Findings Of Fact Edward Berk, Respondent, was at all times here relevant licensed as an ordinary life, including disability, insurance agent to represent Founders Life Assurance Company, Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, American Variable Annuity Life Assurance Company, Wisconsin Life Insurance Company, Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company, and Lone Star Life Insurance Company. He is licensed as a disability insurance (2-40) agent to represent American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus and an ordinary life (2-16) agent to represent Estate Life Insurance Company of America. (Exhibit 1). On April 12, 1979 Respondent pleaded guilty in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of violation of 18 USC 1341 and 1342 to wit: unlawfully, willfully and knowingly devising and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money from The Travelers Insurance Company by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations , and promises. He was found guilty and sentenced to two years imprisonment on each of five counts, the sentences to run concurrently. The execution of the sentence was suspended and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of two years (Exhibits 2)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Teresa Jean Watson, at all times material to this proceeding was licensed as an ordinary life agent, a disability insurance agent and a general lines insurance agent. She was the only general lines agent licensed to sell insurance at the T. J. Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. and all insurance sold by that firm at times pertinent hereto was sold and issued under authority of her license. During times material to this proceeding, Teresa Jean Watson sold insurance coverage under authority of her general lines license either as direct agent for various insurance companies for whom she was general agent or, on behalf of MacNeill and Son, Inc. (MacNeill), her managing agency, which represented various insurance companies for whom the Respondent wrote coverage. Between February 1st and February 15, 1982, a homeowner's insurance policy was sold to Tony and Martha Williams by the Respondent's agency under the authority of the Respondent's general lines insurance agent's license. That homeowner's policy required a premium of $211.00. The policyholder, Tony Williams, wrote two checks to the T. J. Watson Agency dated January 22, 1982 and February 12, 1982. Those two checks totalled $174.00. The checks were cashed by the Respondent's agency on January 26, 1982 and on February 6, 1982. The Independent Fire Insurance Company issued the policy to Tony and Martha Williams and on August 4, 1982 a representative of the Independent Fire Insurance Company wrote the Respondent to advise her that she owed that company a balance of $179.35, as of May 1982. Petitioner asserts that the $179.35 represents the amount of Tony Williams' premium owed to the insurer, less the Respondent's commission, which if added together would equal the $211.00 premium on the Williams' policy. Although it was established that $179.35 was owed by the Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company, and never paid, it was not established that it represented the premium due specifically for the Williams' policy as was charged in count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. For instance, the checks paid by the Williamses to the Watson Agency total $174.00 and therefore there is a discrepancy between the total of those checks and the $179.35 amount Independent Fire Insurance company was owed by the Respondent. This fact coupled with the fact that the dates on the checks from the Williamses (January and February) substantially predate the May 1982 billing date to Respondent from Independent Fire, renders it unproven that the checks written to the Watson Agency which Respondent negotiated and retained the benefit of, related to the amount of unremitted premium owed by Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company. In short, it was established that $174.00 was paid the Respondent and her agency by the Williamses. But, it was not established that the premium paid by the Williamses became misappropriated fiduciary funds converted by the Respondent to her own use and benefit. It was merely established that as of May 1982 the Respondent owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company $179.35 as a past-due account It was not established that the Williamses ever suffered a lapse of insurance coverage or were otherwise harmed by the Respondent's failure to pay Independent Fire the $179.35. Indeed, the $179.35 figure was not proven to be more than a mere debt owed by Respondent to Independent Fire Insurance Company. The figure was not shown to have been related to any particular policy. The Respondent and her insurance agency in the regular course of business wrote insurance coverage for companies represented by MacNeill and Son, Inc., the Respondent's managing agency. The regular business practice between the Respondent and MacNeill was for the Respondent to write coverage on behalf of insurers represented by MacNeill and to remit on a regular open account" basis insurance premiums due MacNeill on behalf of its insurance company principals on a monthly basis. The Respondent became delinquent in submitting premiums to MacNeill and Son in November 1981. After unsuccessful efforts to collect the delinquent premium funds from the Respondent, MacNeill and Son, Inc. suspended T. J. Watson Insurance Agency and the Respondent from writing further coverage for companies they represented in January 1982. The Respondent purportedly sold her agency to one Thomas Zinnbauer in December 1981, but had already fallen into a pattern of failing to remit insurance premiums over to MacNeill before that time. In any event, the purported sale to Thomas Zinnbauer was a subterfuge to avoid collection of delinquent premiums inasmuch as the Respondent held herself out, in correspondence with MacNeill, (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) to be the president of the agency at least as late as April 1982 and, at that time and thereafter, the agency continued to sell insurance under the aegis of the Respondent's license. After the Respondent made up the delinquency in premium remissions to the MacNeill Agency that agency restored her underwriting authority in January 1982. Shortly thereafter however, the Respondent and the T. J. Watson Agency again became delinquent in remitting insurance premiums to the MacNeill Agency and followed a quite consistent pattern of failing to forward these fiduciary funds to MacNeill for some months. Ultimately the Respondent and her agency failed to forward more than $6500.00 in premium payment funds to MacNeill and Son, Inc. as was required in the regular course of business. MacNeill and Son, Inc. made repeated futile attempts to secure the misappropriated premium payments from the Respondent and her agency. MacNeill made several accountings of the amount of the acknowledged debt to the Respondent. The Respondent communicated with MacNeill concerning the delinquent premium payments and acknowledged the fact of the debt, but sought to reach an amicable arrangement for a repayment schedule. Re- payment was never made, however, and ultimately the Petitioner agency was informed of the deficiencies and prosecution resulted. The Respondent knew that the premiums had been collected by herself and her agency and had not been forwarded to those entitled to them. She knew of and actively participated in the improper withholding of the premium payments. This withholding and diversion of premium payments from the agency and companies entitled to them was a continuing pattern of conduct and Respondent failed to take action to halt the misappropriation of the premium payments. Further, it is established by the testimony of Matthew Brewer, who investigated the delinquent premium accounts for MacNeill, that Ms. Watson failed to advise MacNeill of the purported sale of her agency until November of 1982, almost a year after it is supposed to have occurred and then only in response to Brewer's investigation. When confronted by Mr. Brewer concerning the ownership of her agency Ms. Watson refused to tell him to whom she had sold the agency. When Mr. Brewer learned that Thomas Zinnbauer had apparently bought the agency from the Respondent Mr. Brewer conferred with him and he refused to release the agency records unless Ms. Watson gave her permission. This fact, together with the fact that Ms. Watson held herself out as president of the agency some four months after she had purportedly sold the agency to Zinnbauer, establishes that Respondent, by representing to Brewer and other personnel of MacNeill and Sons, Inc. that she had sold her agency, was attempting to evade liability for failure to forward the fiduciary premium funds obtained under the authority of her agent's license. As a result of the failure to forward the above- mentioned premium payments some of the insureds who had paid those premiums suffered lapses in coverage and cancellations of policies because MacNeill and Company and the insurers they represented believed that no premiums had ever been paid. Ultimately, MacNeill and Company learned that the premiums had been paid by the policyholders, but not remitted by the Respondent and her agency and undertook steps to reinstate coverage, but those policyholders in some instances had substantial periods of time when their coverage was lapsed due to the Respondent's failure to remit the premium funds to the managing agency and the insurance companies involved. MacNeill and Company ultimately reimbursed the appropriate insurers and insureds at its own expense, incurring substantial financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's failure to have premium payments obtained under her licensed authority properly forwarded. Had the insureds who had their policies cancelled suffered losses for which claims could have been filed during the period of the lapses of coverage, they could have encountered substantial financial difficulty.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the General Lines Insurance Agent's license of Respondent Teresa Jean Watson be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX RULING OF PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted, although the amount represented by the two subject checks totalled $174.00 instead of $175.00. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible evidence adduced. Rejected inasmuch as it was not established that the amount of $179.35 owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company represented the premium on the Williamses' insurance policy. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, although the last sentence in that Proposed Finding constitutes, in reality, mere argument of counsel. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence actually before the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Respondent submitted a post-hearing document entitled "Proposed Findings of Fact." There are few actual Proposed Facts in that one-and-a-half page pleading which is interlaced throughout with argument of counsel. However, to the extent the six paragraphs of that document contain Proposed Findings of Fact they are ruled on as follows: This Proposed Finding is rejected, but for reasons delineated in the above Conclusions of Law, Count 1 has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. This Finding is accepted but is immaterial and irrelevant to, and not necessary to, the Findings of Fact reached herein and the Conclusions of Law based thereon. Paragraph Number 3 does not really constitute a Proposed Finding of Fact or even multiple Proposed Findings of Fact in the same paragraph. In reality, it constitutes argument of Respondent's counsel concerning admissibility of certain documents into evidence which have already been ruled to be admissible by the Hearing Officer during the course of the hearing. To the extent that the last two sentences in the third paragraph of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are proposed findings of fact, they are accepted, but are immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary to the findings of fact made herein and the conclusions predicated thereon and recommendation made herein. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as constituting mere argument of counsel and not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence adduced. Rejected as not in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented as to Count 2. In reality, counsel obviously intended to refer to the two checks referenced in Count 1 of the complaint which has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Steinberg, Esquire Post Office Box 2366 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact During 1977, while licensed as an insurance agent, Mr. Yesnes engaged in a scheme to fraudulently obtain sales commissions from various insurance companies. He submitted applications for insurance coverage without the prior consent of the purported applicants. He obtained the data to fill in their application forms from information contained in previous policy records. This scheme was admitted by Mr. Yesnes when he appeared before a Department of Insurance investigator, Eugene Petree, III, to explain consumer complaints against him related to the bogus applications. On February 24, 1977 Mr. Yesnes, while registered with the Department as a non-resident agent, sold a $50,000 decreasing term life insurance policy to a 65 year old widow, Mrs. Inez Cameron. This sale was made in Pensacola, Florida, where both Mr. Yesnes and Mrs. Cameron were living at the time. The beneficiary of the policy was designated as "the estate of Inez Cameron." When that designation was made, Mr. Yesnes was the legatee of Mrs. Cameron's will. Mr. Yesnes later requested the company issuing the policy, United Presidential Life Insurance Company, to change the beneficiary of the policy to himself by name, but the company refused to make the change. Under the foregoing circumstances it is contrary to the standards of the insurance industry for an agent to sell a policy in which he is made the beneficiary. Mrs. Cameron was a widow and had no known living close relatives. She had established a personal "mother-son" relationship with Mr. Yesnes and for a period of time they lived together. For the last year and a half Mr. Yesnes has been a pizza wholesaler in the Pensacola area. He contracts for a supplier to manufacture the pizzas which Mr. Yesnes then sells to bars and small restaurants who cannot economically produce their own pizzas. According to his present supplier Mr. Yesnes sells a product of a much higher quality than the purchasers should expect to get for their cost. His present supplier, Mr. Meehan, has known Mr. Yesnes for eight to nine months. In his opinion Mr. Yesnes is trustworthy and reliable. He pays his bills on time and keeps his obligations. Mr. Secchiari, the owner of Genos Pizza in Pensacola, is Mr. Yesnes' former supplier. He too believes him to be trustworthy and reliable. In his opinion as an insurance consumer he believes that if licensed, Mr. Yesnes would be better than some life insurance agents and not as good as others. Mr. Yesnes has always been prompt in paying his bills with Mr. Secchiari. Mr. Yesnes was initially licensed as an insurance agent in Florida in February 1965. Three years later he moved to Atlanta, Georgia. He later moved to Pensacola in 1976 where he was employed by the Franklin Life Insurance Company. During that employment he was supervised by Michael Howard, an area manager. Mr. Howard had contact with Mr. Yesnes for a period of eighteen months. On the basis of that experience Mr. Howard is of the opinion that Petitioner is ethically unfit to be in the insurance business. Respondent offered testimony from Ms. Dorothy Dale Godwin and Ms. Sarah Dawson in the form of their opinion of Petitioner's character. This testimony is not accepted as credible. It lacks an adequate foundation because the witnesses contact with Mr. Yesnes was fleeting. Due to their relationship with Mrs. Cameron they are also found to be biased against Mr. Yesnes. On his pending application for licensure Mr. Yesnes gave 804 Royce Street, Pensacola, Florida 32503 as his address for the past five years. In fact, during that time he lived in Atlanta, Georgia; Mobile, Alabama; and at different addresses in Pensacola. He gave the 804 Royce Street address because that is where his father lives. At times Petitioner has lived there and he considers it his permanent address. At no time during these proceedings has Petitioner expressed regret for any past unprofessional actions. He has also not expressed any commitment not to engage in unprofessional behavior in the future, if licensed to sell insurance in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order denying the application of Ivan Yesnes for a license as a life agent in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed insurance agent licensed in the State of Florida as a general lines agent. He was the primary agent of Emerald Coast Insurance Agencies, Inc. (Agency) for Pensacola, Florida. The agency at all times pertinent to the events and times treated in the Amended Administrative Complaint was a general lines insurance agency incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and licensing the entry of insurance agents into the profession of insurance and regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida, including the imposition of disciplinary measures. The Respondent had been an insurance agent, as of the time of the hearing, for approximately four years. During that time, he has typically written 50-60 applications for automobile insurance and related coverage per week. The owner of the Agency would not allow the Respondent to issue checks from the Respondent's own office. All processing of insurance application files was completed at the Tallahassee, Florida office. The files with client information for insurance applicants, whose business was initiated by the Respondent, was sent by UPS to the Tallahassee, Florida office on the morning following the taking of the applications. The forms, which the Respondent was required to have completed and asked customers to sign, were pre-printed and issued from the Tallahassee, Florida office. The Respondent had no part in the creation of these forms as to content, format, and the disclosures depicted on their face. The Respondent inquired of the Department's local office as to whether the forms comported with pertinent statutes and regulations, and the Department expressed no objection to them. Indeed, the forms in question do make disclosures of the coverage or products which the customer is purchasing and contain an acknowledgment, which the customer is required to sign, indicating that the coverage has been explained to the customer. In particular, the motor club product is depicted on the relevant form as being an optional product and that it has been explained to the customer, with a blank after that pertinent statement for the customer to sign an acknowledgment of that fact. The issue in this case does not involve whether the customer paid for such a product without executing any consent but, rather, whether the customer was misled or whether the products sold were actually, in fact, explained fully to them; whether they were misled in making a decision to buy such coverage in the belief that it was required in order to obtain the insurance they knew they needed. THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE No evidence was submitted as to Count I, concerning Cheryl Ginsterblum nor Count VIII, concerning Joseph Shelton. