upon learning of the whereabouts of Mr. Martin, respondent sent his employee, George Burfield, to Mr. Dittmore's property to apprehend Martin and return him to custody. Mr. Dittmore was present when Mr. Burfield arrived to take Martin into custody and felt that Mr. Burfield had misconducted himself during the apprehension process. After the incident, Dittmore telephoned respondent to complain about the conduct of his employee Burfield. Later that same day, Mr. Dittmore went to the Orange County Jail with his attorney, Warren Linsey, for the purpose of posting a cash bond for Kenneth Martin. There were prisoners confined in the Orange County Jail on December 4, 1984. While Mr. Dittmore was at the booking window counting his money, approximately $3,000.00, respondent approached him. Mr. Linsey recalls that respondent immediately introduced himself as a bondsman and offered his services. George Cox, also a bondsman, was present and recalls that when respondent saw Mr. Dittmore counting money at the window, respondent approached him, stated that he was a bail bondsman and informed him that Dittmore did not have to post the cash and could use him (respondent) instead. Mr. Dittmore recalls that after he told the deputy that he wished to bond out Kenneth Martin, respondent approached him at the window and asked him if he was the Dittmore he had spoken to earlier that day. Dittmore then recalls that respondent told him he didn't have to put up $3,000.00 because respondent could sell him a bond. According to Mr. Dittmore, respondent also told him that he wouldn't bond Martin out, that Dittmore was "dumb" for doing so and would end up losing his money. Respondent, who had previously written about $1,800.00 worth of bonds on Kenneth Martin and only received $216.00 as a remission for returning him to custody on December 4, 1984, recalls the incident at the Orange County Jail with Mr. Dittmore as follows. From his nearby position at the booking window, he could overhear and see that a "Dittmore" was there to post a bond for Kenneth Martin. After inquiring of Mr. Dittmore if he was the same Dittmore he had spoken with earlier, respondent introduced himself, apologized for what had happened earlier that day, begged him not to bail Martin out and told him he was foolish for doing so. He does recall later saying to George Cox that there were better ways to invest cash. Because respondent had previously lost money on Kenneth Martin, he had no intention of writing another bond on him on the same date he had been responsible for Martin's return to custody. Joseph Barrow was arrested on May 29, 1985, and was taken to the Seminole County Jail. At the time of his arrest, he had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Although subpoenaed to appear as a witness in this administrative hearing, Joseph Barrow was released and was not called upon to testify by the petitioner. According to sworn testimony taken on January 28, 1986, Joseph Barrow recalls that after he was fingerprinted at the Seminole County Jail on the evening of May 29, 1985, he called home to have his wife contact a bail bondsman to get him out of jail. He does not know if his family did contact a bondsman that night. However, he did speak with a bail bondsman that night at the jail, but could not remember his name. The description of the bondsman given in Joseph Barrow's statement of January 28, 1986, matched the respondent's physical appearance at the hearing. Joseph's wife, Michele Barrow, testified that her husband telephoned her the night he was arrested and asked her to find a bondsman. Neither the time of that telephone conversation nor the family's immediate response to that request were established at the hearing. On May 30, 1985, James Barrow, Joseph's brother; Donna Brino, Joseph's sister; and Michele Barrow, Joseph's wife, were at the Seminole County Jail for the purpose of getting Joseph out of jail. There were prisoners confined at the jail on that date. James recalls that, as he was standing in line to obtain information regarding his brother, respondent was also waiting in line and asked him why he was there. James replied that he was there to get his brother out of jail and asked respondent if he was a bondsman. Respondent stated that he was and asked James who his brother was. After James told respondent that his brother was Joe Barrow, respondent referred to a white piece of paper and replied that he had talked to Joe the previous night and had advised him to wait until the hearing that morning to see if his bond would be reduced. When James learned that he would need $250.00 to get his brother out of jail, he left the jail and went to the bank. When he returned to the jail, respondent approached him and asked him if he had gotten the $250.00. James recalls that when he replied that he had, respondent said "Well, give me the money, and I'll get your brother out of jail." James did not give respondent the money because his sister and sister-in-law who were standing behind respondent, were shaking their head "no." Joseph told James that he had spoken to a bondsman the night before, but could not remember the bondman's name. Michele Barrow recalls that as James was waiting in line at an information window, respondent approached him, asked if he needed a bondsman, and told James that he had spoken to Joseph the night before. At that point in time, Donna Brino, Joseph's sister, was on the telephone trying to contact a bondsman. Donna Brino did not hear the conversation which occurred between James Barrow and the respondent prior to James leaving the jail for the bank. She was aware that Joseph had spoken to a bondsman the night before and that he did not remember who that was. Because of her use of pronouns in lieu of names, Ms. Brino's description of the events which transpired on May 30th at the Seminole County Jail is unclear. She apparently telephoned Action Bail Bonds and left a message. While waiting for the message to be returned, she saw Bruce Moncrief, another bondsman, and spoke with him about writing her brother's bond. She stated that after she had already made arrangements with bondsman Bruce Moncrief, respondent told her she was stupid for using Moncrief and attempted to obtain the money from her brother James. Respondent testified that he was called to the Seminole County Jail by someone in the Barrow family on the evening of May 29, 1985. He went to