Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Francis Edward Neuzil, Jr. (Respondent), was certified as a firefighter and firesafety inspector in the State of Florida, holding certificates 7360 and FI-39965, respectively. Respondent's firefighter certification was issued on or about February 22, 1979, and his firesafety inspector certification was issued on or about January 9, 1985. On or about December 20, 1991, Respondent was charged by Information with one count of grand theft in the Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, in Case No. 91-23492CF10. On or about May 11, 1992, Respondent plead nolo contendere to grand theft for violating Subsection 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was placed on 18 months probation with special conditions of 50 hours of community service and no consumption of drugs or alcohol. On or about January 14, 1993, the court terminated Respondent's probation, approximately 10 months prior to the scheduled time for his probation to end. The incident which led to Respondent's felony charge occurred on or about December 7 or 8, 1991, at a Sam's store in Broward County after 11:00 p.m. A sprinkler system was being installed and was sufficiently completed for inspection by a firesafety inspector. Respondent went to Sam's store acting in the capacity of a firesafety inspector. Originally, he had estimated that only 10 minutes would be needed to accomplish his task--check the water gauges--but the sprinkler installers were behind schedule and it took approximately an hour. Prior to arriving at Sam's, Respondent had consumed approximately 10 beers. While waiting to perform the inspection, Respondent, who was not in uniform, walked around in the store, consuming an unknown quantity of beers that he had brought into the store with him. Respondent was observed by an electrical worker and several of Sam's employees who either saw him drinking beer or smelled the alcohol on his person and who either knew who he was or were told by other workers or employees who he was. These same individuals witnessed Respondent take several items to the rear entrance--through which everyone working that night or morning was coming and going--and out of the store. Respondent did not attempt to conceal the items. None of the individuals questioned Respondent about the items or stopped him. However, one employee contacted a Sam's manager who was present. They discovered store items were missing, went to Respondent's vehicle which was parked at the rear entrance, as was everyone else's vehicle, and saw the items inside his vehicle. Law enforcement was called, and Respondent was arrested. All the people who saw Respondent at Sam's store believe that he was intoxicated. Respondent has little or no recollection of the incident, and what he does recall is vague. He does not recall taking the items, all of which were items that he had seen before in Sam's and wanted for the Boy Scouts with whom he volunteers. However, he does recall picking up a light bulb and an electrical cord with no ends to it. As a result of the incident, Respondent was suspended by the Fire Chief of the City of Miramar and has not acted in the capacity as a firesafety inspector since December 1991. Even though Respondent pled nolo contendere to the felony charge of grand theft, mitigating circumstances exist, both at the time of the incident and subsequent thereto. Medically, Respondent is diagnosed as an alcoholic, having the disease alcoholism. During the incident, he suffered an alcoholic blackout and, as a result, has little or no recollection of taking the items. Furthermore, Respondent was incapable of forming the requisite intent to steal the items. Additionally, immediately after the incident, he sought treatment and checked himself into a rehabilitation center. Respondent is now a recovering alcoholic. He regularly attends meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and is monitored by a sponsor who is also a professional firefighter (10 years) and a recovering alcoholic (approximately six years). Further, since January 1992, Respondent has been receiving medical assistance with his alcoholism. Even though he needs to remain in a recovery program, he does not pose a threat to his profession. 1/ Moreover, during Respondent's career as a firefighter (almost 15 years) and firesafety inspector (almost nine years), his certifications have never been disciplined and he has been actively participating in his community. Through his community involvement, Respondent established the City of Miramar's Fire Prevention Bureau and raised money to fund the Bureau. Additionally, he has received many job-related commendations and service recognitions and he has volunteered extensively to work with service organizations, such as the Boy Scouts. Petitioner's consistent policy is to not consider mitigating factors in disciplinary action against a firesafety inspector's certification. In matters involving a plea of nolo contendere, the consistent policy is that an applicant for firesafety inspector will not be issued a certification and that, if the individual has been issued a certification, Petitioner will seek revocation of the certification, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Petitioner is not seeking to discipline Respondent's certification as a firefighter since his certification, by statute [Section 633.351(2), Florida Statutes], was revoked until termination of his probation which occurred on January 14, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Suspending Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector for a period of two years, retroactive to May 11, 1992, the date of Respondent's plea of nolo contendere. Reinstating Respondent's certification at the conclusion of the suspension and thereafter, for a period of one year, placing Respondent's certification on probation under whatever terms and conditions that Petitioner deems just and appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1993.