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made and these counts should be dismissed. Pam Shivers of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance coverage for her 1988 Dodge Caravan. Because the van was still financed with a lender, "full coverage" was required, that is, she needed personal injury protection (PIP), property damage (PD) coverage, comprehensive risk coverage, and collision damage coverage. On March 8, 1993, she went to the Respondent's Agency, and the Respondent handled the requested insurance transaction. She requested "full coverage", and the transaction was handled while she was standing at the counter, in just a few minutes. PIP and PD insurance was placed with Security Insurance Company of Hartford (Security). Comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Florida International Indemnity Company (FIIC). The premium for Security was $350.00, and the premium for FIIC was $399.00. The purchase of this coverage was financed so that Ms. Shivers would not have to pay the entire $749.00 premium for all of the coverage at one time. In return for the premium financing arrangement, a $187.00 down payment was required for the insurance coverage. During the transaction, Ms. Shivers was quickly presented with approximately six documents to sign. Included in those documents was a document containing a disclosure that the motor club product which she purchased was optional, that is, not required by law; that she had been offered to purchase automobile insurance by the Agency without an optional motor club and chose to purchase that optional coverage of her own free will at an additional cost of $150.00; that she examined the benefits being offered, and that it was her decision to request enrollment as a member of the motor club association. It is true that Ms. Shivers signed these acknowledgments and disclosures, which on their face, would indicate that she had been informed about the nature of the motor club product or coverage and its cost, including the fact that it was not required by law and was optional. In fact, however, her apparent consent was not an actual, knowing and informed consent. She was presented with the six documents to sign hurriedly, with the places to sign simply marked for her to make quick signatures. She did not, in the course of the transaction, have significant time to read the documents or reflect on what she was signing, what her signatures obligated her for, and what specific products she was purchasing. She was not, in actual fact, informed that she was purchasing a motor club membership. She did not request that product, and the Respondent did not give her any actual explanation about it. She was not informed that she had any choice in whether or not to take that product. She later discovered that the product was optional and that it was, therefore, not an integral, unseverable part of the insurance coverage she did want to purchase. Moreover, Ms. Shivers was confused about the $749.00 premium quote and the amount she was actually required to pay. Her confusion involved the $749.00 premium for insurance quoted to her because of the fact that she was actually required to pay an $899.00 purported "premium". The receipt issued at the end of the purchase transaction indicated a total "premium" of $899.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of the insurance was $749.00. The additional $150.00 was for a motor club membership which was hidden in the receipt amount and what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $337.00 quoted to her was also deceptive because actually, only $187.00 of that was the down payment on the actual insurance coverage premium. This is shown by the premium finance agreement in evidence. The Respondent had concealed the cost of the motor club membership within what was purported to be the total insurance premium amount reflected on the receipt and included the entire $150.00 charge for that membership within the down payment, simply and misleadingly calling the down payment of $337.00 as the down payment on insurance coverage. Thereafter, on March 21, 1993, Ms. Shivers went back to the Agency to cancel her insurance, related to the fact that her vehicle had been involved in an accident. Upon doing that, she left thinking that her insurance had been effectively cancelled. Later, she received notices from the premium finance company but was told by the Respondent to ignore them. On May 7, 1993, however, the Respondent informed her that she had to come back to the Agency and fill out a cancellation request. Thus, 47 days after she had attempted to cancel her coverage, her request was finally processed by the Agency. In the meantime, she was apparently being charged for premiums on the coverage she thought she had cancelled. Thus, from January 21, 1994, the premium finance company turned an amount it claimed was due of $43.26 over to its attorney for collection purposes, which impinged on Ms. Shivers' credit standing. She had already paid the Respondent $190.00 in premiums under the premium financing agreement, with her down payment, but did not receive any returned unearned premium representing the period after she thought she had cancelled her policy but, instead, was billed the additional $43.26 directly due to the Respondent's 47-day delay in processing her cancellation request. Count III In June, 1993, Laura O'Donohue of Pensacola, Florida, purchased her first vehicle, a 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier. The automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle, gave her a card for the Respondent's insurance agency. Therefore, never having established a relationship with an insurance agency, she went to that Agency to purchase insurance. Her mother, Lynn O'Donohue, accompanied her to the Agency. Before coming to the Agency while at the automobile dealership, she had received a quote for the insurance she wanted from the Agency. When she arrived at the Agency, she informed Donald Grubb, an employee of the Agency and the Respondent, that she just wanted "basic coverage". This was the first time she had purchased insurance, and she relied entirely for her decisions regarding that upon the representations of the Respondent and his colleague. Therefore, in a transaction, which took approximately 20 minutes, the Respondent and/or Mr. Grubb assisted her in filling out the paperwork required to place the insurance coverage she requested. During the course of the brief insurance purchase transaction, Ms. O'Donohue learned that she would be required to pay a higher premium amount than the quote she had received from the Agency while she was at the automobile dealership earlier that day. This is consistent with the Agency's custom and practice, established by former agent, James Self's, testimony to the effect that motor club coverage was typically added to the normal insurance coverage requested by customers, which resulted in higher purported "premium" quotes and charges than had initially been quoted to the customer, typically by telephone, before a customer came to the Agency office. When Ms. O'Donohue and her mother arrived at the Agency after having received the lower quote earlier, they were thus not prepared to pay the higher amount of the so-called premium. Ms. O'Donohue did not need a motor club because, through her mother, she was covered by AAA Motor Club for towing and other benefits. She had no knowledge that she had purchased a motor club product from the Respondent. All of the documents were presented to her, in response to her request for just basic insurance coverage, in the context that this was what the law required her to have and what she needed. She totally relied, as did her mother, upon the representations of the Respondent and his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, concerning what the law required and what she needed in the way of insurance coverage. The testimony of Ms. O'Donohue's mother, Lynn O'Donohue, confirms the fact that they had no intent to purchase towing coverage or "auto club" because they already had a membership with AAA and wanted to pay nothing extra other than the basic insurance coverage. The Respondent or his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, indicated, as shown on page 91 of the transcript, that "towing was all part of it", that is, they meant that the basic insurance package sought by Ms. O'Donohue included towing as part of its coverage. In fact, that was not the case, and the motor club product was clearly optional, at extra cost, and not legally required. Ms. O'Donohue purchased it unknowingly, based upon the representations and business practice used by the Respondent in connection with her transaction, in spite of the presence of her signatures on the disclosure portion of the application documents for the reasons referenced with regard to the Shivers transaction. The insurance requested was placed with two insurance companies. The PIP and PD were issued by Security at a premium of $223.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with General Insurance Company (General) at a premium of $411.00. Thus, the premiums for actual insurance coverage, which is all Ms. O'Donohue wanted, totaled $634.00. That was financed by the ETI Premium Finance Company (ETI) on periodic installment payments, with a required down payment of $127.00. The Respondent, however, required Ms. O'Donohue to make a down payment of $277.00 on a purported total premium due of $784.00. This amount, unbeknownst to Ms. O'Donohue, happened to include a motor club purchase (Atlantic Travel Association), which cost $150.00, thus, the difference between the $634.00 actual insurance premium and the $784.00 purported premium due. The $150.00 fee for motor club benefits was concealed in the "total premium" amount falsely represented to the customer by the Respondent. The deceptive and misleading nature of this transaction is further pointed out by the form of the receipt issued to Ms. O'Donohue upon consummating the transaction. That receipt indicates that the "total premium" is $784.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $634.00, as referenced above, and the additional $150.00 of that purported total premium amount was the motor club fee. Likewise, the down payment quoted to her of $277.00 was deceptive because only $127.00 of that was applied to the actual insurance coverage. The remaining amount was the motor club fee which the agent collected in its entirety at the beginning of the transaction, as part of the down payment, while the insurance premiums, in excess of the $127.00 actual down payment for insurance, were financed through ETI. The Respondent did this because, by collecting all of the motor club fee in a lump sum at the outset of the transaction, he could get his entire commission immediately. His motor club sales commission was at a considerably higher rate than the commission he earned on the sale of insurance itself. In fact, his commission was 90 percent of the $150.00 motor club fee. Since Ms. O'Donohue did not have the entire $277.00 at the time of the transaction, because she had been relying on the lower quote for the insurance given to her over the telephone, she only paid $200.00 down payment at the time of the transaction, with a balance owed of $79.00, as reflected on her receipt. Her mother had reservations concerning the purchase of this insurance from the Respondent and told her daughter that she thought that because the insurance she purchased involved financing the premium, she could save money by going to GEICO insurance company. Therefore, the following day, she went to GEICO and secured new coverage at a lower premium rate and then called the Respondent's Agency to confirm that she could cancel her policy, with no penalty. They replied that she could cancel her policy just so long as she brought them proof that she had secured new insurance, since the law presently does not allow them to cancel the coverage until they are shown proof that the insured has obtained other coverage. Ms. O'Donohue, therefore, went to GEICO, purchased new insurance for her vehicle, and then brought proof to the Agency and requested that the Respondent cancel her insurance. This request was made on June 19, 1993. At that time, she requested a refund of the $200.00 down payment which she had made two days before and was assured that she would receive it within 60 days. In fact, she never received a refund and continued to receive past-due and delinquency notices from ETI, the premium finance company. She notified the Agency of this problem on numerous occasions to no satisfaction. Due to ETI's belief that her coverage was still in force and that they were still owed the premium payments, her credit was endangered. This was all directly related to the Respondent's failure to properly and timely process her cancellation request. On June 20, 1993, Terre Thompson of Pensacola, Florida, also went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for her 1993 GEO Metro automobile. The Respondent met her at the automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle. He had already prepared documents for the purchase of insurance to be underwritten by Security and General, along with a premium financing agreement and other documents. He had marked X's where Ms. Thompson was supposed to sign all contracts and disclosure forms. The Respondent filled out all of the information on the documents and merely told her, in effect, to "sign here, here and here". The transaction was conducted very quickly and with little or no explanation of coverage or benefits. Although Ms. Thompson needed full coverage for her vehicle, because it was financed, she did not want towing and rental benefits. The Respondent, however, gave her to understand that it was required in the coverage package she purchased. Accordingly, on June 20, 1993, she made a down payment of $100.00, with an additional amount due of $51.00 by June 27, 1993. Although the receipt was dated June 20, 1993, Ms. Thompson did not actually receive it until June 27, 1993, when she returned to the Respondent's Agency to pay the $51.00 owed. The receipt falsely depicts that the "total premium" was $834.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $754.00. The additional $80.00 was for a motor club product, although the $80.00 was buried in and represented to be part of the total insurance premium for the transaction. The down payment of $231.00 quoted, likewise, was deceptive because only $151.00 of that was actually applied to insurance coverage, which was all of the coverage that Ms. Thompson had requested. The Respondent collected the $100.00 on June 20, 1993 and entered into a financing arrangement with the customer, Ms. Thompson, for the $51.00 to be paid on June 27, 1993. In fact, this was only enough to cover the down payment for the actual insurance coverage because the Respondent forgot to include the fee for the motor club coverage on the "front end" or in the down payment, as was his normal practice. This is why Ms. Thompson became upset when she learned she owed an additional $71.00 when she returned on June 27, 1993, when she thought she had only owed approximately $60.00. In any event, the receipt finally received by her reflected payments of $100.00, $60.00, and $71.00, which totals $231.00. This amount includes the $151.00 down payment for actual insurance coverage and the remaining $80.00 for motor club membership, which Ms. Thompson did not know she had purchased at the time and did not desire to purchase. Indeed, Ms. Thompson, and the other customers referenced in the Amended Administrative Complaint, who testified, signed the disclosure in the standard package of documents presented to them by the Respondent. It indicated that they acknowledged that the motor club benefit or the "nations safe driver" medical benefit was an optional coverage, not required by law and that, after explanation of it, they had elected to purchase it. In fact, they signed those documents, albeit imprudently, without actual knowledge that they were obtaining that coverage and without explanation that it was not legally required. No disclosure was made to them that the purported "total premium" amount actually included payment for the motor club benefit, which was not actually part of the insurance premium and which, at least in the case of those customers with AAA memberships, was totally unnecessary. Timothy Malden of Jacksonville, Florida, purchased a vehicle on or about August 31, 1993. He needed full coverage because the vehicle was financed, that is, he needed PIP, PD, comprehensive coverage, and collision coverage. He went to the Respondent's Agency on that date to purchase coverage on his 1986 Pontiac Fiero. During the course of the transaction, handled by the Respondent, Mr. Malden was asked if he had motor club coverage or benefits and he told the Respondent that he had AAA membership and showed the Respondent his AAA card. The Respondent and Mr. Malden entered into a transaction to sell Mr. Malden insurance. The transaction involved approximately seven different documents and took a total of about 15 to 20 minutes. Mr. Malden merely signed the documents. The Respondent told him that he just needed his signature on the documents and the Respondent did not explain the coverage. The procedure seemed rushed or hurried to Mr. Malden. Although Mr. Malden signed the disclosure (inadvertently, because apparently he did not read it) stating, in effect, that the motor club coverage was optional, not required and that after having it explained to him, he had decided to purchase it, he, in fact, did not know at the time that he had purchased the motor club coverage and it had not been explained to him. Moreover, as stated above, he had explained to the Respondent that he did not need it because he already had AAA motor club coverage. Nevertheless, the Respondent, knowing that Mr. Malden had AAA, still sold him the motor club coverage with the Atlantic Travel Association for an additional fee of $150.00. Mr. Malden made no informed consent to purchase that benefit. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with Security at a premium of $395.