The Issue Whether the Respondent's insurance licenses should be disciplined on the basis of the alleged multiple violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing insurance agents of all types, regulating licensure status, and enforcing the practice standards of licensed agents within the powers granted by the Legislature in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Wolfe was licensed as an insurance agent in the following areas: Ordinary Life, Ordinary Life including Disability Insurance, General Lines, and Disability. Respondent was also registered with the Department as an Automobile Inspection and Warranty Salesperson. Respondent Wolfe conducted his insurance business through Edison Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter Edison), which is located in Fort Myers, Florida. The Respondent is the President, the Director, and sole shareholder of the insurance agency. All of Edison's personnel who collected funds in a fiduciary capacity, on behalf of the insured named in the Administrative Complaint, acted through the supervision and control of Respondent Wolfe, the licensed general lines agent of record at Edison. One of the services provided to customers who sought insurance through Edison was the agency's processing of premium financing applications. If an insurance customer decided to finance premium payments, the Respondent or agency personnel, would arrange premium financing for the customer through Regency Premium Finance Company (hereinafter Regency). Once the insurance customer's application to Regency was processed, Regency would issue a check for the financed portion of the premium. The check would name Edison as the payee, and would be sent to the agency's offices. The Respondent or agency personnel acting through his licenses, were then required to remit the money to the insurance company to obtain the insurance coverage selected by the proposed insured. Count I On October 7, 1986, Regency issued a check in the amount of eleven thousand eighty four dollars and twenty five cents to Edison. Upon receipt of the check, Edison paid the outstanding balance of the premiums owed to Canal Insurance Company by Shirley Turlington, who became insured with the company through Edison on July 16, 1986, under policies numbered P02 31 71, and 14 43 39. On November 7, 1986, a Notice of Cancellation was sent by Regency to the insurer as the insured did not pay an installment payment, as agreed, by October 16, 1986. The insurance policies were cancelled by the insurer, and an unearned premium of ten thousand one hundred and twenty four dollars was credited to Edison's account with Dana Roehrig & Associates, an authorized representative of Canal Insurance Company. Pursuant to the Premium Finance Agreement signed by the insured Shirley Turlington, Regency was assigned all unearned premiums returned by the insurance company on these specific policies. Shirley Turlington was not entitled to the unearned premiums credited to Edison's account by Canal Insurance Company through Dana Roehrig & Associates. A determination of Regency's entitlement to the unearned premium refund is currently pending in a civil action. Count II On March 16, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of nine thousand four hundred and forty one dollars to Edison. The purpose of the check was to have Edison pay the outstanding balance of the premium owed to Canal Insurance Company by Guillermo Rodriguez for a commercial automobile liability policy numbered 152 656. In reality, the amount of money necessary for payment to Canal Insurance Company had already been earmarked in the account maintained by Dana Roehrig & Associates which shows the credits and debits placed on Edison's business transactions with Dana Roehrig & Associates. The premium was paid, and the policy was issued by Canal Insurance Company with an effective date of February 2, 1987. In the premium finance agreement completed on behalf of Mr. Rodriguez in Edison's Offices, the inception date of the policy was projected for March 29, 1987. Respondent Wolfe and Edison personnel were unable to bind Canal Insurance Company so that an actual policy number and policy inception date were unknown by Edison at the time the finance agreement with Regency was completed at the agency. As the commercial automobile liability market was very active at Dana Roehrig & Associates during this time period, it is unknown what basis was used for the projected inception date of the policy. On May 27, 1987, a Notice of Cancellation was sent by Regency to the insurer as the insured did not pay an installment payment, as agreed, on April 29, 1987. The policy was cancelled September 25, 1987. No evidence was presented at hearing to demonstrate what happened to the unearned premium refund. Count III On March 24, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of twenty one thousand four hundred thirty five dollars to Edison. The purpose of the check was to pay the outstanding balance of the premium on a commercial automobile liability policy from Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Company which had been applied for by Thomas Gleason through Edison. Edison did not purchase an insurance policy for Mr. Gleason with the funds sent to Edison by Regency for that purpose. The check from Regency was cashed, and the funds were commingled with other funds in the agency's account number 632717. Count IV On April 21, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of twenty five thousand one hundred and fifty eight dollar and seventy five cents to Edison. The agency was to apply these funds against the outstanding balances on premiums for Clayton Olding, Inc., a trucking firm. The proposed insured had applied for insurance coverage from Canal Insurance Company and Cadillac Insurance Company. Edison paid for policy number 155941 with Canal Insurance Company with check number 7120. The premium amount and the inception date listed on the Regency premium finance agreement were correct. A notice of cancellation was sent to Canal Insurance Company on July 1, 1987, as Clayton Olding had failed to pay the installment due Regency on June 13, 1987. However, the policy had already been cancelled by the insured on June 1, 1987. A credit of nineteen thousand one hundred seventeen dollars and eighty cents was placed against Edison's account with Dana Roehrig & Associates, the authorized representative for Canal Insurance Company. Paperwork given to Clayton Olding, Inc. represented that the company was insured by Cadillac Insurance Company through Edison. Edison was the authorized agent of Cadillac Insurance Company and was able to temporarily bind the company. However, the money which was to be given to Cadillac Insurance Company as the down payment on the insurance premium was never sent to the insurer. Instead, Rose Delaney, an employee of Edison, created interagency documents which reflected that the money had been sent, and took the money for her own personal use. When Clayton Olding, Inc. notified Ms. Delaney to cancel the policy on June 1, 1987, this customer believed that Edison had acquired the insurance policy requested with Cadillac Insurance Company. Clayton Olding, Inc. received a refund from Edison after the cancellation of the two policies