the jail and spoke with Joseph Barrow. Upon learning that Joseph could not then afford to arrange for the $5,000.00 bail which had been set, respondent advised Joseph to wait until the next day when the amount of bail would be reduced. Respondent states that Joseph told him that his brother would get some money and would be contacting him. Respondent told Joseph that he would be at the jail the next day for the first appearances. Respondent also states that Joseph's brother, James, called him the next morning and he told James that it was better to wait until the first appearance and the reduction of the bond, that he would be at the jail for first appearances and that he would meet him there at that time. Respondent admits that he did approach James at the Seminole County Jail because he looked like his brother, Joseph, and said "I'm the one you're looking for. I talked to you this morning." After Joseph's bond was reduced to $2,500.00, respondent communicated this to James, and James left to go to the bank to get the money. At this point, respondent believed that he was going to write the bond, so he began preparing the papers and waited 30 to 45 minutes for James to return with the money. It was not until James returned from the bank that respondent learned he was not going to write Joseph's bond and that the family had obtained Mr. Moncrief instead.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint against the respondent be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this day of September, 1986. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0462 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner 6 and 7. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8 and 9. Rejected. These ultimate conclusions are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 11. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 19 and 20. Rejected as Unsupported by the evidence. Respondent - Respondent's proposals contain unnumbered and mixed factual findings and legal conclusions. Each of the topics included has been addressed in either the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, except: Page 2, first paragraph Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Page 4, last full paragraph Rejected, Unsupported and irrelevant in light of factual findings and legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Thornburg, Esquire Bill Gunter Department of Insurance Insurance Commissioner Legal Division and Treasurer 413-B Larson Building Department of Insurance Tallahassee, Florida 32301 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Earle Anthony Bennett, is now and was at all times material hereto licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, petitioner has jurisdiction over the insurance licenses and appointments of respondent. On October 17, 1990, respondent entered into a home service agent's contract with The Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company (Independent Life). Pertinent to this case, such contract provided: Article 1. Description of General Duties The Agent agrees to canvass for insurance, to collect premiums as due on the policies assigned to the agency, to aid in the proper settlement of claims, to keep true records of the business on the books, to forward to the Company on Company forms a true account of each week of the agency, and to give full time to the business of the Company. Article 2. Collections The Agent agrees to pay over all monies collected to the District Sales Manager or to such other person as the Company may direct. No money shall be retained by the Agent out of collections for any purpose. The agent agrees that should legal proceedings be necessary to collect monies due from the Agent to the Company the Agent shall pay legal costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. * * * Article 37. Indebtedness Due Company The Company may use any commissions, vacation pay, or other compensation due the Agent to reimburse itself for any indebtedness due the Company by the Agent. In November 1991, respondent terminated his employment with Independent Life, and Independent Life notified petitioner of the cancellation of respondent's appointment as one of its insurance agents. Thereafter, on November 7, 1991, Independent Life conducted an audit of respondent's account which revealed a deficiency of $1,613.70 in insurance premiums collected by respondent and not remitted to the company. Subsequent audits in November reflected an additional deficiency of $213.62, in December an additional deficiency of $178.84, and in February 1992, an additional deficiency of $43.48. By letters of November 18, 1991, November 21, 1991, December 2, 1991, December 13, 1991, and March 18, 1992, Independent Life made demand upon respondent to satisfy the deficiencies disclosed by the audits. Such letters reflected, however, varying amounts the company claimed to be due as a consequence of newly discovered deficiencies in ongoing audits, discussed supra, as well as varying credits accorded respondent. Such correspondence lends credence to respondent's testimony that he was unsure as to the exact sum owing Independent Life, and that he had, subsequent to his termination of employment, remitted funds to the company. Respondent did concede, however, that when he terminated his employment with Independent Life, his account had a deficiency of approximately $1,400. Regarding any deficiency that may have been owing Independent Life, the proof demonstrates that respondent did, over time, satisfy all outstanding obligations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of the violations set forth in the conclusions of law, and suspending his licenses and eligibility for licensure for a period of nine months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of October 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3885 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. To the extent supported by the proof, addressed in paragraph 1. 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 4. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 5. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 6 & 7, otherwise rejected as not supported by competent proof. 11. Rejected as a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Earle Anthony Bennett 12100 North West 11th Avenue Miami, Florida 33168 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