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Continental American Insurance Company (Continental) for a premium of $525.00. The total premium for "insurance" was $920.00, with a $230.00 down payment. The premiums were financed by ETI. Mr. Malden, however, was required to pay a "down payment" of $380.00. The receipt issued to him reveals a "total premium" of $1,070.00. The actual cost of insurance was only $920.00. The additional $150.00 was for motor club coverage, and the charge for that was hidden in what was represented on the receipt as "total premium". Likewise, the down payment of $380.00 was deceptive in nature because only $230.00 of it was actually a down payment for insurance coverage. The remainder of it, as explained above with regard to the other customers, was actually full payment for the unnecessary, unwanted motor club benefit. On March 8, 1994, Karen Sigler of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Agency to purchase automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymough Voyager. She stated to the Respondent that she only wanted the minimum automobile insurance required by Florida law. She told the Respondent that she needed new insurance because her previous insurance company had gone out of business. The Respondent handled the transaction for her and she specified that she wanted only that coverage which the State of Florida required. Ms. Sigler had been originally quoted a $324.00 premium amount. When she actually entered into the insurance transaction, however, an additional $65.00 was added on to that amount because the Respondent sold her an additional "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc." enrollment. This is not an insurance product but, rather, is a form of supplemental medical benefit. Ms. Sigler had not requested this and did not understand the nature of it, believing that it was unnecessary because she was already qualified as a "safe driver" based upon her driver's record. She was given no explanation as to what that enrollment form, and benefit was nor that there was an extra charge for it. Even as reflected on the enrollment form, Ms. Sigler merely thought that the Nations Safe Drivers membership was a part of the required insurance purchase package. This is not true, in fact, since only PIP and PD coverages are required by law. Ms. Sigler was thus sold a product she did not request, which was not required by law and which was not explained to her. The entire transaction took approximately one- half hour. The receipt issued to Ms. Sigler shows that the "total premium" was $324.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of insurance was a $259.00 premium. The additional $65.00 of the $324.00 amount was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership, which was hidden in what was represented as a "total premium". Moreover, the down payment she paid of $98.00 was deceptive because only a part of it was applied to automobile insurance coverage and the remainder was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership. The Respondent's business practice in this regard resultingly misled Ms. Sigler into believing that Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. was required by State law and that it was an insurance product, which it was not. Here, again, in spite of the disclosure she signed and the documents that she was hurriedly urged to execute by the Respondent, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she did not actually, knowingly consent to purchase the extra non-insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's business practice, the way he represented the nature of her insurance coverage and in the manner in which he conducted the transaction did not involve an actual explanation of the non-insurance product he misled her into purchasing. Thus, there was no informed consent to purchase that product. Rosa Johnson went to the Respondent's Agency on March 21, 1994. She wanted to purchase the "minimum" automobile insurance required by State law for her 1971 Plymouth. She dealt with the Respondent and another gentleman who worked under the Respondent's direction and control. She told them she only wanted the basic, legally-required coverage. PIP and PD coverage was issued through Security. Ms. Johnson was also sold the Nations Safe Drivers product. This product was not actually explained to her, in spite of the fact that she may have signed a written disclosure that it had been, including the fact that it was an optional benefit and not part of the legally-required insurance coverage. She did not request this product nor was it explained to her so that its meaning and coverage was understood by her. Upon conclusion of the transaction, Ms. Johnson had purchased PIP and PD coverage from Security for a premium of $248.00, plus an unrequested enrollment in Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. for a fee of $35.00. All of this amount was financed by ETI. Here, again, as with the other customers, the receipt furnished to Ms. Johnson indicates a total "premium" of $283.00. The actual cost of insurance or true premium was $248.00. The additional $35.00 of the $283.00 amount was the cost of the Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. product, which was hidden in what was represented to her on the receipt as the "total premium". Likewise, the purported down payment of $85.00 was deceptive in the manner in which it was presented and required of Ms. Johnson, because only part of it was applied to insurance coverage, the remainder being the $35.00 fee for the added non- insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's authority to bind coverage with Security Insurance Company had been terminated on March 14, 1994 due to excessive late submissions of insurance applications to the carrier. The problem was later alleviated and his authority to bind insurance for Security was restored by that company. However, during the period of time his binding authority had been terminated, the Respondent kept taking applications and binding policies. This caused the insureds to believe that they had coverage when, in fact, they did not, because the carrier, Security, through its managing agent, U.S. Underwriters, did not, for a period of time, allow the Respondent to obligate that company for coverage. Accordingly, in due course, Ms. Johnson was notified by U.S. Underwriters, on behalf of Security, that she had no coverage. She became upset and filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner because she had understood that as soon as the transaction with the Respondent was completed, her coverage had been bound and timely filed and processed with the underwriting insurance carrier. Charles Meadows of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance on his 1986 Chrysler LeBaron. He wanted to purchase the minimum amount of legally- required coverage and went to the Respondent's Agency for that purpose on May 17, 1994. He needed the minimum amount of legally-required insurance so that he could obtain a tag for his automobile from the county tag office. He was in a hurry because he had taken leave from work and needed to get his insurance transaction consummated, as well as to obtain his automobile tag before 4:30 p.m. He conferred with a lady who was employed by the Respondent at the Agency who handled his transaction. She completed all of the documents, spread them across the counter, and marked and told him the places to sign to effect the binder of the coverage that day. The transaction occurred quickly, lasting only approximately 15 minutes. He received no effective explanation of any of the coverages. Rather, he relied on her representations that he was getting what he had asked for, that is, the minimum legally-required Florida insurance coverage. The coverage he obtained was placed with Security as to the PIP and PD coverage. The premium for that coverage was $321.00. The total premium quoted to him was $421.00, which included a $100.00 membership in the Gulf Coast Travel Association, a motor or travel club. Mr. Meadows was not aware that he had this extra amount of coverage or membership until he conferred with Mr. Spencer of the Department at a later time, who informed him of such. If he had known that the agreements he was signing during the hurried, unexplained transaction with the Respondent's employee included the motor club coverage, he would have declined it because his wife already had coverage with AAA for towing and related benefits. Mr. Meadows made a down payment of $190.00 on May 17, 1994. The receipt issued to him revealed a "total premium" of $421.00. The actual cost of insurance was $321.00, with the additional $100.00 being for the motor club, although the total amount was represented as "total premium". Additionally, the down payment of $190.00, which he paid, was deceptive in that only $90.00 was actually applied to insurance coverage and the remaining $100.00 was the total up-front fee for the motor club coverage, although it was represented to Mr. Meadows as being the $190.00 down payment on the insurance premium itself. Later, Mr. Meadows learned that he had the motor club benefits which he did not want or need and so he demanded a refund of his money from the Respondent. He spoke to the Respondent personally about this but did not receive immediate satisfaction. There was a substantial delay in receiving his refund after the Respondent told him that he would receive one. The Respondent justified this by stating to him that it had to come from "another office" and that it would not come from his Agency itself. Dorothy Weber of Pensacola, Florida, required automobile insurance for her 1986 Chevrolet Blazer and a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice. She went to the Respondent's Agency on June 15, 1994 and indicated to one of his employees that she was interested in the cheapest coverage available. She wanted nothing extra, except that required by law. She received very little explanation of the coverages and benefits, other than in response to questions she asked. The transaction of insurance was conducted in a similar manner to those referenced earlier in these Findings of Fact. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association. It carried a premium of $787.00. Despite Ms. Weber's request for only the minimum, legally-required insurance, she was also sold a motor club (Gulf Coast Travel Association) unbeknownst to her at the time at an additional fee of $150.00. In spite of the fact that Ms. Weber signed the disclosure concerning the optional nature of the motor club and related fee and so forth, as described in further detail in the above Findings of Fact, in actual fact, it was not explained to her. The fact that the fee for it was separate from the insurance premium for the insurance coverage was not explained to her and she effectively was not informed that she was purchasing that product. During the transaction, she was informed that if her vehicle broke down, she could obtain wrecker service. Nothing was mentioned to her, however, about Gulf Coast Travel Association or that the $150.00 was an extra fee. She merely had all of the forms presented to her in rapid fashion and was asked to sign them. The explanation simply was that the "total policy" cost $937.00, and there was a down payment of $318.00 supposedly for premium only. The entire transaction took approximately one-half hour. Later, Ms. Weber discovered that she had been misinformed and complained to the Department and the Respondent's Agency, specifically indicating that she had not been informed that the $150.00 for the motor club was separate nor that she had purchased motor club coverage. The receipt furnished to Ms. Weber concerning the amounts she paid to secure her coverage is misleading. It indicates a total premium of $937.00, when the actual cost of the insurance was $787.00. The additional $150.00 was for the undisclosed motor club coverage hidden in what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $308.00 was deceptive or misleading in that only $158.00 of it was actually a down payment on insurance coverage. Barry and Deeana Walker of Pensacola, Florida, needed automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymouth Laser. They wanted the cheapest coverage legally required and available to them. The Respondent dealt with the Walkers and was their agent of record. Mr. Walker remembers nothing being mentioned about a motor club, but Mrs. Walker remembers that the agent mentioned "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc."; however, she specifically informed him that she did not want it. In fact, Nations Safe Drivers is a non-insurance membership plan which includes a medical supplement coverage benefit. It is not a motor club. The PIP and PD and bodily injury coverages were placed with Underwriters Guaranty Insurance Company (UGIC) for a premium of $641.00. The premium was originally financed by Underwriters Financial. Also executed on May 4, 1994 was another premium finance agreement with ETI. It provided for an insurance premium of $441.00 for a policy issued by UGIC and the financing of a Nations Safe Drivers enrollment for $100.00. This document was not signed by the Walkers. On May 4, 1994, the Walkers paid $150.00 by check and were required to pay an additional $143.00 by May 20, 1994. The $143.00 was paid; and subsequently, the Walkers received a notice of additional premium of $190.00 due and they paid an additional down payment of $76.00. The Walkers made payments on the ETI premium financing agreement up until October, 1994, even though it had never actually been signed. They made down payments of $369.00 and monthly payments totaling $333.63, for a total of $702.63. Sometime in October of 1994, they received a letter from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Drivers Licenses in Tallahassee, Florida, stating that Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended because his insurance had been cancelled, effective July 16, 1994. The Walkers had received a notice from the insurance company of cancellation (because apparently that company would not insure co-owned vehicles) and had gone to the Respondent to see what to do about that problem. The Respondent told them to fill out a form which he gave them and that everything would be taken care of. They filled out the form at his behest so as to indicate that Mr. Walker's father, the co-owner, would not be a driver of the vehicle. Accepting the Respondent's representation, they believed that that would take care of the cancellation of coverage problem, and they continued to make their monthly payments on their premium financing agreement until October of 1994 based upon what the Respondent told them. In fact, the coverage was cancelled effective July 16, 1994; and soon thereafter, Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended due to failure to carry valid insurance on his automobile. If the Respondent had acted with promptness in correcting the underwriting error, upon being apprised of the situation by the Walkers, the lapse in coverage and suspension of the driver's license need not have occurred and the payments on the original coverage need not have been made until October 11, 1994, when new coverage was finally obtained by the Respondent at the Walkers' behest. Although, on November 11, 1994, ETI credited the Respondent and the Walkers for $169.41 of unearned premium, the damage had already been done by that point in terms of the lapse of coverage and the suspension of Mr. Walker's driver's license, with attendant financial risk and inconvenience to Mr. Walker. Moreover, the receipt issued to the Walkers in the original insurance transaction indicates a total premium of $741.00. As in the other situations, the actual insurance cost was $641.00, and the additional $100.00 was for the Nations Safe Drivers non-insurance medical payment product, wrapped up in what was represented as "total premium". The down payment of $293.00 was similarly misleading because only $193.00 of that applied to actual insurance coverage. The Respondent received his fee of $100.00 for the added-on product mentioned above entirely out of the up-front, down payment amount. Thus, the Respondent received the entire fee for the Nations Safe Drivers product within a purported "premium receipt" amount described to the customer as an insurance down payment. On January 26, 1995, Ms. Betty Cook of Walnut Hill, Florida, needed to purchase insurance for her 1994 Thunderbird and her 1993 Chevrolet C1500 pickup truck. She went to the Respondent's Agency to accomplish her insurance renewal transaction. A lady by the name of Sonya handled the transaction for her that day. The Cooks' insurance was placed with UGIC for a premium of $1,123.00. The premium was financed through Underwriters Financial of Florida, Inc. The transaction was initiated on January 26, 1995 but ultimately concluded on January 28, 1995, after Mrs. Cook had received and signed all of the paperwork. Mrs. Cook made a premium down payment of $339.00 and mailed her first payment when it was due. She thereupon was sent a notice stating that no policy existed. She called the Agency to see what was wrong and someone at the Agency indicated to her that it would taken care of immediately. A lienholder on the pickup truck sent a notice to her that they had not been notified that the insurance had been renewed. Mrs. Cook became very concerned and the Respondent offered to refund her premium; however, three months had evidently elapsed since she first renewed her insurance or thought she had. Thus, Mrs. Cook, without knowing at the time, was driving her automobiles without insurance coverage for approximately a three-month period. Mrs. Cook contacted the Department and got her insurance reinstated and placed with another servicing agent. The policy was issued by UGIC, without requiring the payment of a premium down payment by the Respondent. The Respondent had still not forwarded the $339.00 down payment originally received from Mrs. Cook as of April 19, 1995. This lapse or failure to forward the insurance down payment obviously resulted in the coverage never being bound with the company. Therefore, the company had not issued and had no record of coverage for Mrs. Cook's vehicles. The agent for this company was required to account for and promptly forward insurance premium down payments, such as this, to the insurer he represented and on behalf of the insured he also represented in the transaction. Christopher Camus of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for a 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass. He went to the agency on August 25, 1993, and the Respondent placed his coverage with Security. The total premium was quoted as $274.00. Mr. Camus signed an application on that date and paid the full amount to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to forward the application and premium to the insurance carrier, and the policy of insurance was not actually issued until November 30, 1993. Mr. Camus was thus left without coverage for approximately two months. He made repeated telephone calls to the Agency to no avail. Agency personnel maintained that the problem was occurring with the insurance company itself and was not the fault of the Respondent's Agency. The Respondent deposited Mr. Camus' check in August of 1993, but the application for his insurance was never received by Security until December 23, 1993. The Respondent thus did not promptly and appropriately handle the insurance premium funds in question and forward the application so as to promptly bind the coverage for the customer. Indeed, it is noteworthy that this company revoked the Respondent's authority to bind coverage for customers on March 14, 1994 due to an excessive amount of such late submissions of insurance applications and premiums. In 1993, of the 1,299 applications taken by the Respondent and his Agency, only 58 percent reached the insurer's office within the required time period. In summary, the evidence presented in this case indicates that the Respondent engaged in the general business practice of selling ancillary products to insureds without truly obtaining "informed consent" of those insureds. The