in the amount of approximately one thousand dollars. It was not revealed at hearing whether the refund related to the Canal Insurance Company policy or the Cadillac Insurance Company policy, or both transactions. Count V On April 28, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of four thousand five hundred and sixteen dollars to Edison for payment of the outstanding balance of the premium purportedly owed by Arthur Farquharson to Canal Insurance Company through Edison. Edison did not purchase an insurance policy for Mr. Farquharson with the funds sent to Edison by Regency for that purpose. The check from Regency was cashed, and the funds were commingled with the funds in the agency's checking account numbered 632717. The policy requested by Mr. Farquharson was never obtained by Edison on his behalf. Counts VI through VIII Count VI through Count VIII of the Administrative Complaint involve requests from proposed insured to purchase insurance through Edison. The proposed insured were Clinton Roole, Bertel Alexander Prince, and A & E Young Trucking, Inc, respectively. In each application for insurance, the proposed insured requested premium financing through Regency. Regency issued checks on behalf of these proposed insured to Edison. The agency was to pay the outstanding balances on insurance premiums in the policies purportedly obtained by Edison on behalf of these customers. Edison did not properly apply the funds sent to the agency by Regency because the requested policies were never purchased by Edison on behalf of these customers. The checks from Regency were cashed by the agency, and commingled with other funds in the agency's checking account numbered 632717. The customers did not receive the benefits requested from Edison, their insurance agency. Count IX On May 7, 1987, Regency issued a check in the amount of thirty two thousand one hundred and nine dollars to Edison. The agency was to apply the funds against the outstanding balances on three policies which were purportedly applied for from the following companies through Edison: Canal Insurance Company, Cadillac Insurance Company, and South Atlantic Council. The proposed insured was Charles Bernardo d/b/a ABX, Inc. A binder of insurance was issued by Canal Insurance Company to Mr. Bernardo for a fifteen day period which expired on April 28, 1987. A full policy was never purchased by Edison on behalf of Mr. Bernardo with the funds sent to Edison by Regency for that purpose. No information was provided at hearing regarding the purported application for insurance from South Atlantic Council on behalf of Mr. Bernardo through Edison. The check from Regency to Edison was cashed, and the funds were commingled with other funds in the agency's checking account numbered 632717. Mitigation All of the insurance transactions involved in the Administrative Complaint were conducted by Rose Delaney, an employee of Edison. During the months of March 1987 through May 1987, this employee was involved in a complex embezzlement and document falsification scheme in which she embezzled funds from the insurance agency and created phoney insurance policies and premium financing agreements, as well as false agency control documents, to cover her misdeeds. Respondent Wolfe was unable to discover this embezzlement scheme until May 23, 1987. His inability to detect the scheme was based upon a number of extraordinary factors, in spite of his reasonable attempts to supervise his insurance business and the employees with the high degree of care commensurate with his responsibilities as an insurance agent. These extraordinary factors were: the rapid and intense growth of Respondent's business during this time period; the redesign of the computerized accounting program by the agency's accountant, who failed to recognize that he had disabled an account reconciliation function within the program; the sophistication of Ms. Delaney's embezzlement scheme, and her ability to generate false documents within the agency setting which hid her crimes from the supervisory reviews conducted by Respondent Wolfe over a two and one half month period. Rose Delaney, the perpetrator of the embezzlement and documentation falsification scheme, is currently being treated in a mental health institution for mental illness. She has been diagnosed as having major depression with psychotic features as well as suffering from latent schizophrenia, paranoid type. Based upon the professional opinions of the two psychiatrists who examined Ms. Delaney, she was insane during the time she handled the insurance transactions set forth in the Administrative Complaint. The McNaughton standard was applied by both of the experts, and no evidence to the contrary was presented during the administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Gary Stephen Wolfe, be found not guilty of all nine counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4927 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO# 2. Accepted. See HO# 2. Accepted. See HO# 3. Accepted. See HO# 3. Petitioner's findings do not contain a number 5. Accepted. See HO# 3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 5. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 5. Accepted, but for further exposition of the facts, see HO# 7. Accepted. See HO# 5. Accepted. See HO# 6 and # 7. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 8. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO# 8. Rejected. See HO# 10. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 11. Accepted. See HO# 12. Accepted. See HO# 12. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HOC 27. Accepted. See HO# 13. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO# 13. Rejected. Irrelevant to pleadings. See HO# 13. Rejected. Irrelevant to pleadings. See HO# 13. Accepted. See HO# 14. Accepted. See HO# 14. Accepted. See HO# 14. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 17. Accepted. See HO# 18. Accepted. See 1O# 18. 43.-48. Not provided to the Hearing Officer. Accepted. See HO# 18. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 19. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 19. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. See HO# 20. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO# 27. Accepted. See HO# 19. Accepted. See HO# 20. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO# 25 and #27. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO# 25. Rejected. See HO# 27. Rejected. Irrelevant. Improper shifting of burdens of proof. Not an ultimate issue in these proceedings. Rejected. Immaterial. Outside the scope of the pleadings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. A co-signer was required on any checks signed by Ms. Delaney. Rejected. Outside the scope of the pleadings. Accepted that Respondent Wolfe was not personally involved in the wrongdoings committed by Ms. Delaney. See HO# 25. The rest of paragraph 84 is rejected as argumentative. Rejected. Irrelevant - Argumentative. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. Argument as opposed to proposed finding of fact. Improper summary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO# 2. Accepted. See HO# 3. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted the first statement in paragraph 4. See HO# 9. The rest is rejected a- irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 26. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not established by competent evidence. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary with many factual conclusions that are immaterial to the allegationS in the Administrative Complaint. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Not established by competent evidence. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 27. Accepted. Accepted. See HO# 25. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper summary. For rulings on each transaction, refer to Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order. Accepted. See HO# 25. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Joseph D. Stewart, Esquire Hardt & Stewart 801 Laurel Oak Drive Suite 705, Sun Bank Building Naples, Florida 33963 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On December 31, 1997, the Department of Insurance issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order against Petitioner, alleging that Petitioner is engaged in the legal expense insurance business in the State of Florida without being licensed. The Department alleges that Petitioner is in violation of several statutory provisions requiring licensure. Petitioner timely requested an evidentiary proceeding regarding the allegations contained within that Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order. Jurisdiction over the matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 28, 1998, to conduct the evidentiary proceeding. The matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 98-0442. By Notice of Hearing entered February 17, 1998, that cause was scheduled for final hearing on June 15 and 16, 1998, and the parties have engaged in extensive discovery. By agreement of the parties that cause was re-scheduled several times and then was placed in abeyance. On February 24, 1999, Petitioner filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings its Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Existing Rule and Unpromulgated Rule. That Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 99-0771RX, was consolidated with DOAH Case No. 98-0442, and is the subject of this Final Order. The Petition asserts the invalidity of the Department's Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, and the invalidity of an alleged unpromulgated rule consisting of a statement by the Department that the amount of the membership fee Petitioner charges its members will determine whether Petitioner is a legal expense insurance corporation subject to regulation under Chapter 642, Florida Statutes. The existing Rule and the alleged unpromulgated rule are the subject of the Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order and the Department's Cross Motion for Summary Final Order. Petitioner alleges that Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because (a) it enlarges, modifies, and contravenes specific provisions of the statute it purports to implement; (b) the Department exceeded its rulemaking authority; and (c) the Department materially failed to follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, by failing to repeal a rule for which there was no legislative rulemaking authority. Petitioner argues that the Department's alleged unpromulgated rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because (a) the statement is an unpromulgated rule; (b) the statement enlarges, modifies, and contravenes specific provisions of the statute it purports to implement; and (c) the statement is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for the Department's decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The Department's Cross Motion for Summary Final Order alleges that Petitioner lacks standing to assert its challenges, that the challenge to the existing Rule is moot, and that the alleged unpromulgated rule does not exist. Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, relates to exemptions from the statutory definition of "legal expense insurance." The Department's Notice of Intent to Issue Cease and Desist Order does not allege that Petitioner has violated that Rule and does not even cite to that Rule as a basis for the Department's action against Petitioner. Since Petitioner is not charged with violating that Rule, Petitioner cannot show that it is substantially affected by the Rule. Further, the Department has now commenced the repeal of that Rule and has filed in this cause an affidavit from the Department's Bureau Chief of Specialty Insurers that Rule 4-201.003, Florida Administrative Code, has not been and will not be used against Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 98-0442 or in any other enforcement proceeding. As to the alleged unpromulgated rule, the record in this cause reveals that the Department in both correspondence and conversations with Petitioner raised a concern about the amount of Petitioner's membership fees in re-considering whether Petitioner is a lawyer referral service or a legal expense insurer. However, Petitioner does not allege that the amount of the membership fee has been considered as to any entity other than Petitioner. Conversely, the Department has filed affidavits from the Bureau Chief of Specialty Insurers and from the employee charged with handling licensure of legal expense insurers on a day-to-day basis that they have never heard of a Department policy in which the price of a legal service plan determines whether that plan is legal expense insurance. Those affidavits further state that no such policy has been applied by the Department and that the first time the Department heard of such a policy is when Petitioner asserted that such a policy existed. Accordingly, since it has not been shown that such a policy exists, it cannot be shown that the alleged policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule.
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
The Issue Whether or not all or part of the 40 statements challenged in the petition of Great American Reserve Insurance Company violate Section 120.535 F.S. requiring the agency to immediately discontinue all reliance upon the statements or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1994, Petitioner filed a petition for administrative determination of agency statement. The petition listed the following agency statements and alleged that each constituted a rule pursuant to Chapter 120.52(16), F.S. which had not been adopted by the rulemaking procedures provided by Section 120.54 F.S. [1993]. The challenged statements are as follows: Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please provide the following information for each approved and pending annuity contract: Form number. Name of form, if any. Date approved or if pending. What are the surrender charges and for how long? What is the initial interest rate and for how long? What is the guaranteed interest rate? Are there any bonuses? If so, for how long and under what circumstances are they paid? Is this annuity two-tier? If so, how is interest applied? What field compensation is paid for each variation? Are any of these forms field issue that allow the agent to write in the current rate of interest? If so, what controls are in place to guarantee accuracy? Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please list any other annuities offered by the company and their corresponding contract maintenance fees, administration charges, surrender charges, etc. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please provide the agent compensation levels associated with each form and/or set of surrender charges. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please describe the specific calculation basis of the various annuity purchase rates/settlement options. Please include sample calculations of all options at a selected age(s). Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: What percentage sales are expected to be replacements of an existing contract? Please identify the replacement percentages by source (internal, external, 1035 exchanges, etc.). Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: [Provide] a brief description of the market and marketing method. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please provide the following: Agency training procedures as they relate to this form, Any brochures provided to agents which refer to this form, Any guidelines to assure that policy comparisons are accurate and fair, Standards to ensure that no marketing methods are used which would have the effect of inducing replacement sales through misleading representations, and All forms, other than those required by Rule 4-151.006 and 4-151.007(3)(b), used to a execute replacement sales. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please describe the company's practice concerning credited interest rates for annuity products in renewal years. Does the credited interest rate on a given date vary by the duration of the policy within a policy form block of business? If so, please describe the relationship between the various rates. How is this practice disclosed in sales literature for its products? On an annuity policy, varying the death benefit by issue age and duration is unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541(1)(g). It is not appropriate to vary the death benefit by age at death for an annuity policy. Variation of surrender charges in an annuity policy by age results in unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541(1)(g). Basing the surrender charge in an annuity policy on the age of the annuitant is unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541(1)(a). Where surrender charges, which are guaranteed in an annuity contract, vary between forms and the policy parameters, which vary in support of these different surrender charges (interest, bonuses, etc.), are not guaranteed in the contract, if a company were to have products with different surrender charges this would constitute unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541. Unfair discrimination is prohibited under annuity contracts by Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(g). The Department continues to receive filings with many variations of interest rates and surrender charges for which the surrender charges are guaranteed and the interest rates are not. These many combinations, applied to the same type contracts, violate this statute. If a single insurance company offers more than one annuity policy in the same market in Florida, the values to the purchaser pursuant to guaranteed parameters under each policy must be actuarially equivalent to those of each other policy. A withdrawal provision in an annuity contract which waives surrender charges on all or part of a partial surrender but imposes surrender charges on all of a total surrender will produce unfair discrimination. Proposed interest rate differentials must result in compensatory guarantees across whatever number of free withdrawal options are made available in an annuity contract for a block of business. It is the position of the Florida Department of Insurance that where multiple annuity products are presented for approval in the State of Florida that the examination of the guaranteed parameters of the policies must all result in the same actuarially equivalent benefit to the beneficiary of the policy for a block of business. If you looked at a block of business sold under each policy, taking into account the distribution of that business and the persistency patterns of that business over the life of that block of business, there must be a comparable return to the policyholder. Less than half a point would be considered approaching reasonable. In an annuity policy, where the present value at death of the amount of death benefit paid is based on the manner in which it will be paid, this is discriminatory pursuant to Ch. 626.9541. It should be revised so that the death benefit options are actuarially equivalent. Each settlement option which may be exercised under an annuity policy must be the actuarial equivalent of each other settlement option offered under that policy. Settlement options offered in an annuity policy may not vary based on the age of the policyholder. An annuity policy may not contain a one direction market value adjustment. One direction MVA does not provide equitable treatment. such an adjustment should be allowed to move equally in both directions to prevent inequitable and discriminatory treatment under Ch. 626.9541. The Department of Insurance mandates compliance with the provision in the current draft of the standard non-forfeiture law for annuities that guaranteed minimum annuitization rates must be at least that guaranteed during the accumulation phase, for a policy not to violate Ch. 626.9541(1)(a) and Ch. 627.411(2). In an annuity contract, the guaranteed minimum annuitization rate may not be less than the guaranteed minimum accumulation rate, per the current draft of the standard non- forfeiture law for deferred annuities. The Department considers a minimal measure of benefits being reasonable in relation to premiums under Ch. 627.411(2), to be compliance with the standard non-forfeiture law. The guaranteed minimum annuitization rate in an annuity policy may not be less than the guaranteed minimum accumulation rate, per the current draft of the standard non-forfeiture law for deferred annuities. The Department continues to feel that attribution of mortality expense charge to variations in the annuitization phase is inappropriate. The current draft of the standard non-forfeiture law for deferred annuitities allows use of projection scale G to be applied to the 1993 table a to account for possible future mortality improvement. It would also appear inappropriate to deduct a mortality charge in the annuitization phase for a mortality risk from the accumulation phase, as the risk no longer exists. Annuity policy forms may not be approved unless all sales brochures and literature are submitted with the forms. All annuity contracts must contain a table of guaranteed values. A table of guaranteed values in an annuity policy must demonstrate any available partial withdrawals not subject to surrender charges, even if the free partial withdrawal provisions are set out in the policy. An annuity contract must include a table of guaranteed minimum annuitization rates. Current company practice may not be presented in the illustration or brochure as a product characteristic of an annuity policy. Only