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for Class 0701 and Class 0704 Fire Equipment Dealer license and Class 0901 and Class 0904 Fire Equipment permit be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of issuing licenses and permits under Chapter 633, Florida Statutes, and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. By Final Order dated September 8, 1993, the Department revoked all licenses and permits previously issued to Petitioner under Chapter 633, Florida Statutes, for a period of five years. During this revocation period Petitioner was prohibited from engaging in any type of business requiring a license or permit under Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. After the revocation period expired, Petitioner filed an application with the Department for the issuance of a Class 0701 and Class 0704 Fire Equipment Dealer License and a Class 0901 and Class 0904 Fire Equipment Permit. By letter of denial dated December 30, 1998, the Department advised Petitioner that the Department was denying Petitioner's application for licensure on the basis that Petitioner had conducted business contrary to the provisions of the Department's Final Order dated September 8, 1999. Subsequently, the Department moved to amend its initial letter of denial dated December 30, 1998. The motion was granted and this matter proceeded forward on the amended letter of denial. The amended denial letter provided in pertinent part as follows: Investigation of your activities during the period of revocation resulted in a determination that you have conducted business contrary to the provisions of the Department's Final Order issued September 1993, therefore your request for licensure has been reviewed and must be denied. You continued to engage in the business of servicing, repairing and inspecting preengineered systems without being licensed by soliciting companies for the purposes of servicing their preengineered systems and by making arrangements with Rogers Fire Protection of Dade City, Florida for the performance of these services, and then by receiving a payment or "kickback" for the servicing of these extinguishers and systems. You also continued to engage in the business of servicing, repairing and inspecting fire extinguishers and preengineered systems without being licensed by supervising and training employees who service, repair, inspect and/or install fire extinguishers and/or preengineered systems. The amended denial letter also advised Petitioner that such activity was in violation of Section 633.061(1), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was co-owner of Canady CO2 Gas Co. and Canady Fire Equipment Co.(Canady Co.) located in Lakeland, Florida. Richard Dawley was co-owner of Canady Co. with Petitioner from October 1996 through 1997. During the years 1996 and 1997, Daniel Dawley, Billy Benton, and Todd Gardner were employed by Canady Co. During the years of 1996 and 1997, all of the employees of Canady Co. and Richard Dawley were licensed by the office of the State Fire Marshall pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes which allowed all of them to engage in the business of servicing portable fire extinguishers. During the years 1996 and 1997, neither the owners nor any of the employees of Canady Co. were licensed to service, test, inspect, repair, and install preengineered fire systems. During the years 1996 and 1997, Canady Co. sold and delivered C02 cartridges. Before Petitioner's licenses and permits were revoked by Final Order dated September 8, 1993, Petitioner engaged in the business of testing, servicing, inspecting, and repairing preengineered fire systems. During this period of time, Petitioner established customers with whom he maintained contact with after his licenses and permits were revoked. During the years 1996 and 1997, Canady Co. ran an advertisement in the yellow pages which advertised "Automatic Kitchen Hood Fire Systems, Kitchen Hoods Installed W/Exhaust Fans, Kitchen Hoods & Exhaust Ducts Cleaned, and Kitchen Hood Filters." Petitioner sold this type fire equipment but was not licensed to test, install, repair, service, or inspect such equipment. There is nothing in the advertisement to indicate that Petitioner was licensed to test, install, repair, service, or inspect such fire equipment. There was no evidence that any potential customer or former customer of Petitioner would assume, based on the language of the advertisement, that Petitioner was licensed to test, install, inspect, service, or repair such equipment. Likewise, during the period of revocation, Petitioner did not advise any former customer or potential customer that he was licensed to test, install, repair, service, or inspect fire systems. During 1997, Roy Rogers, owner of Rogers Fire Protection, was licensed to test, install, repair, service, and inspect fire systems. During 1997, Roy