pattern running through the testimony of the above-described witnesses, none of whom were shown to have any motive to falsify their testimony, was that, although they signed the various disclosures on the insurance underwriting or binding documents, indicating that they understood that the ancillary products were optional, were not insurance, and were not required to be purchased. They did not receive any significant explanation of the optional nature of those products concerning the advisability of their purchase (particularly as to those customers who had AAA coverage), nor the extra cost attributable to those products. Each insured witness consistently maintained that he or she had not read the numerous documents presented to them. Certainly, they should have, in an abundance of caution, read the documents and attempted to understand them. Their failure to do so, however, does not absolve the Respondent of his duty to specifically explain to each customer the exact nature of the coverage being offered, whether or not it was legally optional, particularly, as to those customers who stated definitely that they only wanted the bare minimum coverage required by law, and the fact that it was optional at an extra cost, and was not included in the basic insurance coverage being sold. It is clear from these witnesses' testimony that none had requested motor club benefits or any other ancillary product and yet, in effect, these were automatically added to the policies involved in this proceeding in each transaction and were clearly not explained to the customers. The general business practice of the Respondent involved in the sale of the motor club and ancillary products belies the existence of "informed consent" on the part of the customers. Mr. James Self is a former agent for the Respondent, who testified regarding the Respondent's business practices. He was trained by the Respondent and worked for the Agency from August, 1993 to June, 1994. The Agency had a policy of giving telephone quotes for insurance premiums, without including the amount represented by motor club or other add-on optional products. The Agency would then add such products to the insurance package when the customer came in to purchase insurance. According to Mr. Self, any sort of explanation or disclosure of these add-on products to the customer would be merely to the effect that the insurance "quote" included towing or rental. There was little else explained about it. In many of the situations with witnesses in this case, the insureds only requested the minimum coverage and, therefore, no optional or ancillary products were justified without full explanation to the customer. Mr. Self described how the Respondent specifically trained him in "clubbing", which meant adding motor club coverage to the insurance coverage requested by customers. The Respondent's own testimony shows the economic necessity for the pervasive sale of such motor club benefits to as many customers as possible, when he stated: It's really the only way to exist . . . Q: So you're telling me that the only way for you to exist is to sell motor clubs? A: Financially, it's -- really for most businesses in this market it's the only way to be able to survive. Transcript, page 175. The Respondent further acknowledged the pecuniary interest he had in selling travel or motor clubs since he described his average commission as being 90 percent of the fee for writing that coverage, which is higher than the commission on insurance products. Moreover, he recovered all of that money from the down payment the customers were making, supposedly for their insurance coverages. Therefore, his incentive was multiplied because he was getting the high commission percentage rate, plus he was getting all of it in cash on the initial portion of the transaction, the down payment. Mr. Self also explained that salesmen would never tell the insured exactly how much the motor club cost. On occasions, when Mr. Self would try to partially disclose the motor club, the Respondent would tell him to "hurry up", that he was taking too much time in effecting the transaction. It was Mr. Self's experience that approximately 99 percent of the customers coming into the Agency for insurance left having purchased motor club benefits. Eventually, Mr. Self was terminated because he did not sell enough motor club products. The overall gravamen of his testimony shows that he attempted to make some disclosure or explanation of the motor club and other ancillary products but was discouraged from doing so by the Respondent, with the implication being that this ultimately resulted in his termination from employment with the Respondent's Agency. The evidence thus establishes that, for the most part, the insureds in question did not really know what "minimum coverage" or "full coverage" really consisted of when they came in to purchase such insurance. In making this lay description of the coverage they desired, they then relied on the agent, the Respondent or his employees, to sell them coverage which comported with their wishes and needs, since they were not schooled in the insurance business and related laws themselves. Since they were not so schooled, they almost totally relied on any explanation given to them by the Respondent or his agents or employees. In spite of the signing of the disclosure documents referenced in the above Findings of Fact, the reality of the situation, as a continuing, consistent pattern throughout the testimony adduced from these insureds, and from Mr. Self, reveals that no regular business practice of obtaining an informed consent from customers, such as these, was carried out by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Daniel Lee Alison, be found guilty of the violations set forth and discussed above, that his license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be revoked for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $9,000.00, within a time to be set by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-2690 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-35. Accepted, except to the extent that they do not comport with the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on these subject matters to which they are subordinate. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and because of the editorial comment. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected, as to the editorial comment. 39-40. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-44. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate and somewhat contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive to the issues presented for resolution in this case. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 19-25. Accepted, but not themselves materially dispositive to the resolution of the issues presented to the Administrative Law Judge. 26. Accepted. 27-29. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 30-32. Accepted. 33-36. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as to the overall material import and as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-43. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as immaterial. 44. Accepted, as technically correct, but witness Self, a former employee and a witness who purchased insurance, did establish in his testimony that purchase of an ancillary product was a pre-condition to premium financing by Agency policy. 45-47. Accepted, in part, but otherwise rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 48. Accepted. 49-52. Accepted, but not in and of themselves dispositive of the material issues presented concerning this witness' transaction(s). Rejected, as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley & Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Bill Nelson Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents offered and sold securities in Florida, in violation of the registration requirements of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes; offered and sold securities in Florida while Respondents were unregistered, in violation of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; or committed fraud in the offer, sale, or purchase of securities in Florida, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is the penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent James A. Torchia (Respondent) held a valid life and health insurance license. Respondent was the president and owner of Respondent Empire Insurance, Inc. (Empire Insurance), a now-dissolved Florida corporation. Empire Insurance was in the insurance business, and Respondent was its sole registered insurance agent. At no material time has Respondent or Empire Insurance held any license or registration to engage in the sale or offer for sale of securities in Florida. At no material time were the investments described below sold and offered for sale by Respondent or Empire Insurance registered as securities in Florida. These cases involve viaticated life insurance policies. A life insurance policy is viaticated when the policy owner, also known as the viator, enters into a viatical settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the viator sells the policy and death benefits to the purchaser for an amount less than the death benefit--the closer the viator is perceived to be to death, the greater the discount from the face amount of the death benefit. The viatical industry emerged to provide dying insureds, prior to death, a means by which to sell their life insurance policies to obtain cash to enjoy during their remaining lives. As this industry matured, brokers and dealers, respectively, arranged for the sale of, and bought and resold, life insurance policies of dying insureds. Prior to the death of the viator, these viaticated life insurance policies, or interests in such policies, may be sold and resold several times. In these cases, viators sold their life insurance policies to Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc. (FinFed). Having raised money from investors, American Benefit Services (ABS) then paid FinFed, which assigned viaticated policies, or interests in the policies, to various trusts. The trusts held the legal title to the policies, and the trust beneficiaries, who are the investors from whom ABS had obtained the funds to pay FinFed, held equitable title to the policies. Sometimes in these cases, a broker or dealer, such as William Page and Associates, intervened between the viator and FinFed. At some point, though, ABS obtained money from investors to acquire policies, but did not pay the money to FinFed to purchase viaticated life insurance policies. The FinFed and ABS investment program eventually became a Ponzi scheme, in which investor payouts were derived largely, if not exclusively, from the investments of other investors. ABS typically acquired funds through the promotional efforts of insurance agents, such as Respondent and Empire Insurance. Using literature provided by ABS, these agents often sold these investments to insurance clients. As was typical, Respondent and Empire Insurance advertised the types of claims described below by publishing large display ads that ran in Florida newspapers. Among the ABS literature is a Participation Disclosure (Disclosure), which describes the investment. The Disclosure addresses the investor as a "Participant" and the investment as a "Participation." The Disclosure contains a Participation Agreement (Agreement), which provides that the parties agree to the Disclosure and states whether the investor has chosen the Growth Plan or Income Plan, which are described below; a Disbursement Letter of Instruction, which is described below; and a Letter of Instruction to Trust, which is described below. The agent obtains the investor's signature to all three of these documents when the investor delivers his check, payable to the escrow agent, to purchase the investment. The Disclosure states that the investments offer a “High Return”: “Guaranteed Return on Participation 42% at Maturity.” The Disclosure adds that the investments are “Low Risk”: “Secured by a Guaranteed Insurance Industry Receivable”; “Secured by $300,000 State Insurance Guarantee Fund”; “Short Term Participation (Maturity Expectation 36 Months)”; “Principal Liquid After One Year With No Surrender Charge”; “State Regulated Participation”; “All Transactions By Independent Trust & Escrow Agents”; and “If policy fails to mature at 36 months, participant may elect full return of principal plus 15% simple interest.” The Disclosure describes two alternative investments: the Growth Plan and Income Plan. For the Growth Plan, the Disclosure states: “At maturity, Participant receives principal plus 42%, creating maximum growth of funds.” For the Income Plan, the Disclosure states: “If income is desired, participation can be structured with monthly income plans.” Different rates of return for the Growth and Income plans are set forth below. For investors choosing the Income Plan, ABS applied only 70 percent of the investment to the purchase of viaticated life insurance policies. ABS reserved the remaining 30 percent as the source of money to "repay" the investor the income that he was due to receive under the Income Plan, which, as noted below, paid a total yield of 29.6 percent over three years. The Disclosure states that ABS places all investor funds in attorneys’ trust accounts, pursuant to arrangements with two “bonded and insured” “financial escrow agents.” At another point in the document, the Disclosure states that the investor funds are deposited “directly” with a “financial escrow agent,” pursuant to the participant’s Disbursement Letter of Instruction. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction identifies a Florida attorney as the “financial escrow agent,” who receives the investor’s funds and disburses them, “to the order of [FinFed) or to the source of the [viaticated insurance] benefits and/or its designees.” This disbursement takes place only after the attorney receives “[a] copy of the irrevocable, absolute assignment, executed in favor of Participant and recorded with the trust account as indicated on the assignment of [viaticated insurance] benefits, and setting out the ownership percentage of said [viaticated insurance] benefits”; a “medical overview” of the insured indicative of not more than 36 months’ life expectancy; confirmation that the policy is in full force and effect and has been in force beyond the period during which the insurer may contest coverage; and a copy of the shipping airbill confirming that the assignment was sent to the investor. The Disclosure states that the investor will direct a trust company to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. When the life insurance policy matures on the death of the viator, the insurer pays the death benefits to the trust company, which pays these proceeds to the investor, in accordance with his interest in the trust. Accordingly, the Letter of Instruction to Trust directs FinFed, as the trust company, to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. The Letter of Instruction to Trust provides that the viaticated insurance benefits obtained with the investor's investment shall be assigned to this trust, and, at maturity, FinFed shall pay the investor a specified sum upon the death of the viator and the trustee's receipt of the death benefit from the insurer. The Disclosure provides that, at anytime from 12 to 36 months after the execution of the Disclosure, the investor has the option to request ABS to return his investment, without interest. At 36 months, if the viator has not yet died, the investor has the right to receive the return of his investment, plus 15 percent (five percent annually). The Disclosure states that ABS will pay all costs and fees to maintain the policy and that all policies are based on a life expectancy for the viator of no more than 36 months. Also, the Disclosure assures that ABS will invest only in policies that are issued by insurers that are rated "A" or better by A.M. Best "at the time that the Participant's deposit is confirmed." The Disclosure mentions that the trust company will name the investor as an irrevocable assignee of the policy benefits. The irrevocable assignment of policy benefits mentioned in the Disclosure and the Disbursement Letter of Instruction is an anomaly because it does not conform to the documentary scheme described above. After the investor pays the escrow agent and executes the documents described above, FinFed executes the “Irrevocable Absolute Assignment of Viaticated Insurance Benefits.” This assignment is from the trustee, as grantor, to the investor, as grantee, and applies to a specified percentage of a specific life insurance policy, whose death benefit is disclosed on the assignment. The assignment includes the "right to receive any viaticated insurance benefit payable under the Trusts [sic] guaranteed receivables of assigned viaticated insurance benefits from the noted insurance company; [and the] right to assign any and all rights received under this Trust irrevocable absolute assignment." On its face, the assignment assigns the trust corpus-- i.e., the insurance policy or an interest in an insurance policy--to the trust beneficiary. Doing so would dissolve the trust and defeat the purpose of the other documents, which provide for the trust to hold the policy and, upon the death of the viator, to pay the policy proceeds in accordance with the interests of the trust beneficiaries. The assignment bears an ornate border and the corporate seal of FinFed. Probably, FinFed intended the assignment to impress the investors with the "reality" of their investment, as the decorated intangible of an "irrevocable" interest in an actual insurance policy may seem more impressive than the unadorned intangible of a beneficial interest in a trust that holds an insurance policy. Or possibly, the FinFed/ABS principals and professionals elected not to invest much time or effort in the details of the transactional documentation of a Ponzi scheme. What was true then is truer now. Obviously, in those cases in which no policy existed, the investor paid his money before any policy had been selected for him. However, this appears to have been the process contemplated by the ABS literature, even in those cases in which a policy did exist. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction and correspondence from Respondent, Empire Insurance, or Empire Financial Consultant to ABS reveal that FinFed did not assign a policy, or part of a policy, to an investor until after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In some cases, Respondent or Empire Insurance requested ABS to obtain for an investor a policy whose insured had special characteristics or a investment plan with a maturity shorter than 36 months. FinFed and ABS undertook other tasks after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In addition to matching a viator with an investor, based on the investor's expressed investment objectives, FinFed paid the premiums on the viaticated policies until the viator died and checked on the health of the viator. Also, if the viator did not die within three years and the investor elected to obtain a return of his investment, plus 15 percent, ABS, as a broker, resold the investor's investment to generate the 15 percent return that had been guaranteed to the investor. Similarly, ABS would sell the investment of investors who wanted their money back prior to three years. The escrow agent also assumed an important duty--in retrospect, the most important duty--after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents; the escrow agent was to verify the existence of the viaticated policy. Respondent and Empire Insurance sold beneficial interests in trusts holding viaticated life insurance policies in 50 separate transactions. These investors invested a total of $1.5 million, nearly all of which has been lost. Respondent and Empire Insurance earned commissions of about $120,000 on these sales. Petitioner proved that Respondent and Empire Insurance made the following sales. Net worths appear for those investors for whom Respondent recorded net worths; for most, he just wrote "sufficient" on the form. Unless otherwise indicated, the yield was 42 percent for the Growth Plan. In all cases, investors paid money for their investments. In all cases, FinFed and ABS assigned parts of policies to the trusts, even of investors investing relatively large amounts. On March 21, 1998, Phillip A. Allan, a Florida resident, paid $69,247.53 for the Growth Plan. On March 26, 1998, Monica Bracone, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $900,000, paid $8000 for the Growth Plan. On April 2, 1998, Alan G. and Judy LeFort, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on June 8, 1998, the LeForts paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In the second transaction, the yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement notes a 36-month life expectancy of the viator. The different yields based on life expectancies are set forth below, but, as noted above, the standard yield was 42 percent, and, as noted below, this was based on a 36-month life expectancy, so Respondent miscalculated the investment return or misdocumented the investment on the LeForts' second transaction. On April 29, 1998, Doron and Barbara Sterling, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on August 14, 1998, the Sterlings paid $100,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield for the second transaction is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement notes that the Sterlings were seeking a viator with a life expectancy of only 30 months. When transmitting the closing documents for the second Sterling transaction, Respondent, writing ABS on Empire Insurance letterhead, stated in part: This guy has already invested with us (15,000) [sic]. He gave me this application but wants a 30 month term. Since he has invested, he did some research and has asked that he be put on a low T-cell count and the viator to be an IV drug user. I know it is another favor but this guy is a close friend and has the potential to put at least another 500,000 [sic]. If you can not [sic] do it, then I understand. You have done a lot for me and I always try to bring in good quality business. If this inventory is not available, the client has requested that we return the funds . . . In a third transaction, on February 24, 1999, the Sterlings paid $71,973 for the Growth Plan. The yield is only 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects the typical 36-month life expectancy for the viator. Although the investors would not have received this document, Respondent completed an ABS form entitled, "New Business Transmittal," and checked the box, "Life Expectancy 2 years or less (28%). The other boxes are: "Life Expectancy 2 1/2 years or less (35%)" and "Life Expectancy 3 years or less (42%)." On May 4, 1998, Hector Alvero and Idelma Guillen, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $6000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on October 29, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a third transaction, on November 30, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. For this investment, Ms. Guillen requested an "IV drug user," according to Respondent in a letter dated December 1, 1998, on Empire Financial Consultants letterhead. This is the first use of the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants, not Empire Insurance, and all letters after that date are on the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants. In a fourth transaction, on January 29, 1999, Ms. Guillen paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On April 23, 1998, Bonnie P. Jensen, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $120,000, paid $65,884.14 for the Growth Plan. Her yield was 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 20, 1998, Michael J. Mosack, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $70,600 for the Income Plan. He was to receive monthly distributions of $580.10 for three years. The total yield, including monthly distributions, is $20,883.48, which is about 29.6 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 27, 1998, Lewis and Fernande G. Iachance, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On June 3, 1998, Sidney Yospe, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $1,500,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 30-month life expectancy. On June 12, 1998, Bernard Aptheker, with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 10, 1998, Irene M. and Herman Kutschenreuter, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 9, 1998, Daniel and Mary Spinosa, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 5, 1998, Pauline J. and Anthony Torchia, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000 and the parents of Respondent, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 29, 1998, Christopher D. Bailey, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction on the same day, Mr. Bailey paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. Petitioner submitted documents concerning a purported purchase by Lauren W. Kramer on July 21, 1998, but they were marked "VOID" and do not appear to be valid. On July 22, 1998, Laura M. and Kenneth D. Braun, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $150,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan, as Respondent completed the Participation Agreement. However, the agreement calls for them to receive $205.42 monthly for 36 months and receive a total yield, including monthly payments, of 29.6 percent, so it appears that the Brauns bought the Income Plan. In a second transaction, also on July 22, 1998, the Brauns paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Roy R. Worrall, a Florida resident, paid $100,000 for the Income Plan. The Participation Agreement provides that he will receive monthly payments of $821.66 and a total yield of 29.6 percent. On July 16, 1998, Earl and Rosemary Gilmore, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on February 12, 1999, the Gilmores paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of two years or less. On July 14, 1998, David M. Bobrow, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $700,000 on one form and $70,000 on another form, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction, on the same day, Mr. Bobrow paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 27, 1998, Cecilia and Harold Lopatin, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 30, 1998, Ada R. Davis, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Income Plan. Her total yield, including monthly payments of $246.50 for three years, is 29.6 percent. In a second transaction, on the same day, Ms. Davis paid $30,000 for the Income Plan on the same terms as the first purchase. On July 27, 1998, Joseph F. and Adelaide A. O'Keefe, Florida residents with a net worth of $300,000, paid $12,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 5, 1998, Thurley E. Margeson, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 19, 1998, Stephanie Segaria, a Florida resident, paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 26, 1998, Roy and Glenda Raines, Florida residents, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of 30 months or less. In a second transaction, on the same day, the Raineses paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy, although, again, the New Business Transmittal notes the life expectancy of 30 months or less. On November 24, 1998, Dan W. Lipford, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan in two transactions. In a third transaction, on January 13, 1999, Mr. Lipford paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 1, 1998, Mary E. Friebes, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 4, 1998, Allan Hidalgo, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 17, 1998, Paul E. and Rose E. Frechette, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including monthly payments of $205.41 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 26, 1998, Theodore and Tillie F. Friedman, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 19, 1999, Robert S. and Karen M. Devos, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Arthur Hecker, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $410.83 for 36 months, is 29.6 percent. On February 11, 1999, Michael Galotola, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on the same day, Michael and Anna Galotola paid $12,500 for the Growth Plan. On November 3, 1998, Lee Chamberlain, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 23, 1998, Herbert L. Pasqual, a Florida resident, paid $200,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $1643.33 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 1, 1998, Charles R. and Maryann Schuyler, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. Respondent and Empire Insurance were never aware of the fraud being perpetrated by FinFed and ABS at anytime during the 38 transactions mentioned above. Respondent attempted to verify with third parties the existence of the viaticated insurance policies. When ABS presented its program to 30-40 potential agents, including Respondent, ABS presented these persons an opinion letter from ABS's attorney, stating that the investment was not a security, under Florida law. Respondent also contacted Petitioner's predecessor agency and asked if these transactions involving viaticated life insurance policies constituted the sale of securities. An agency employee informed Respondent that these transactions did not constitute the sale of securities.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Finding James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., not guilty of violating Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes; Finding James A. Torchia guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; Finding Empire Insurance, Inc., guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes, except for transactions closed on or after December 1, 1998; Directing James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., to cease and desist from further violations of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $120,000 against James A. Torchia. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Fred H. Wilsen Senior Attorney Office of Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation South Tower, Suite S-225 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1799 Barry S. Mittelberg Mittelberg & Nicosia, P.A. 8100 North University Drive, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33321
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Gary L. McKinley (Respondent or McKinley), violated sections 626.611(5), (7), (8), (9), or (13); 626.621(2) or (6); 626.9521; 626.9541(1)(e)1.; or 627.4554, Florida Statutes (2007-2010), or Florida Administrative Code Rules 69B-215.210 or 69B-215.230 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If it is found that Respondent violated any or all of these provisions as alleged, then it must be determined what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Respondent has served as the president, owner, managing member, and agent in charge of McKinley and Associates, LLC, 6622 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 350, Jacksonville, Florida 32216-6188. Respondent has been licensed as a life insurance agent, variable annuity and health agent, variable annuity agent, and a life and health agent, since April of 1988 and at all times relevant to this proceeding. McKinley was at one time registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as a broker representative with Intervest International Equities Corporation (Intervest) from May 2008 until November 2010, and was an associated person with other entities including The Leaders Group, Inc., from November 2006 through February 2008. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this case, Respondent was the subject of a complaint of misconduct related to the purchase of an annuity. As a result, and without admitting the allegations in that case, he agreed to a 30-day suspension of his FINRA credentials and a fine. Thereafter, he signed agreements with the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on March 8, 2007, September 24, 2007, and October 21, 2007, agreeing to strict supervision with respect to the sale of securities. During the period relevant to these proceedings, the brokers who filled the role as supervisor were Bill Beck and David Arnold. Neither gentleman supervised any of Respondent’s insurance responsibilities except with respect to the sale of variable annuities. Mr. McKinley has been appointed as an agent for various insurance companies, including John Hancock Life Insurance Company (Hancock), ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (ING), Pacific Life Insurance Company (Pacific Life), Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (Lincoln), Reliastar Life Insurance Company (Reliastar), Government Personnel Mutual Life Insurance Company (GPM), Aviva Life and Annuity Company (Aviva), Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Nationwide), West Coast Life Insurance Company (West Coast), Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Transamerica), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metlife). The Vaughn Family Merie Vaughn is a widow with two married sons and five grandchildren. She was born November 18, 1934, and is currently 81 years old. Mrs. Vaughn grew up in and lived in Jackson County, Florida, where she met and married her husband, Rufus Vaughn. She graduated from high school in Jackson County, took some post-secondary business courses, and worked in a variety of places while Mr. Vaughn attended college. Mr. Vaughn worked in the banking industry, and by his retirement had risen to the position of bank president of the Regions Bank in Marianna, Florida. During Mr. Vaughn’s banking career, Mrs. Vaughn sometimes worked as a teller at various banks that he managed. Mr. Vaughn retired in the ‘90s and died in 1997. Mr. Vaughn was a financially-savvy gentleman and believed in saving. During his lifetime, he and Mrs. Vaughn set up several trusts for the management of the funds they had accumulated during their life together. At the time of his death, there was a family trust and a marital trust, as well as an IRA. The trusts were administered by Regions Bank out of Birmingham, Alabama. At the time of Rufus Vaughn’s death in 1997, Ms. Vaughn’s assets were worth approximately $2 million. They were heavily invested in bank stocks. Mrs. Vaughn has two sons, David and Terry. David is approximately ten years older than Terry, is married to Yvette (Lori) Day, and they have four children: Avery, Carly, Chloe, and Dawson, who are 25, 22, 14, and 9 years old, respectively. David and his family live in the Jacksonville area. Terry Vaughn is married to Stephanie Vaughn, and they have one son, Connor, born February 1, 2008. The family lives in Tallahassee, Florida. Toward the end of 2008, Connor was diagnosed with mild autism. Terry has a congenital heart condition that may require valve replacement in the future. In approximately October 2001, Ms. Vaughn moved from Marianna to the Jacksonville area because it was easier for her to receive treatment at Mayo Clinic for an ongoing health problem. Her funds, however, remained with Regions Bank in Birmingham, which served as trustee for the trusts in effect at that time. By 2007, approximately 10 years after her husband’s death, Mrs. Vaughn’s assets had grown to between $7 million and $8 million. In addition to the trusts and an IRA, Mrs. Vaughn’s holdings included a lake-side home in Jackson County, 135 acres of undeveloped land, her home in the Jacksonville area, a car, and a boat. Mrs. Vaughn monitored her holdings on a computer software system purchased for her by one of her sons. At some time in 2007, Mrs. Vaughn became dissatisfied with the trustee at Regions Bank, because she wanted to buy a new car and he would not permit her to withdraw enough funds to do so. In addition, having the trusts handled in Birmingham while she was living in the Jacksonville area was cumbersome for her. She decided that moving the trusts to somewhere closer to her made sense. Around this time, Mrs. Vaughn’s son David introduced her to Respondent. David had met McKinley through his daughter Avery’s soccer team, for which McKinley was a coach. David had talked with McKinley about rolling over some IRAs after an employment change, and had purchased two annuities from him as a result. David met John Crawford, a well-respected, board- certified, estate planning attorney who worked with the law firm Marks Gray. The parties stipulated that Mr. Crawford is a well- respected expert in the field who works with one of Jacksonville’s pre-eminent and well established law firms. Mrs. Vaughn first met with both McKinley and John Crawford in approximately May of 2007. There were a series of meetings with Mrs. Vaughn beginning in May or June 2007, through the end of Mr. McKinley’s relationship with her in October 2010.3/ These meetings were, according to Mrs. Vaughn, generally 30 to 40 minutes long. Among the initial suggestions made to Mrs. Vaughn by Mr. McKinley, with the concurrence of investment planner Bill Beck and attorney John Crawford, was that Mrs. Vaughn diversify her investments. At the time of their initial meetings, Mrs. Vaughn was almost exclusively invested in banking stocks. Mrs. Vaughn followed this advice, which was timely, given the downturn in the stock market and damage to the banking industry that occurred the following year. With each meeting Mr. McKinley prepared an agenda for discussion purposes that he shared with Mrs. Vaughn or whoever attended the meeting. The handwritten notes on the agendas admitted into evidence have been disregarded, as no evidence was presented to demonstrate who made the notations and whether they were made in preparation of the meeting, during the meeting, or in an effort to summarize what was actually discussed. While Mrs. Vaughn did not remember some of the specific details reflected on the meeting agendas, she acknowledged that McKinley discussed in detail many of the specific items that were referenced in the agendas. Moreover, she acknowledged that there was ample opportunity to ask questions about any item mentioned on an agenda that was not initially covered. The focus of many of these meetings, especially the early ones, was creating an estate plan for Mrs. Vaughn that would meet her stated goals: to provide for herself during her lifetime; to provide for her children and grandchildren, and possibly future generations; and to reduce any estate taxes that might be due at her passing. Mr. Crawford’s role in these early meetings