contractually guaranteed items may be presented as policy parameters. If a contract contains proposed provisions which would allow the company to reserve the right to make future changes in charges, guarantees or contractual provisions in the policy, this would violate Ch. 627.474. A sales illustration in an annuity policy must display surrender values, even if the surrender charges are disclosed in the illustration. An illustration in advertising of an annuity policy must demonstrate any available partial withdrawals not subject to surrender charges, even if the terms of a free partial withdrawal provisions are set out in the advertising. Computer generated sales illustrations for annuity policies must include the following: Name of the person that the illustration is prepared for. Name of the agent preparing the illustration. A current date. A proposed date of maturity. Disclosure of all expense charges including a clear statement of the surrender charges. An illustration in advertising of a one tier annuity policy must specify the maturity date. The agent is not permitted to write in the current interest rate in the sales brochure. Death benefits or settlement options in an annuity policy to be sold to males and females must be based on male mortality tables for men, female mortality tables for women or gender blended mortality tables. Statements 1-8 challenge forms used by the Department of Insurance soliciting the enumerated information. Statements 9-40 challenge statements of policy used by the Department in review of annuity insurance policy and advertising forms. Between the filing of the Petition herein and the date of formal hearing, the Respondent agency filed a notice of rule development workshop. (See Finding of Fact 36) The parties stipulated: That Petitioner has standing herein as a person substantially affected by the agency statements challenged in the petition herein. That each challenged agency statement is an agency statement defined as a rule under Section 120.52(16) F.S.; and That none of the challenged agency statements have been adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided by Section 120.54 F.S. [1993]. By reason of the parties' stipulations, the only matter to be determined is whether or not the agency is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address the statements challenged by the petition herein. In an effort to establish minimal standards on a wide variety of issues, the Department of Insurance and State Treasurer has recently tried to approach rulemaking in a holistic or coordinated manner among its various bureaus and areas of technical expertise instead of piecemeal, as historically. In 1989-1990, the agency adopted 225 forms as rules, reducing the number of forms in use from 800. Its last wholesale rules review and revision occurred in the fall of 1991, partly in response to the legislative creation of Section 120.535 F.S., was internally code-named "the rules reorganization project," and met the statutory March 1, 1992 deadline to formalize existing non-rule policies. Both projects were conducted under the oversite of agency attorney Ruth L. Gokel, of the agency's legislative and rules section. Since then, the agency has largely deferred to its technical experts to initiate rulemaking, and not to its lawyers. However, anytime a regulatory employee approaches the legislative and rules section, that section immediately initiates rulemaking procedures. While Ms. Gokel does not provide routine oversite to the agency's bureaus or divisions to determine whether they are routinely using non-rule policy, she has the authority to recommend to agency bureaus and divisions that they are in need of rules. Because she is familiar with the complex processes for promulgating rules, she coordinates much of the agency's rule drafting. Ms. Gokel created a departmental manual on rulemaking in June 1991. The manual was published after enactment of Section 120.535 F.S. Portions of that manual, upon which Petitioner strongly relies, provides: any interpretation of a statute or any requirement generally imposed on agents, companies or other regulated entities as a group which has not been adopted as a rule, is a non-rule policy. * * * The first time we interpret a statute and apply it to a particular fact situation, the interpretation is not as yet a statement of general applicability and thus is not a rule. The second time an issue arises . . . we need to begin to formulate a rule. The third or fourth time a statute is interpreted and applied in a given manner, a rule should be published. Petitioner views this manual as binding upon the agency to begin rulemaking in some form immediately upon any agency employee imposing any statutory interpretation for the first time and even if the statutory interpretation is still only part of an individual's mental process. Petitioner also views the manual as requiring the agency to publish a rule upon the third or forth similar interpretation. However, the competent substantial evidence as a whole shows that the manual's pronouncements were, at best, aspirational. The manual was designed as the agency's first best attempt to educate its non-lawyer experts concerning their responsibilities under a new law, to ensure agency compliance with the new law by "picking up any non-rule policy floating around", to head off potential violations of the new law, and to minimize the number of potential petitions challenging agency statements under the new law. The manual also was in line with the agency's new evolving coordinated approach to rulemaking. The manual is designed to alert laymen to rulemaking problems, and was revised in December 1993. It will continue to be revised periodically. Prior to the filing of the Petition herein, the Department adopted checklists to aid insurers in their submission of policy forms and to aid the Department staff in their reviews of such form filings. The checklists are adopted as forms in Part II of Rule Chapter 4-149. Prior to the filing of the Petition herein, the Department adopted rules governing the review of advertising material for annuities. Those rules may be found in Part II of Rule Chapter 4-150. The Department has conducted actuarial reviews of annuity filings only since May of 1992. Although there were no statutory changes on or about that date, the Department was motivated to institute much closer scrutiny of annuities and the sale of annuities in this state as a result of the rule challenges to the Department's "bank rules", Chapter 4-223 F.A.C. Actuarial review by the agency has evolved in order to ensure that the products are clearly presented, that they are not unfairly discriminatory, that the sales presentations and contracts are not misleading, and that the product has not been designed for use with inappropriate marketing practices. These are statutorily permissible goals. See, Chapter 627 F.S. Of necessity, the Department review must combine its regulatory concerns into one cohesive set of policy statements. The actuarial review of annuities was first conducted by actuary Mike Morgan from May 1992 to about February 1993, when that responsibility was assumed by another Department actuary, Tom Foley. In December, 1993, the responsibility shifted to yet another Department