Rogers and Petitioner entered into an agreement whereby Petitioner would refer customers to Rogers whose fire systems needed testing, repairing, servicing, or inspection. Roy Rogers would perform this work under his license and bill Petitioner for his regular fee. Petitioner would then bill his customer for the amount charged by Roy Rogers plus a referral fee. The invoice submitted by Petitioner to the customer did not indicate that Roy Rogers had performed the work or that the customer was being charged a referral fee by Petitioner. Upon being paid by the customer. Petitioner would pay Roy Rogers and retain the referral fee. By invoice number 10288 dated May 22, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Range Guard 2.5 gallon Fire Suppression System for Dockside Lounge, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 00260 dated June 2, 1997, Canady Fire Equipment Co. billed Dockside Lounge, Lakeland, Florida $80.00 for services rendered by Rogers which included Petitioner's referral fee of $25.00. Petitioner's referral fee was not stated separately on the invoice. By invoice number 10286 dated May 22, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Kiddle HDR-25 Fire Suppression System for Lakeside Baptist Church, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 00258 dated June 2, 1997, Canady Fire Equipment Co. billed Lakeside Baptist Church, Lakeland, Florida $80.00 for services rendered by Rogers which included Petitioner's referral fee of $25.00. Petitioner's referral fee was not stated separately on the invoice. By invoice number 10287 dated May 22, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Safety First ARS-15C Fire Suppression System for Dove's Nest, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 10285 dated May 22, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Ansul R-102 3-gallon Suppression System for Brothers Bar-B-Q, Lakeland, Florida. On May 27, 1997, Petitioner issued a check in the amount of $220.00 to Rogers Fire Equipment. Although the check does not state which invoice(s) are being paid, the amount equals the total of invoices numbers 10285 through 10288. By invoice number 10294 dated May 27, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Ansul R-101 Fire Suppression System for Silver Ring Cafe, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 10319 dated June 13, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Range Guard 6-gallon Fire Suppression System for the Elks Lodge, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 10320 dated June 13, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Range Guard 2.5-gallon Fire Suppression System for the Plantation Café, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 10343 dated June 27, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $55.00 for testing and inspecting a Range Guard 2.5-gallon Fire Suppression System for Grace Lutheran Church, Lakeland, Florida. On June 2, 1997, Canady Fire Equipment issued a check to Rogers Fire Protection in the amount of $155.00. On June 17, 1997, Canady Fire Equipment issued a check to Rogers Fire Protection in the amount of $122.50. By invoice number 10327 dated June 20, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $105.00 for inspecting and servicing a Range Guard 2.5-gallon Fire Suppression System and for labor and material for Jackie's Caribbean Cuisine, Auburndale, Florida. By invoice number 10328 dated June 21, 1997, Rogers Fire Protection billed Canady Fire Equipment $140.00 for inspecting and servicing a Range Guard 2.5-gallon Fire Suppression System and other labor for other worked performed for Citrus Woods Property Owner's Association, Lakeland, Florida. By invoice number 00400 dated June 21, 1997, Canady Fire Equipment billed Citrus Woods Property Owner's Association $359.90 for services rendered by Rogers Fire Protection which apparently included Petitioner's referral fee. By check dated June 24, 1997, Canady Fire Equipment paid Rogers Fire Protection $245.00 which covered invoice numbers 10327 and 10328. By Fax dated May 15, 1997, Petitioner advised Rogers Fire Protection that Star Foods, Winter Haven, Florida; Chings Place, Lakeland, Florida; Touchdown Eddie's, Lakeland, Florida; Silver Ring Café, Lakeland, Florida; Dove's Nest, Lakeland, Florida; Brothers Bar-B-Q. Lakeland, Florida; and Dockside Lounge, Lakeland, Florida were systems to be serviced and invoiced to Canady Fire Equipment Co. Additionally, Petitioner advised Rogers that each of the above customers had been advised that Petitioner was sending someone to service their systems and that Rogers was to remind the customer that he was doing the work for Petitioner. Petitioner also advised Rogers that Petitioner would invoice the customers for the work. There is insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner supervised or trained employees or Richard Dawley on the servicing or repair of portable fire extinguishers during the time that he was not licensed by the Department, notwithstanding the testimony of Richard Dawley and Daniel Dawley to the contrary of which I find lacks credibility. There is insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner allowed the unlicensed employees of Canady Co to tag fire extinguishers or used another company to certify fire extinguishers, notwithstanding the testimony of Richard Dawley and Daniel Dawley to the contrary of which I find lacks credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for the issuance of Class 0701 and Class 0704 Fire Equipment Dealer license and Class 0901 and Class 0904 Fire Equipment permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 32399-00300 Robert Paine, Esquire 914 South Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803 Mechele R. McBride, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to Class A and D licenses as dealers of fire extinguishers and pre- engineered systems.