was as Mrs. Vaughn’s attorney. As is discussed in more detail below, Mr. McKinley, John Crawford, and Mrs. Vaughn agreed to an investment and estate planning strategy that involved the creation of several Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts (ILITs), with John Crawford acting as trustee for them. Mr. McKinley assisted with the purchase of life insurance policies on the lives of Mrs. Vaughn, David Vaughn and Yvette Day, Terry and Stephanie Vaughn, and Avery, Carly, Chloe, and Dawson Vaughn. An educational trust fund was also created, as well as a special needs trust for the benefit of Connor Vaughn. Over the course of 2007 through 2010, a number of life insurance policies were purchased, and some of the policies originally purchased were either surrendered or allowed to lapse as other policies were purchased to replace them. At some point late in 2010, Mrs. Vaughn became dissatisfied with the amount of funds being used to purchase life insurance, and she terminated Mr. McKinley’s services. She voiced some of her concerns to David Arnold, who advised her to get an attorney.4/ She has since directed that several of the policies that were in place be terminated, and has filed a civil suit against Mr. McKinley. It is the propriety of the creation of the insurance trusts and the purchase of the life insurance policies contained in those trusts that gives rise to these disciplinary proceedings. Factors to Consider with the Purchase of Life Insurance Generally, the purchase of life insurance requires consideration of several factors, including but not limited to the purchaser’s financial goals, insurability, capacity, and the sustainability of the planned purchase. Life insurance can be used for a variety of purposes, including the traditional goal of providing for one’s family in the event of the one’s death. In addition, life insurance can be used to provide a source for the payment of estate taxes, to create capital and to create liquidity for one’s estate. For purposes of both estate planning and the purchase of insurance in general, it is imperative that all professionals in the process consider which of these uses are consistent with the client’s goals. Here, as stated above, Mrs. Vaughn’s goals were to provide for herself during her lifetime; to provide for her children and grandchildren, and perhaps future generations; and to reduce any estate taxes that might be due at her passing. In 2007, when Mrs. Vaughn began meeting with Gary McKinley and John Crawford, the exemption for estate taxes was $2 million, leaving approximately $5 million of her assets subject to a 45 percent tax rate, which would result in a tax bill estimated at anywhere from $1.8 to $2.25 million upon her death. There have been some dramatic changes in the tax law from 2007 to 2015: in 2011, Congress increased the estate tax exemption to $5 million, but the increase was originally only for two years, when it was scheduled to sunset. As of 2015, the exemption is $5,430,000, and indexed for inflation. However, at the time of most of the events in this case, the exemption remained at $2 million. Accordingly, during the time at issue in this proceeding, reduction of estate taxes for Mrs. Vaughn was an acceptable, realistic goal, in addition to the goals of providing for herself and her family. The insurability of the proposed insured must also be considered. There are many factors that can affect a person’s insurability, such as one’s age; health; habits, such as smoking or alcohol use; and lifestyle or potentially dangerous hobbies, such as skydiving, international travel, reckless driving, or other activities that increase the risk of death or injury. Questions about one’s health history and lifestyle are included on insurance applications, and usually a medical exam, including blood work, is required by underwriting. The questions regarding one’s health can be pretty extensive, and most insurance companies will not issue a policy without a physical given by a physician or a paramedic. There are some instances where an insurance company will insure a person with health problems or a riskier lifestyle, but the policy will be “rated,” meaning that the premium will be higher than the standard premium for the same coverage. With respect to some of the policies in this case, rating is reflected as, for example, 1.75 while others reflect the same rating as 175 percent. Both indicate that the premium would be 1.75 times the standard premium for the same coverage. In this case, two of the insureds had issues that caused a higher rating with respect to insurance premiums: Merie Vaughn was in her early 70s when she started meeting with McKinley and purchasing life insurance. She also had some health conditions, such as high cholesterol and blood sugar issues that caused some of her policies to be rated. Similarly, as noted above, Terry Vaughn has a congenital heart condition that resulted in higher-rated policies. Also to be considered is the insured’s capacity to buy the proposed insurance: in other words, how much insurance can the insured afford to purchase? According to Mike Saunders, while each carrier has different rules, most insurance companies will insure someone for 20 times the person’s income, or up to the person’s net worth. If a policy is a replacement policy, that can expand the person’s capacity. Insurance companies will not generally issue life insurance for more than they think is financially reasonable, unless there are special circumstances that are disclosed. Using Mr. Saunders’ numbers, Mrs. Vaughn’s capacity in terms of coverage would have been approximately $6-7 million. Mr. Saunders did not believe that Mrs. Vaughn was over-insured, and saw no indication that any carrier considering a policy application ever indicated that she was over-insured. Finally, an important consideration is whether the person seeking to purchase life insurance can realistically afford the premiums. Common sense dictates that one should only consider buying something that they can continue to afford to pay. There are allegations in the Administrative Complaint contending that McKinley’s purpose in purchasing so many life insurance policies was to waste Mrs. Vaughn’s estate and earn more commissions for himself. However, it does not appear, from the evidence presented, that it was the purchase of life insurance that caused the wasting of Mrs. Vaughn’s estate. Count I: Creation of the ILITs After numerous discussions over the course of several months with Mr. McKinley, John Crawford, and Tim McFarland, an estate planning attorney with John Hancock, Mrs. Vaughn agreed to the proposed strategy of creating a series of ILITs. An ILIT is an accepted estate planning strategy used to shield income from creditors and to reduce estate taxes upon a client’s passing. It is an irrevocable trust designed to hold life insurance policies, and is a common strategy used with the idea of removing the death benefit of an insurance policy from someone’s taxable estate. The ILIT must be set up so that the settlor has no incidents of ownership over the trust, or the proceeds will not be removed from the estate. ILITs are a commonly used and entirely appropriate vehicle in an estate plan in order to shift the client’s wealth from what the client owns to irrevocable trusts for the benefit of the settlor’s family. They are a management vehicle for wealth that protects that wealth from creditors, and allows assets to pass from the settlor to the trust, outside the estate, straight to the beneficiaries without being subject to estate tax. For a client with assets such as Mrs. Vaughn, the use of ILITs was an appropriate and beneficial estate planning tool. An essential element of an ILIT is the removal of the incidents of ownership from the settlor to the trustee. With respect to each of the ILITs discussed below, Merie Vaughn agreed to appoint John Crawford as the trustee. What this meant in practical terms, is that while Merie Vaughn funded each of the ILITs by paying the premiums for the life insurance policies purchased for the ILITs out of her assets (or those of the trusts for which she was the beneficiary), she relinquished ownership and control of the trust (and its contents) to John Crawford, as the trustee. Moreover, as trustee, John Crawford was considered the owner of the life insurance policies in each ILIT that was created, regardless of whose life was insured. As trustee, it was his responsibility to make the decisions regarding the purchase of insurance policies, and the payment of the premiums on those policies. Before the creation of the ILITs, McKinley showed Merie Vaughn multiple estate planning diagrams to illustrate the overall plan. He also made Mr. Crawford available for any questions she might have. When asked, Merie Vaughn acknowledged that she had multiple opportunities to ask questions, and that did not believe that McKinley was trying to hide anything from her. As a result of the estate planning strategy presented to Merie Vaughn, with which she agreed, the Rufus C. Vaughn Revocable Trust and the Merie M. Vaughn Revocable Trust from Birmingham, with Regions Bank as the trustee, were moved to Jacksonville, and John Crawford was appointed as the successor trustee. In addition, several ILITs were created between September 2007 and March 2010, also naming John Crawford as trustee. Mr. Crawford explained the various trust documents to Merie Vaughn during this process. The trusts created for Merie Vaughn’s estate plan are as follows: the Merie M. Vaughn Irrevocable Insurance Trust, executed September 25, 2007; the Merie Vaughn Retained Annuity Trust, executed October 23, 2007; the David C. Vaughn Irrevocable Insurance Trust, executed October 31, 2007; the Terry R. Vaughn Irrevocable Insurance Trust, executed October 20, 2007; the Stephanie Eller Vaughn Irrevocable Insurance Trust, executed May 21, 2009; the Yvette L. Day Irrevocable Insurance Trust, executed April 18, 2009; the Merie M. Vaughn Trust F/B/O Connor E. Vaughn, executed March 30, 2010; and the Vaughn Family Education Trust, executed March 30, 2010. With the exception of the Merie Vaughn Retained Annuity Trust, for which Merie Vaughn is the trustee, all of the other trusts, i.e., all of the ILITs, name John Crawford as trustee. With respect to each ILIT, the following provision, or one substantially similar to the following provision, is found at Article II, Section 2, of the trusts: I anticipate, but do not require, that the Trustees will purchase one or more policies of insurance on my life with any cash amount contributed to this trust, and I authorize the Trustees to so apply for insurance on my life (or on the life of anyone else other than a Trustee), in amounts and under terms that the Trustees, in their sole discretion, deem advisable and proper. All incidents of ownership in and to all insurance policies transferred to or purchased by the Trustees shall be vested in the Trustees, and the insured under any such policy shall not participate in any right or benefit respecting such policies or any other right under this trust, including a power of withdrawal hereunder, either individually, as guardian, custodian, trustee or in any other capacity.[5/] Likewise, all of the ILITs contained a provision at Article II, Section 1, providing, I, the undersigned Grantor, have this day absolutely and irrevocably transferred, assigned and delivered to the Trustees, and to their successors and assigns as Trustees hereunder (all being hereinafter referred to as the “Trustees”), in trust, certain policies of insurance as set forth in a receipt signed by the Trustees. Those policies, as well as any other cash or property that may be received by the Trustees from me or any other source, shall be administered by the Trustees under this agreement. Stephanie Vaughn and Yvette Day did not testify at hearing. Gary McKinley and John Crawford also did not testify. Both David and Terry Vaughn testified that they fully understood the terms of the trust agreements. Merie Vaughn testified that she did not understand the effect of the trust, but she acknowledged that she had ample opportunity to ask questions of both McKinley, and of John Crawford, the attorney she retained. She also acknowledged that she never told John Crawford that she did not understand the ILITs, and while McKinley offered to take as much time as she needed to review the estate plan, including the ILITs, with her, she did not take advantage of his offer. Count I of the Administrative Complaint, at paragraph 29, alleges that “[y]ou, Gary L. McKinley, completed a new account form on behalf of Mrs. Vaughn for the Leaders Group. On that form, you listed Mrs. Vaughn as being an experienced investor, her net worth as $8 million, her liquid net worth as $3 million and her annual income as $250,000. You knew or should have known that these representations were false.” While the investment application was shown to Mrs. Vaughn at hearing, she did not testify regarding the completion of the form, and did not identify who was responsible for the estimation of her net worth. There is simply no evidence as to who completed the form. Moreover, the estimation of her assets at $8 million, considering both her securities and her real property, is a reasonable estimate. The record does not include evidence as to what amount of her income is considered liquid.6/ However, Mrs. Vaughn testified that at the beginning of this process with Gary McKinley, she decided to take a monthly withdrawal of $12,500 to meet her expenses. She also received a minimum distribution on her IRA account, according to David Arnold, of approximately $80,000 a year. A monthly withdrawal of $12,500, plus her Social Security benefit of $1,204 monthly, and the minimum distribution provides annual income along the lines listed in the application. Ironically, there was similar information on a form David Arnold had Mrs. Vaughn complete. He testified that he did not ask her where the liquid assets were, he simply had Mrs. Vaughn complete the form. The more persuasive and compelling evidence presented did not establish that the trusts established as a part of Mrs. Vaughn’s estate plan, and the resultant sales of life insurance policies, were beyond Mrs. Vaughn’s estate planning needs. Likewise, the evidence did not demonstrate that the life insurance policies were not in her best interests or the best interests of her family members. The evidence also did not demonstrate that the insurance policies were sold for the sole purpose of obtaining fees and commissions. Contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, the evidence did not demonstrate that McKinley engaged in willful misrepresentations or deceptive acts and practices. In fact, Mrs. Vaughn testified that she did not believe that McKinley was trying to hide anything from her, and consistently offered to spend more time if necessary to explain anything she did not understand. The Administrative Complaint also alleges at paragraph 33 that McKinley wrote a total of 10 life insurance policies on Mrs. Vaughn with death benefits totaling $10,111,052 and premiums totaling $467,024.97. What the Administrative Complaint omits is that some of these policies replaced other policies, resulting in lower overall premium costs to Mrs. Vaughn at higher benefits. The annual cost of the premiums on the life of Mrs. Vaughn was significantly lower than that alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Mike Saunders, the only person represented as an expert in the practice of selling life insurance,7/ testified credibly that replacing policies with more “efficient” policies is an acceptable practice that benefits the client. Count II: ING Policies on the Life of Merie Vaughn Count II of the Administrative Complaint deals with the purchase of ING policy number 1624559 (ING 59). Mrs. Vaughn applied for this policy on August 17, 2007, and it was issued on or about November 7, 2007, with a death benefit of $375,323 and an annual premium of $20,000. The owner of the policy is the Merie Vaughn ILIT. This policy is one of the first policies purchased as part of the estate plan, and contains a signed acknowledgment that the premium is higher than usual, as the insured is rated at 1.75. There is a policy delivery receipt signed by John Crawford dated November 20, 2007, as well as an amendment changing the death benefit to $452,000. However, Respondent is correct that the policy contained in evidence appears to be incomplete: for example, the revised illustration delivered with the policy indicates that it is 16 pages long, but only six of those pages are included. While the Department alleges in the Administrative Complaint, and asserts in its PRO, that Gary McKinley earned a commission of $14,997.80 for the sale of ING 59, it points to no exhibit or testimony to support this proposed finding. Even assuming that this amount is correct, the credible, competent evidence at hearing established that the commissions received by McKinley were not improper. Competent, credible evidence at hearing established that the ING 59 policy was a good policy from a good company. Petitioner asserts that, had Mrs. Vaughn lived to her life expectancy of approximately 14 years, she would have paid $280,000 in premiums. Under those circumstances, the trust would have received a death benefit of $452,000, meaning that the trust would have received $152,000 more than it paid. An amendment to the policy application indicates that the original application was submitted on September 28, 2007, while the application itself reflects the August 17, 2007, date. In any event, Mrs. Vaughn met with McKinley on August 14, September 17, and September 25, 2007. Insurance applications are listed as agenda items for two of these meetings, and the ING application is specifically listed for the September 17, meeting. Mrs. Vaughn was and is a competent adult who had exhibited the capacity to track her investments and understand her assets. There is no competent, credible testimony to support the notion that Mr. McKinley used undue influence to convince her to purchase this policy. Count III: John Hancock Policies on the Life of Merie Vaughn Count III of the Administrative Complaint addresses the purchase of two John Hancock policies. Petitioner’s Exhibit 27 is the application for Hancock policy number 93541373 (Hancock 73), but the actual policy, including the receipt for the policy, is not included in the exhibits for this hearing.8/ The policy specifications at Petitioner’s Exhibit 28 indicate that Hancock 73 had a death benefit of $578,000, an annual premium of $20,000, and was owned by the Merie Vaughn ILIT. The application was also submitted August 17, 2007, and the policy issued November 16, 2007. There is no indication that the policy is rated higher than standard, non-smoking rates. It is difficult to tell if a complete copy of the second policy, John Hancock policy number 94331410 (Hancock 10), is in evidence. However, from the information presented, this policy had a death benefit of $828,518, required an annual premium of $30,000, and the policy was in force beginning in January 1, 2009. It also appears to be issued at the standard non-smoking rate. The policy receipt was signed by John Crawford on December 31, 2008, and the owner of the policy was the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust, with John Crawford as trustee. Both policies enjoyed very respectable rates of return and were considered to be good policies. The more persuasive and compelling evidence established that the policies were part of an acceptable and appropriate estate plan for Mrs. Vaughn. No evidence was presented to establish that the policies were purchased for the sole purpose of generating commissions for McKinley. The two policies lapsed in June and July 2010, respectively. Contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, however, absolutely no evidence was presented to support the allegation that “you, Gary McKinley, knew the importance of maintaining life insurance policies and not allowing them to lapse, but you allowed them to lapse because you desired to generate larger commissions on new replacement sales rather than settle for receiving smaller residual commissions on extent policies.” Under the express terms of the Merie Vaughn ILIT, the ultimate decision with respect to purchasing, paying for, or surrendering life insurance policies was to be made by the trustee, John Crawford, not by McKinley. Respondent did not have the authority to pay the premiums. Neither John Crawford nor Respondent testified in this proceeding, so little if anything is included in the record of this case regarding the decision-making related to allowing these policies to lapse. However, the record indicates that these two policies were meant to be replaced by Transamerica policies in 2010. The application for Transamerica 65140389 (Transamerica 89) specifically lists the John Hancock 73 policy, the ING 59 policy, and the Lincoln 09 and 28 policies as policies that may be replaced, while the application for Transamerica 65144360 (Transamerica 60) lists the John Hancock 10 policy as intended for replacement. While the John Hancock policies had a respectable rate of return, the rate for the Transamerica policies was better. The more compelling and persuasive testimony established that allowing a policy to lapse is the proper method for dealing with the policy when it is going to be replaced by a more efficient policy. No competent, persuasive evidence of any willful misrepresentations or deceptive acts or practices was presented. Count IV: GPM Policies on the Life of Merie Vaughn Count IV deals with the application process and issuance of three GPM policies, referred to as GPM 25, GPM 30, and GPM 39. On October 21, 2007, McKinley submitted an application for a GPM universal life insurance policy which would become GPM policy 758825 (GPM 25). The illustration for the policy indicates a death benefit of $500,000, with an annual premium of $20,000. The actual application lists under the plan for insurance a benefit of $330,123. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the application for GPM 25 was filled out by Gary McKinley, but no evidence was actually presented with respect to this allegation. The application is signed by both Mrs. Vaughn and Mr. McKinley. The application asks GPM to contact the agent with an offer, and lists the insured as Merie Vaughn, and the owner as a trust, with the trustee as payor.9/ The Administrative Complaint alleges that the application was incomplete in that none of the general information (pages 3 and 4) was completed, and that the application indicated that no other life insurance was in force on Mrs. Vaughn. With respect to the general information on pages 3 and 4 of the application, those pages are in fact blank in the initial submission. However, the Amendment of Application and Policy Delivery Receipt found at Petitioner’s Exhibit 45, page 258, states that “the answers on pages 3 and 4 were given by the proposed insured(s), age 15 and older, by telephone to GPM’s tele-underwriter, who typed in the answers.”10/ Further, contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, at page 238 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 43, the application amendment contains a listing of three insurance policies for Merie Vaughn. While the application listed the proposed owner as a trust, the policy was issued listing Merie Vaughn as both the owner and insured. All of this becomes irrelevant because, according to the records supplied to the Department by GPM, Mrs. Vaughn decided she did not want a universal life policy, but wanted a whole life policy. The documentation from GPM states: Policy No. 758825 was a universal life policy issued on the life of Merie Vaughn with an effective date of January 1, 2009, and a planned premium of $30,000 annually. Mrs. Vaughn did not accept this policy as issued, having decided she wanted whole life coverage instead. Our administrative system builds multiple screens for universal life policies that we are unable to change to accommodate a different plan of insurance. For administrative purposes only, we terminated the records for Policy No. 758825 as “not taken” and issued a new Policy No. 760030 for the whole life plan with an effective date of January 1, 2009. The $30,000 premium for Policy No. 788525 was reversed, along with all associated commissions, and re-applied as the initial premium of $29,999.97 for the whole life Policy No. 760030. As noted, GPM 30 was issued January 1, 2009, based on an application dated October 21, 2008, with a death benefit of $348,819 and a planned annual premium of $29,999.97. The policy was rated at 150 percent. Mrs. Vaughn did not remember a discussion related to whole life as opposed to universal life. However, whether such a discussion actually took place is also irrelevant. GPM 30 was owned by the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust, for which John Crawford was serving as trustee. The application for GPM 25 also listed the proposed owner of the policy as a trust, not as Merie Vaughn. Article XI, paragraph (k)(1) and (2) of the trust document specified: (k)(1) Unless the Grantor has been declared incapacitated (either legally or by the terms of this agreement), the Grantor may contribute or direct the Trustee to purchase insurance policies on the life of the Grantor and hold each such policy of insurance purchased by or contributed to the Trustee. . . . The Trustee shall be under no obligation to invest any cash value accumulated in any life insurance policy owned by the Trust regardless of investment yield on such value within the policy as compared to the net investment yield which could be obtained outside the policy. (2) The Trustee shall be under no obligation to pay the premiums which may become due and payable under the provisions of any policies of insurance that may be held in this trust, or to make certain that the premiums are paid by the Grantor or others, or to notify any persons of the non- payment of premiums. Upon notice at any time during the continuance of this trust that the premiums due upon any policy are in default, or that premiums to become due will not be paid, the Trustee, in its sole discretion, may apply any dividends or cash values attributable to the policy to the purchase of paid-up insurance or of extended insurance, or may borrow upon the policy for the payment of premiums, or may accept the cash values of the policy upon its forfeiture, with notice to the Grantor or beneficiaries of the trust or any other person . . . . Clearly, the decision-maker with regard to the purchase of and continued vitality of these policies was John Crawford, who did not testify in this proceeding. There was no evidence presented as to his thought process or any actions taken by him with respect to these policies. Further, the only person who testified at any length as to the standard process for submitting life insurance applications was Mike Saunders. Mr. Saunders described the process in detail, and stated that it is not at all uncommon to submit incomplete applications in order to get the process started. Applications are “scrubbed,” both by the insurance agent’s office and by the insurance company, and there are often amendments to the applications during the process. Mr. Saunders also testified that it was not uncommon to have a client just sign the signature page on an application (something done with several of the policies in this case), because there are going to be multiple “looks” at the application and multiple opportunities to amend as additional information is garnered. In fact, many of the amendment forms in evidence actually include a statement that information included in the amendment will be treated as if it was included on the original application. The failure to have the policy application completely filled out when first submitted is not clear and convincing evidence of a false statement. Mr. Saunders’ testimony, which is unrebutted, is accepted. There is no credible, persuasive evidence that demonstrates that the termination of GPM 25 and issuance of GPM 30 was as a result of McKinley’s “lack of reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence.” Moreover, no evidence was presented to establish what standard represents “adequate knowledge and technical competence,” or how Respondent may have violated that standard. GPM 30 was terminated as of January 1, 2010, for non- payment of premium. As noted above, payment of premium was in the sole discretion of the Trustee. No testimony was presented as to why the premium was not paid, but it was not within McKinley’s authority to pay it. In any event, McKinley assisted in the process of having the policy reinstated. The application for reinstatement of GPM 30 contained information on all of the outstanding policies on the life of Mrs. Vaughn, which was, at this time, at or near the highest point in terms of both death benefit and premium costs. Clearly, the insurance company made the decision to reinstate the policy with full knowledge of the amount of life insurance held on her life at that time. As found above, life insurance “capacity” is a measure used by insurance companies to determine the maximum amount of insurance a company is willing to write on an individual. If Merie Vaughn was over-insured at this point, it is unlikely that the insurance company would have reinstated the policy. Indeed, at no point during the purchase of any of the policies does it appear that any insurance company refused to issue a policy based on lack of capacity. Paragraphs 61 through 65 of the Administrative Complaint reference events that occurred after McKinley’s services were terminated by Mrs. Vaughn. While the exact date of this termination is not in the record, testimony by Mrs. Vaughn and Mr. Arnold place it at late September or early October 2010. Moreover, these paragraphs allege actions by John Crawford as trustee, not actions by McKinley. Paragraph 64 of the Administrative Complaint alleges that John Crawford requested Michael Halloran to replace McKinley “due to your multiple failures to assist in the maintenance of GPM 30.” No evidence was presented regarding John Crawford’s rationale for requesting Mr. Halloran to be reflected as agent of record, although it can be inferred that he was honoring Mrs. Vaughn’s wishes to no longer do business with McKinley. The Department did not present evidence of multiple failures by McKinley regarding the maintenance of GPM 30. The Administrative Complaint also takes issue with the application, issuance, and monitoring of GPM Policy 751339 (GPM 39). The application was originally submitted for GPM 39 in June of 2007, very early in Mrs. Vaughn’s relationship with McKinley.12/ A letter from McKinley dated June 21, 2007, referencing the policy number, states: Please find the enclosed application for Merie Vaughn. As we discussed, trusts will be executed over the next 2-6 weeks and ownership, beneficiaries and FEIN tax ID’s will be re-faxed upon completion. We may place some or all of this premium and death benefit with a standard offer from GPM. Likewise, the Agent’s Report found with the application indicated that McKinley planned to submit the case to other companies, and named John Hancock or best offer. As found above, the fact that the application is not complete is not clear and convincing evidence of a false statement. Moreover, when all of the documents are read together, it is clear that this application was a work in progress. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the policy was “sold” as a million dollar policy but only issued for $221,440. The reference to one million dollars is a reference to the insurance plan. At the point the application was completed, that was the target amount, and McKinley’s letter clearly states that they would place “some or all” of the death benefit with the company, depending on the offer. GPM 39 was issued October 16, 2007, listing Merie Vaughn as the owner, with a death benefit of $221,440 and an annual premium of $19,999.18. The policy was rated at 150 percent. While the portion of the policy included in Exhibit 39 indicates that the policy has 29 pages, only six pages are included in the exhibit. There is an amendment and policy receipt signed by John Crawford as trustee and by McKinley as agent on October 23, 2007, with a second amendment and policy receipt signed by Merie Vaughn as owner on October 29, 2007. The policy receipt showed the beneficiary of the policy to be the trust. However, without the entire policy with all amendments being included in the exhibits, no finding can be made that any type of material error occurred with respect to this policy. Finally, paragraph 58 of the Administrative Complaint alleges that in November 2009, Gary McKinley directed that GPM change GPM 30, GPM 39, and GPM 84, which will be discussed in more detail below, to paid-up policies with no further premiums to be paid. While this is so, the Administrative Complaint does not allege, and the evidence did not demonstrate, why this action was not in Mrs. Vaughn’s best interests. Further, the Administrative Complaint did not allege and the evidence did not demonstrate whether McKinley made these instructions independently, in consultation with others, or solely at the behest of John Crawford or Mrs. Vaughn. The more persuasive and compelling evidence established that the policies were part of an acceptable and appropriate estate plan for Mrs. Vaughn. No evidence was presented to establish that the policies were purchased for the sole purpose of generating commissions for McKinley. Count V: Lincoln Policies on the Life of Merie Vaughn Count V of the Administrative Complaint addresses the purchase of three policies from Lincoln: Lincoln Policy JJ7061061 (Lincoln 61); Lincoln Policy JJ7085909 (Lincoln 09); and Lincoln Policy JJ7085928 (Lincoln 28). The exhibits related to these three policies are Petitioner’s Exhibits 59 through 69. They are, however, incomplete and somewhat confusing. Petitioner’s Exhibit 59 is a copy of the application for Lincoln 28. However, it appears to be a reiteration of Petitioner’s Exhibit 60, with the word MODIFIED stamped on several of its pages. The application is dated April 26, 2009, but the fax legend for this modified document is dated April 28, 2009. With respect to question 50, no policy is listed, but the box to answer “no” is not checked. The exhibit also includes a Lincoln “appropriateness verification form,” used when the policy applied for is going to be used as a replacement policy. It appears that the document is incomplete, however: the fax legend indicates that there were 36 pages faxed, but the exhibit only includes pages 7-16, with one page bearing no legend. Petitioner’s Exhibit 60 also purports to be an application submitted April 26, 2009. The application also appears to be incomplete. For example, the fax legend at the top of the page reflects that there were 17 pages faxed. The exhibit only contains pages 2, 7-10, 13, 14, and 15. Similarly, the numbering on the application pages are 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5, 3A of 5, 3D of 5, 4 of 5, and 5 of 5. For question 10 of the health summary, the application says “see attached,” but no attachment is included in the exhibit. Petitioner’s Exhibit 61 is part, but not all, of Lincoln Policy 28, issued July 28, 2009. The policy is owned by the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust, has a death benefit of $1,250,028, with a premium of $13,000, and is rated at 1.75 for the first 20 years. The exhibit includes a July 15, 2009, amendment to the application, but references an application date of May 7, 2009, as opposed to April 26, 2009, referenced above. The amendment supplies the identifying features of six policies in force for Mrs. Vaughn at that time. Petitioner’s Exhibit 62 is a mixture of documents related to Lincoln Policies 61 and 28. The first part of the exhibit appears to be an application for insurance for Lincoln 61, signed November 21, 2008. Like the application at Petitioner’s Exhibit 60, there are references in the application that say, “see attached,” with no attachments included. Following the application there is what appears to be part of the policy issued for Lincoln 61, listing the schedule of benefits with a death benefit at $912,388, an issue date of January 28, 2009, an annual premium of $30,000, and the use of standard rates. The portion of the policy included begins with page 3, and includes pages 4A-F only. Petitioner’s Exhibit 62 then reverts to documents related to Lincoln 28. It includes a schedule of benefits for that policy, indicating it was issued on July 28, 2009; includes an amendment to the application that references the application as being dated May 7, 2009 (as opposed to April 26, 2009); repeats some of the documents contained in Petitioner’s Exhibit 61; and includes a policy endorsement page and policy receipt for Lincoln 28, reflecting a premium of $60,000 as opposed to $13,000. Petitioner’s Exhibit 64 appears to be a modified application for Lincoln 61, dated January 13, 2009, whereas the original application was dated November 21, 2008. It also refers to attachments that are not included. There is a letter dated January 21, 2008 (although the fax legend reflects January 23, 2009), notifying Lincoln that from the time of application, two additional policies were placed in the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust. There are two copies of an endorsement page for Lincoln 61, identifying the date of coverage as January 28, 2009, and two copies of an amendment to the application, providing additional information for questions 19, 20, and 21. Petitioner’s Exhibit 66 is an application for Lincoln 09, marked as modified, and also dated April 26, 2009. It appears to duplicate the application at Petitioner’s Exhibit 59. Similarly, Petitioner’s Exhibit 67 is also an application dated April 26, 2009, which appears to duplicate Petitioner’s Exhibit 60. At page 430 of Petitioner’s Exhibit 67 is an endorsement for Lincoln 09 that actually references the April 26, 2009 application, as opposed to the May 7, 2009 application referenced (but not supplied) in Petitioner’s Exhibit 62. There is also a Policy receipt for Lincoln 09 dated and signed July 15, 2009, and an unsigned amendment for the policy. Finally, Petitioner’s Exhibit 69 contains a Schedule of Benefits for Lincoln 09, but not the policy in its entirety. The Schedule of Benefits reflects an issue date of July 29, 2009, for a policy with a death benefit of $832,853, with a premium of $40,000. The policy is rated at 1.75 for the first 20 years, then reverts to standard rates. The Schedule of Benefits is the only part of the policy included, and reflects pages 3, and 4A through 4F only. This mishmash of partial