actuary, Linda Ziegler. During the course of the reviews performed by each of these agency employees, judgments were made as to particular aspects of the actuarial review. Those judgments regarding the particular forms being reviewed were expressed in letters to the companies involved. Some of these letters were requests for additional information. If the additional information were supplied and, in the opinion of the reviewing actuary, it did not result in a violation of Florida statutes or rules, then the filing was approved. If the reviewing actuary found a violation based on the additional information, the filing was disapproved. Other letters were disapproval letters after a complete review of all the requested information. Actuarial review is an arcane business involving informed consideration of many different aspects of a filing. The decision to approve or disapprove is made on the basis of the totality of the filing. It may be that one aspect of a particular filing might not be entirely within the required parameters in the judgment of the actuary, but that aspect, in that particular filing, might be offset by another aspect, which in turn would render the filing approvable. All pieces of the whole are interrelated and the whole is complex. When Ms. Ziegler became responsible for the filings, she consulted with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Foley. Over the course of the two years of review, the actuaries involved wrote several hundred letters addressing actuarial issues on a situation by situation basis as each situation arose. Between December 1993 and the filing of the Petition herein, Ms. Ziegler was the responsible reviewing actuary. During those approximately six months, Ms. Ziegler consistently and uniformly applied the statements challenged to every application for annuity policy form and advertising form approval filed. Thus, even those statements used relatively few times have been used every time the policy embodied in the statement could have been applied. Additionally, departmental letters to insurance company applicants for approval of annuity policy and advertising forms, some 630 separate applications of challenged statement numbers 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 40, related to unfair discrimination pursuant to Section 627.9541(1)(g) F.S. Challenged statement number 29 has been the articulated agency policy for at least 21 months, since the issuance of Department of Insurance Informational Bulletin 92-032 issued October 21, 1992. In January of 1994, Mike Morgan drafted language intended for the agency's legislative package for the 1994 session to address parts of the problem of actuarial review statutorily. Although agency personnel believed the agency had, and has, authority to perform these reviews, Ms. Ziegler testified that it is always better if matters are addressed by specific statutes because they are then much less subject to challenge. The Legislature did not address the issue of annuities in 1994. However, Mr. Morgan's work remained available to Ms. Ziegler when she began drafting what eventually became the Department's proposed rules on the subject. In March 1994, Ms. Ziegler began work on a draft bulletin to send to the companies to inform them in a more comprehensive way of the Department's current interpretations of several parts of the actuarial review problem. At about that time, she met with Department attorney Dennis Silverman who advised that eventually she would need to pursue rulemaking. Ms. Zeigler was unavoidably absent from the workplace at some time during this period due to an accident. When she returned to her office, she prioritized what she considered "more immediate" work. In May 1994, Ms. Ziegler returned to the draft bulletin, made a few minor changes, and then abandoned the project in favor of proposed rules. The Petition in this cause was filed June 13, 1994. Ms. Ziegler was aware that the forty statements had been challenged by the Petition shortly after the Petition herein was filed. In the third week of June 1994, Ms. Ziegler sought out Ms. Gokel. At that time, Ms. Ziegler had draft rules she felt cohesively addressed the actuarial review necessities, including addressing certain misleading sales practices. She also had several of the checklists adopted in Part II of Chapter 4-149 F.A.C. on which she had drafted proposed changes. Her comprehensive package addressed the totality of the necessary review and, as a result, also addressed each of the forty statements challenged in the pending Petition. Ms. Ziegler represented to Ms. Gokel that she was comfortable with the whole package and was ready to go public with it. Ms. Gokel informed Ms. Ziegler that since February, 1994 Ms. Gokel had had an assignment to make changes to the same checklists and had already had two meetings, in February and in March, with two other members of the Department regarding the same matter. Yet another member of the Department, Kim Forrester, had been working on proposed changes to the advertising rules in Part II of Chapter 4-150 F.A.C. Ms. Forrester was working with another departmental attorney, so in line with the agency's comprehensive approach to rules, Ms. Gokel had the foregoing assignment transferred to her. Based upon Ms. Gokel's considerable education, training, and experience in rulemaking, her understanding of agency policy concerning the need for and use of rule development workshops, the great amount of insurance industry interest which can reasonably be anticipated for the draft rules, and her personal knowledge regarding the complexity and breadth of the actuarial matters addressed in the draft rules, Ms. Gokel determined that a rule development workshop was essential. Rule workshops have been more the norm than the exception with this agency since at least 1992. The agency published its Notice of Rule Development Workshop in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 1, 1994. The notice stated that a preliminary draft of the rules would be available for distribution on July 22, 1994, and that the workshop would be held on August 23, 1994, from 2 to 4 p.m. Respondent's witnesses affirmatively demonstrated significant planning and tangible steps that have been taken in furtherance of the rulemaking process since the filing of the foregoing notice. Ms. Gokel has devised a feasible preparatory checklist or schedule for meeting the deadlines announced in the published notice. Between publication of the Notice of Rule Development Workshop and formal hearing, something has been accomplished almost every day. In accord with this schedule, Ms. Gokel has once again met with Ms. Ziegler to discuss the proposed changes; has worked on the needed changes to the checklists with the secretary in the Bureau of Life and Health Forms and Rates because those checklists are documents in the "Lotus Notes" software program not available to Ms. Gokel in the agency's legislative and rules section; has reviewed the statutory authority supplied by Ms. Ziegler and has added the history notes where they were missing in the draft prepared by Ms. Ziegler; has incorporated Ms. Ziegler's and Ms. Forrester's proposed changes into the draft of the advertising rules; has reworked Ms. Ziegler's and Ms. Forrester's