Findings Of Fact On June 5, 1997, Petitioners filed applications with Respondent for licensure as Class A and D dealers in fire extinguishers and pre-engineered systems, respectively. Petitioner Judson Schroyer (Schroyer) sought licenses as the qualifier for Petitioner Naples Fire & Safety Corp. (NFS). Respondent denied the applications on the ground that, from August 18-21, 1997, Petitioners had engaged in the regulated business at the Red Lobster restaurant in Naples without the required license. Except for this matter, and the additional basis cited below, Petitioners were otherwise entitled to licensure. On May 15, 1997, Respondent entered an emergency order of suspension of dealer licenses of National Fire & Safety Corporation and its qualifier, Todd Jacobs (Jacobs). Schroyer was and remains the general manager of National Fire & Safety Corporation, and Jacobs is Schroyer’s supervisor. As a result of the suspension of the licenses of National Fire & Safety Corporation and Jacobs, Schroyer’s permit to perform regulated work for his employer was automatically suspended. Several months after Respondent had suspended Petitioners’ licenses and permits, counsel for both parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under the agreement, Respondent would immediately lift the suspension. Jacobs and Schroyer learned that Petitioners' counsel had received an unsigned, final draft settlement agreement on Monday, August 18, 1997. The settlement conditions were acceptable to Petitioners, and Jacobs and Schroyer knew that Petitioners' counsel had signed the agreement and faxed it back the same day to Respondent's counsel for execution by Respondent's representative. On August 18, the general manager of the Red Lobster called National Fire & Safety Corporation and spoke with Jacobs. The general manager described a job involving the installation of a new oven, which would necessitate the relocation of other kitchen equipment a few feet. Thinking that the settlement agreement would be fully executed by then, Jacobs agreed to visit the general manager at the site the following morning. The next morning, Jacobs and Schroyer met the general manager at the Red Lobster. Giving the general manager National Fire & Safety Corporation business cards with their names, Jacobs and Schroyer briefly looked at the pre- engineered system in the kitchen, as the three men walked through the kitchen, and assured the general manager that there would be no problem doing the work in the short timeframe that he required. The purpose of the visit was for marketing, not for preparation for the relatively simple job that the general manager envisioned. Shortly after leaving the Red Lobster, Schroyer realized that Petitioners might not have their licenses and permits reinstated in time to do the job. He conveyed this concern to Jacobs, who spoke with Petitioners' counsel on the evening of August 19 and learned that they could not do the job. Jacobs instructed Schroyer to call another company in Fort Myers, FireMaster, to which Petitioners had referred work during their suspension. Schroyer called a representative of FireMaster, and he agreed to perform the work. FireMaster assigned the job to Ward Read, who, as is authorized by Respondent, held a dual permit, which means that he was permitted to work for two licensed dealers. One was National Fire & Safety Corporation, and the other was FireMaster. Mr. Read reported to the Red Lobster in the predawn hours of August 21, as requested by the general manager of Red Lobster. Because his FireMaster truck had insufficient supplies, Mr. Read used an NFS truck, but the equipment tags, inspection report, and invoice on the Red Lobster job all bore the name of FireMaster. At all times, Jacobs alone dealt with the Red Lobster general manager. Jacobs spoke with him on the telephone and at the restaurant. Schroyer accompanied Jacobs on his trip to the restaurant solely at the convenience and evidently the direction of Jacobs. Schroyer’s only discretionary act was to warn his boss that Respondent might not reinstate the licenses in time for National Fire & Safety Corporation to perform the Red Lobster work. The brief observation of the pre-engineered system does not constitute an inspection under the National Fire Protection Association standards or the arguably broader statutory use of the same term. As Respondent suggests, an "inspection" means “to look over or to view closely in critical appraisal.” Schroyer's casual observation of the Red Lobster pre-engineered system did not rise to the level of a critical appraisal. The purpose of the visit was for Jacobs to market the services of National Fire & Safety Corporation, not for Jacobs or Schroyer to perform an inspection or service. National Fire & Safety Corporation and Jacobs engaged in the business of servicing a pre-engineered system, due to the solicitation of Red Lobster and arrangement with FireMaster, but these acts are not attributable to Schroyer. Jacobs dealt directly