drafts for compliance with the Secretary of State's filing requirements; and has produced preliminary rule drafts. These steps have been expeditious and are themselves tangible evidence of the agency's current good faith efforts in the rulemaking procedure. Other steps listed by Ms. Gokel as necessary remained to be accomplished after formal hearing. Those included a meeting between Ms. Gokel and Ms. Forrester about the advertising rules; preparation of the existing rules which adopt the checklists showing the new revision dates; a meeting with Ms. Ziegler to discuss another proposed new rule in the actuarial review rules; a comprehensive review of the history notes; consolidation of the existing drafts into a single document for distribution as noticed for July 22, 1994; and preparation of the sign-in sheets and agenda for the workshop noticed for August 23, 1994. Provisions for timely accomplishing these tasks has been made on Ms. Gokel's schedule. As of the date of formal hearing, Ms. Gokel had already discovered several other statutory sections which should have been included in the Notice of Rule Development Workshop. She expressed the intent to file an amended notice reciting the additional statutory authority, but not otherwise changing the date or time of the workshop. This discovery represents at least one advantage of a comprehensive approach to agency rule drafting as practiced by this agency. Once the workshop draft has been distributed on July 22, 1994, the agency anticipates holding the workshop on August 23, 1994 and leaving the record open for written comments if appropriate. The agency's current intent is to leave the record open for only two weeks, which the agency's past workshopping experience has proven sufficient. Although this period could be extended further, there is no evidence in this record to suppose it will be. After the record closes, the plan is for agency personnel to conduct an internal review of the comments that were received, if any; Ms. Gokel will prepare a revised draft of the rules, as warranted, and will circulate an internal route slip for approval of the agency "senior management" involved. Only the lattermost effort of the route slip is an internal procedure peculiar to this agency and is not a requirement of Chapter 120 F.S. Historically, this route slip procedure has been ministerial and has only taken a few days. There is no clear evidence to show it will be different or take longer this time. Finally, the agency will have to file for notice, pursuant to Section 120.54 F.S. Petitioner presented only speculation to the effect that the foregoing schedule would not be met. The agency's assessment that in the area of actuarial review, moving from "first-time-ever" review of annuities to a comprehensive rule package in two years is the rulemaking equivalent of the "speed of light," may be more colorful than informative and is not binding upon the finder of fact, but the foregoing agency schedule and the agency's actions thereon are found to be currently expeditious in the circumstances of the number and type of rules necessary for such complex subject matter. If any challenged statement were not being addressed by the rulemaking process, the agency would have been unable to demonstrate that the agency rulemaking process is currently proceeding expeditiously and in good faith. However, here, the agency affirmatively demonstrated through unrefuted testimony that its draft rules have addressed, with at least some degree of particularity, each of the forty statements challenged by the Petition. Statements (1) and (2) of the Petition for Administrative Determination of Agency Statement involve requests for information of a company as to the other annuity products which the company is offering, have approved or are pending approval. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (3) of the Petition involves a request for information concerning the agent compensation levels paid on the proposed product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (4) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding a specific description of the basis of the guaranteed minimum annuitization rates in the contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (5) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding sales of the product which are expected to be replacements of existing coverage. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, and DI4-556. Statement (6) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding the market to be targeted and the marketing method to be used with respect to the proposed form. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-549, DI4-551, DI4-555, DI4- 556, and DI4-557. Statement (7) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding the agency training methods to be used with respect to the proposed form. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1 Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (8) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding the credited interest rates in renewal years and their disclosure to consumers as practiced by the company. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4- 557. Statements (9) and (10) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., in the death benefit offered in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.064(2)(a)3. Statements (11) and (12) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., in the variation of surrender charges by age in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.065(4). Statements (13), (14), (15), and (18) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., between essentially identical products which have variations in guaranteed surrender charges, and other guaranteed parameters, and do not provide comparable benefits for premiums paid for the annuity products. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft Rule 4-149.071, Petitioner's Exhibit I. Statement (16) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., between policyholders of the same annuity form in treatment under the withdrawal provisions. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.065(4)(c). Statement (17) of the Petition addresses a special case scenario of the Department's concern as expressed in statements (13), (14), (15), (18). This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.071. Statement (19) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S. regarding the payment of a death benefit. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.066, and 4- 149.064(2)(a)3. Statement (20) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., in the value of the annuitization value available in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.066. Statement (21) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S. in the choice of annuitization options available in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.066. Statements (22) and (23) of the Petition address the Department's concern about misrepresentation and unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(a) and (g), F.S., in the inclusion of a Market Value Adjustment which affects the policy in only one direction. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.067(2). Statements (24), (25), and (27) of the Petition address the Department's concerns about misrepresentation under Section 626.9541(1)(a), F.S., and ambiguity and reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(1)(b), and (2), F.S. in the interest rate component of the guaranteed minimum annuitization rates in the annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.064(2)(a)4. Statement (26) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(2), F.S. for an annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.064(2)(a). Statement (28) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(2), F.S., in the treatment of charges under an annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.064(2)(c). Statement (29) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about timely review and approval of sales literature as noticed by Bulletin 93- 032's expression of existing Rule 4-150.120 F.A.C.. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-549, DI4-550, DI4-551, and DI4-555. Statements (30) and (31) of the Petition involve a requirement for the contract to contain an accurate table of guaranteed values, to prevent ambiguity under Section 627.411 (1)(b), F.S. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, DI4-557. Statement (32) of the Petition involves a requirement for the contract to contain an accurate table of guaranteed minimum annuitization values, to prevent ambiguity under Section 627.411(1)(b), F.S. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, DI4-557. Statement (33) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 4-150.105(1)(a). Statement (34) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern that a contract explicitly describe policy provisions over the life of the contract, under Section 627.474, F.S. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (35) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 40150.105(1)(b). Statement (36) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105(1)(f) F.A.C.. Statement (37) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 4-150.105. The requirement expressed by statement (37)(e), is presently found in currently promulgated Rule 4-150.106(1). Statement (38) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft Rule 4-150.105(1)(e). Statement (39) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 4-150.105(1)(d). Statement (40) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(2), F.S., and unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S. in the value of the death benefits and guaranteed annuitization rates for an annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.064(2)(a)4. The testimony that the forty challenged statements are addressed in the Department's draft rules [Pet.I, J; Resp. 1], as set forth above, is uncontroverted. The Petitioner did not present any evidence nor elicit any testimony refuting or otherwise discrediting this testimony on that issue.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Randy Clinton Latta, was licensed by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida as a life and health, (debit), agent; a life and health agent; a general lines agent limited to industrial fire; and a health insurance agent. He was employed as a sales representative by the United Insurance Company of America, (United). The Petitioner, Department of Insurance, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of insurance agents in Florida. When Respondent was hired by United, he was issued a copy of the company's compensation plan brochure which outlined the way the agent was compensated for sales on the company's behalf and the agent's responsibilities for remitting premium collections to it. Respondent acknowledged receipt and acceptance of the terms of the plan on May 6, 1990. At page 22, the brochure provides: Any money you receive on behalf of United must be properly accounted for and promptly paid to United. All money must be deposited with the Company on or before the weekly settlement day. United may, at any time, audit your books and accounts. Books or records that contain entries made by you that show you collected money for United are conclusive evidence that you have collected the money. On March 19, 1992, United terminated Respondent from employment with the company because an audit of his and the company's records regarding his accounts reflected a deficiency. The records indicated that he had collected but not remitted to the company the sum of $1,655.48. Offset against that figure was the sum of $324.07 representing credits to his account and a deposit he made. The initial net shortage was $1,331.41. In addition to the initial shortage, supplemental field audits reflected two additional shortages of $27.43 and $29.79 which created a total shortage of $1,388.63. From that amount was subsequently deducted Respondent's bond of $258.34, leaving a final debt to the company of $1,100.50. Respondent admits to collecting some of the money claimed to be owed by him but not all. He asserts he has requested proof of his obligation from the company on several occasions but has not been given what he considers to be adequate evidence of his debt and wrongdoing. He claims to have also asked the office of the Insurance Commissioner for all supporting documentation and the premium receipt books relating to his accounts without success. He claims he resigned from employment with United on March 16, 1992, (the form shows involuntary termination as well as voluntary), because he was not satisfied with the conditions of employment. At that time, he was advised there was a deficiency in his accounts but it was not proven to his satisfaction. Respondent claims not to know if his books were in error or not. He contends that his letter to the company of May 11, 1992, in which he refers to "my bookkeeping error" was not an admission of error but merely acknowledges the company's allegation of error. Respondent presented no records of the funds he collected or what funds he remitted to the company. He claims there was no requirement he keep copies of the forms he submitted to the company, and, therefore, he has no documentary evidence to support his claims of compliance with the requirements of the remittance provision. In light of the above, there is no reasonable alternative to accept the company's figures as to the amount owed. Mr. Latta was subsequently charged with grand theft in regard to the shortages alleged. Though he claims he plead nolo contendere to the charge, the court document introduced into evidence at this hearing reflects he plead guilty and was placed on probation for 2 years on condition of paying restitution. He has been meeting the terms of his probation by making the required restitution payments to the court for transmittal to the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Randy Clinton Latta's licenses as a life and health (debit) agent; a life and health agent; a general lines agent - limited to industrial fire, and a health insurance agent in Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1993, 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 10th day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Randy Clinton Latta 2114 Karolina Winter Park, Florida 32789 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