with the Red Lobster general manager, and Schroyer contacted the FireMaster representative at the direction of his supervisor, Jacobs. More importantly, this contact followed Schroyer’s laudatory urging to his supervisor that National Fire & Safety Corporation not do the Red Lobster job until its licenses had been reinstated. Respondent offered evidence of an attempt by National Fire & Safety Corporation to circumvent the suspension order by sending business to FireMaster in return for a payment. It is unlikely that the evidence was admissible on the grounds of hearsay. However, even if admitted, the FireMaster employee testifying to this arrangement denied that Schroyer was part of the arrangement. Respondent attempted to add another basis for the denial--namely, that National Fire & Safety Corporation and NFS are effectively the same organization. The Administrative Law Judge denied Respondent’s motion to amend its reasons for denial to add this issue on the ground that it was untimely. However, at the urging of Petitioners, the administrative law judge allowed the parties to present evidence on this issue. There is considerable overlapping among officers and shareholders between NFS, which was incorporated on June 2, 1997, and National Fire & Safety Corporation, which has been in business for a number of years. The officers of NFS are Denae Jacobs, Jacob’s sister, president; Schroyer, vice- president; Donald Jacobs, Jacobs’ father, secretary; and Jacobs, treasurer. The identified officers of National Fire & Safety Corporation are Donald Jacobs, president; and Jacobs, vice-president. Donald Jacobs is the owner of National Fire & Safety Corporation and the majority owner of NFS, with Jacobs and his sister. Schroyer owns five percent of NFS, but none of National Fire & Safety Corporation. NFS will use National Fire & Safety Corporation’s facility, office equipment, and some of its major equipment. The permittees formerly under National Fire & Safety Corporation will be transferred to NFS. Also, National Fire & Safety Corporation has used the initials, “NFS,” as part of its letterhead and insignia, and these initials will obviously be available to NFS, if unconditionally licensed.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshal enter a final order granting the application of Schroyer and denying the application of Naples Fire & Safety Corp.; provided, however, the final order shall direct that if, within 60 days of the final order, Naples Fire & Safety Corp. changes its name so that its initials are not “NFS” and do not contain any two of the same initials as “NFS,” then the application of the newly named corporation shall be granted, subject to the condition that it never change its corporate name or adopt a fictitious name so, in either case, that its initials contain any two of the same initials as “NFS.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Mechele R. McBride Attorney Richard Grumberg Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark H. Muller Quarles & Brady, P.A. 4501 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34103 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for a Class 09 04 permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 16, 1999, the Petitioner, Joseph M. Toth, executed an application for a Class 09 04 permit. The application represented that the Petitioner had previously possessed a permit, number 788995000196, and worked for a company identified as Fire Tech Equipment (Fire Tech). A review of the agency's record determined Fire Tech did not possess a valid license subsequent to December 31, 1998. Any work performed by that company subsequent to that time would have been without proper authorization from the Department. All companies in the business of servicing, repairing, recharging, testing, marking, inspecting, or installing any fire extinguisher or pre-engineered system in this state must possess a valid license. All individuals employed by a licensed business must hold a valid permit in order to perform such work. The Petitioner was the only "Joe" employed by Fire Tech subsequent to December 31, 1998. An individual using the Petitioner's expired permit number (and who was identified as "Joe") performed activities requiring licensure for Fire Tech subsequent to December 31, 1998. It is an individual's responsibility to ascertain the status of a permit and to timely renew. The Department does not question the expiration of permits if the holder does not timely renew it. As a former permit holder (and the former qualifier for a licensed business) the Petitioner knew or should have known his responsibilities regarding permit renewal. It is undisputed that Fire Tech continued to perform activities requiring licensure after December 31, 1998, and that the Petitioner was employed by the company. A pending criminal investigation of Fire Tech's unlicensed activities encompasses at least eighty (80) instances of jobs performed without proper authorization. Further, some of the jobs were performed so inexpertly that the client incurred additional expenses in order to correct the work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order denying the Petitioner's permit application. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. 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 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph M. Toth 2420 Hayes Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