applications and partial policies undermines any confidence that the documents represent the whole of what took place with respect to the application and issuance process for these three policies. All that can be said is that Lincoln 61 was issued on January 28, 2009, with a death benefit of $912,388 and an annual premium of $30,000, with a standard rating. The owner of the policy was the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust. On July 28, 2009, Lincoln 09 and Lincoln 28 were issued. Lincoln 09 was owned by the Merie Vaughn Revocable Trust, had a death benefit of $832,853.00, an annual premium of $40,000, and a 1.75 rating. Lincoln 28 was owned by the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust, had a death benefit of $1,250,028, a $60,000 annual premium, and 1.75 rating. Any initial omissions with respect to the applications appear to have been resolved through amendments to the application, consistent with the process described by Michael Saunders. After issuance of Lincoln 61 and before the issuance of Lincoln 09 and Lincoln 28, Mrs. Vaughn signed a letter to McKinley dated April 1, 2009, confirming the strategy of replacing some of her life insurance policies with policies that had more efficient terms. The letter states in part: Gary: Please take all necessary steps to lower my premiums for the life insurance where I am the insured to consider getting the same insurance for a lower premium or leveraging and lowering my premiums to increase Death Benefits. Please check the financials of each company and do your best to confirm the company is indeed solvent and one of the top companies. I understand John Hancock and Lincoln will be the initial and possibly the carriers of choice. The reason I’m doing this is I have noticed and as you have pointed out, my most recent policy with Lincoln for 30k of premium bought me almost $100,000.00 more of death benefit and with the economical environment, it would be helpful if we can lower premiums by some 30k or 50k total this year and going forward, I would like the opportunity to do this. Even with the over 5 Mil saved, I must be prudent in times like this. I realize the initial calculations are that I might save approximately 30k to 50k annually and still be able to increase my Death Benefit by 500k to 1 mil dollars. This is certainly worth us considering consolidation and savings and I appreciate your monitoring my insurance portfolio regularly looking for these types of arbitrage. As of April 29, 2013, Lincoln 61 remained an active policy. Both Lincoln 09 and Lincoln 28 lapsed on January 3, 2011, several months after Mrs. Vaughn terminated McKinley’s services. The Administrative Complaint charges that McKinley failed to provide information in the applications on all in- force life insurance policies on Mrs. Vaughn’s life, specifically listing ING 59, Hancock 73, GPM 30, and GPM 39. As noted above, the applications were updated through the amendment process, which unrefuted evidence indicates is an accepted practice in the insurance industry. While the documents are incomplete, it appears that all necessary information was supplied. While the Administrative Complaint states that “Lincoln later added amendments to L 61, L 09 and L 28 to add the insurance coverage information that you, Gary McKinley, should have included when the applications were originally submitted to Lincoln,” there was no testimony at hearing to demonstrate who supplied the information for the amendments (McKinley or the insurance company), and with documents as incomplete as these, to make any conclusions regarding the source of the information would be speculative. The responsibility for the lapsing of two of the policies cannot be laid at the feet of McKinley: not only was he not responsible for paying the premiums with respect to these policies, but he was no longer working with Mrs. Vaughn at the time the policies lapsed. Moreover, no persuasive, competent evidence was presented to demonstrate that the purchase of these policies was inappropriate and without demonstrable benefit to Mrs. Vaughn. Rather, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the purchase of these policies was part of an integrated strategy to reduce premiums, increase death benefit, and continue the overall goals of reducing Mrs. Vaughn’s taxable estate while still preserving her wealth. Likewise, no evidence was presented from which it could be found that the policies were sold for the “sole purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money or other benefit for [McKinley] and for John Crawford,” or for the premise that McKinley’s intention was to generate larger commissions on new replacement sales rather than settle for receiving smaller commissions on existing residual policies. Count VI: Transamerica Policies on the Life of Merie Vaughn Count VI of the Administrative Complaint deals with Transamerica 89 and Transamerica 60. Mrs. Vaughn signed an application for the Transamerica 89 policy on May 26, 2010. The policy issued on August 6, 2010, with a death benefit of $3,882,000 and an annual premium of $130,000. The owner of the policy was the Merie Vaughn ILIT, and the policy was issued at the standard rate. The policy application for Transamerica 89 indicated that four policies would be replaced by Transamerica 89: Hancock 73, with a death benefit of $578,006 and annual premium of $20,000; ING 59, with a death benefit of $452,000 and annual premium of $20,000; Lincoln 09, with a death benefit of $832,853 and annual premium of $40,000; and Lincoln 28, with a death benefit of $1,250,028 and annual premium of $60,000. In other words, the purchase of Transamerica 89 to replace these four other policies meant an increase in death benefit (from $3,112,887 to $3,882,000), with a reduction in annual premium (from $140,000 to $130,000). Transamerica 60 was issued August 13, 2010, with the owner as the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust. The death benefit was $805,000 with a $27,000 annual premium, calculated at the standard rate. It replaced Hancock 10, which had a death benefit of $828,518, and an annual premium of $30,000. McKinley received commissions on the sale of both policies. Mike Saunders described the Transamerica policies as very efficient. According to the rate of return analysis prepared by John Linnehan, whose testimony is accepted as credible and persuasive, the internal rate of return for these policies was excellent, ranging from 17.1 percent should Mrs. Vaughn live to life expectancy, to a return of 207 percent should she die at the third anniversary of the policy.11/ The same rates applied for both policies. These rates of return far exceed what would be expected as an acceptable rate of return on life insurance policies, and was higher than the rate of return for the policies that they replaced. The more persuasive and compelling evidence demonstrated that the purchase of these policies was intended to and did provide a benefit to Mrs. Vaughn and was appropriate, given her financial circumstances and estate planning goals. Paragraphs 81 and 83 of the Administrative Complaint allege details regarding the cancellation of these policies, at a time when McKinley was no longer working with Mrs. Vaughn. Moreover, John Crawford, as trustee, is the person with the discretion and authority to make decisions with respect to the maintenance or surrender of any and all of the life insurance policies held by the various trusts. No evidence was presented to indicate that McKinley participated in any way with respect to the decisions to surrender or cancel these policies. Likewise, no evidence was presented from which it could be found that the policies were sold for the “sole purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money or other benefit for [McKinley] and for John Crawford,” or for the premise that McKinley’s intention was to generate larger commissions on new replacement sales rather than settle for receiving smaller commissions on existing policies. Count VII: Hancock Long-Term Care Policy In Count VII, the Department takes issue with McKinley’s sale of a Hancock long-term care policy. Merie Vaughn applied for the policy on November 20, 2009, and John Hancock policy 7222784 (Hancock LTC 84) was issued December 29, 2009. Hancock LTC 84 was a policy with a five-year benefit period, and a policy limit of $396,000. The long-term care benefit was for $6,600 per month, and had an annual premium of $12,262.50. Other features of the policy are described in Petitioner’s Exhibit 91, but are not necessary for purposes of this discussion. The Department charges, “[y]ou, Gary McKinley, being both a licensed insurance agent and a securities broker, knew or should have known that the sale of the Hancock long term care policy, in addition to all of the life insurance policies you sold her, was beyond Mrs. Vaughn’s needs, was not in Mrs. Vaughn’s best interests, was neither necessary nor appropriate for a person her age and financial circumstances, was without demonstrable benefit to her, served to waste her estate and was done for the sole purpose of obtaining a fee, commission, money or other benefit for yourself and for John Crawford.” The only factual evidence in the record regarding the purchase of this policy is from Merie Vaughn. She testified that she wanted this policy, and told Gary McKinley that if he could find some long-term care coverage, she would be interested in it. Long-term care coverage was something she wanted. There is no credible, persuasive evidence to demonstrate that McKinley sold this policy just to get a commission. There is no evidence as to what advice McKinley gave Mrs. Vaughn about this type of policy: whether he advised that she obtain it or whether she insisted on buying against his advice. There is no evidence to prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Count VIII: The ING Annuities Count VIII of the Administrative Complaint deals with the purchase of three ING annuities: one purchased with funds from Merie Vaughn’s IRA, one purchased by the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust, and one purchased by the Rufus Vaughn Marital Trust. On September 30, 2007, Mrs. Vaughn’s IRA account was worth approximately $795,972.43. On October 29, 2007, she applied for ING annuity 90275251 (ING Annuity 51), and on December 4, 2007, a one-time premium of $712,037.78 was paid from the assets in Merie Vaughn’s IRA to fund ING Annuity 51. ING Annuity 51 was issued on December 10, 2007, with a five- percent bonus on premium. A bonus is defined in the policy as “an amount equal to a percentage of the Single Premium, as stated on the Contract Data Page, that we add to the Contract’s Accumulation Value on the Contract Date. The Bonus is elected to the Strategies in the same ratio as you elect the Single Premium.” On August 4, 2008, John Crawford, as Trustee of the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust, applied for ING Annuity 90295107 (ING Annuity 07). On August 18, 2008, $500,000 was paid from the assets of the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust for the single premium of $500,000, and on August 19, 2008, ING Annuity 07 was issued with a five-percent bonus on the single premium. On August 4, 2008, John Crawford also applied for ING Annuity 90295108 (ING Annuity 08) as trustee for the Rufus Vaughn Marital Trust.13/ This annuity also had a single premium of $500,000, which was paid from trust proceeds on August 18, 2008. The ING Annuity 08 also issued on August 19, 2008, with a five-percent bonus on the single premium. While the Administrative Complaint alleges that “upon the advice and at the direction of you, Gary McKinley, . . . Ameritrade Clearing issued a check in the amount of $500,000.00 made payable to ING as the single premium” with respect to both annuities purchased by John Crawford as trustee, no evidence was presented to identify who arranged for payment of the annuities. Likewise, the Administrative Complaint alleges with respect to ING Annuities 07 and 08 that “you, Gary McKinley, with the cooperation of lawyer/trustee Crawford, gave your directions or consent . . . to having the [trust] disgorge $500,000.00 for funding the ING annuity,” there is no competent, credible evidence regarding the decision-making with respect to the purchase of these two annuities. Annuities are designed to provide a lifetime income from an initial investment of funds, or can be used to guarantee a certain identified rate of return over a fixed period. There are limitations on how much can be withdrawn from an annuity without incurring surrender fees. In the case of ING Annuity 51, Merie Vaughn withdrew $40,209.19 on December 22, 2008, and $69,675.89 on December 11, 2009. Both amounts were less than the 10 percent allowed annually without incurring surrender fees. From the dates of purchase until March 2012, each of the three annuities earned investment profits of approximately $75,000, for a total profit for the three annuities at $226,206.41. While the annuities have each made a significant profit, as of March 2012, they were not worth as much as they were when they were purchased, because of the amount withdrawn. However, no evidence was presented to identify who made the decision for distributions from the annuities or who decided how much those distributions would be. Moreover, the evidence suggests that with respect to ING Annuity 51, the IRA from which the funds were taken for its purchase was an IRA heavily invested in bank stocks. As noted previously, no one has questioned the advice to diversify those holdings and the testimony was uniform that diversification prior to the recession in 2008 was a positive development for the preservation of Mrs. Vaughn’s assets. There is no evidence as to what the return would have been had the IRA assets been left undisturbed. The returns offered by ING Annuity 51, as well as the other two annuities, were generally higher than that afforded by the market in general, and protected the assets from creditors. The Department did not prove what income would have been generated by the Rufus Vaughn Marital Trust and the Rufus Vaughn Family Trust had the annuities not been purchased for them and the trusts had remained with the mix of assets they each contained prior to the annuity purchases. The Administrative Complaint did not identify and the evidence did not reveal what, if any, willful representations or deceptive acts or practices McKinley committed with respect to the purchase of any of the ING annuities. McKinley earned commissions on the purchase of all three annuities. There was no testimony that the amount of commission was unusual for the products sold. Count IX: Policies on the Life of Terry Vaughn Count IX deals with those policies sold on the life of Terry Vaughn. Three of the policies were held in the Terry Vaughn ILIT, while the fourth was held in the Merie M. Vaughn Trust F/B/O Connor E. Vaughn. The four policies are Hancock 46300489 (Hancock 89), Aviva IL01198680 (Aviva 80), Lincoln 180003841 (Lincoln 41), and Lincoln 180004324 (Lincoln 24). Hancock 89 was taken out on Terry Vaughn’s life and held in the Terry R. Vaughn ILIT. While there was confusion as to when Terry Vaughn signed the application, in all probability he signed it on or about February 25, 2008, and the policy issued on March 6, 2008. The death benefit was $1,694,226, and the policy called for annual premiums of $25,000 for 10 years. The policy appears to be rated at 200 percent. Petitioner’s Exhibit 118, the policy specifications, references supplement dates of October 2, 2007; November 13, 2007; and January 28, 2008, but those supplements are not included in the record. On June 25, 2008, John Crawford, as trustee, applied for additional life insurance on Terry Vaughn’s life through Aviva, which became the basis for the Aviva 80 policy. The application was amended in August 2008, yet the policy reflects that it was issued July 23, 2008, with a death benefit of $1,588,310 and an annual premium of $25,000. The rating is not clearly indicated in the exhibits provided. The application indicates that the Aviva policy would be replacing a West Coast Life policy with a death benefit of $1,298,238. However, Terry Vaughn was unaware of the existence of that policy, which is listed as “personal,” and no other evidence regarding a West Coast Life policy is contained in the record. On October 26, 2009, John Crawford, as trustee of the Terry R. Vaughn ILIT, applied for a policy with Lincoln that became the Lincoln 41 policy. The application was also signed by Terry Vaughn as the insured and by McKinley. The application includes the question, “Please list amounts of all inforce life insurance on your life, including any policies that have been sold. (Please list in the box below.).” The application lists the Aviva policy, but indicates that it was issued in September of 2008 with a death benefit of $1.6 million. The Lincoln application also indicates with respect to the Aviva policy that there will be a replacement or change of policy. At the time of this application, the Hancock 89 policy was still in force, but there is no listing of that policy on the application. The Lincoln 41 policy was issued December 2, 2009, and then its issue date was changed to December 17, 2009. An endorsement to the policy states that Lincoln received all information necessary to issue the policy, but does not specify what information was received, other than the premium of $35,000, and no amendments or medical reports are included in the exhibit. There is also no signed policy receipt. The death benefit for the Lincoln 41 policy is $2,219,885. The policy was rated at two times the standard rate for the first 27 years. If there was certainty that the documents contained in the exhibits with respect to Lincoln 41 were in fact the complete documents submitted with respect to this policy, the undersigned would have no hesitation in finding that by failing to list the Hancock 89 policy as a policy on Terry Vaughn’s life, Respondent had misrepresented the amount of insurance outstanding at that time. However, there is no certainty regarding the completeness of the exhibits. As noted previously, the certification of records from Lincoln is a stand-alone exhibit, not attached to any particular document. (Petitioner’s Exhibit 89). Moreover, that document does not really certify much of anything. The form includes the following language: Pursuant to sections 90.803(6), and/or 90.902(11), Florida Statutes, I hereby certify the following: that as part of my regular duties I maintain custody and control of the records of the Company; that the attached documents consisting of pages, reflects entries of information that were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by a person having knowledge of those matters; that it is the regular practice of the Company to make, keep and maintain the attached data and/or records during the course of regular conducted business; that the attached documents were made as a regular practice in the course of the regularly conducted activity; and that the attached documents are a true and correct copy of the original record contained in the Company’s business records. The space to indicate the number of pages supplied with the certification is left blank. There is no assurance that all of the documents received from this, or any insurance company, are included in the exhibits provided. No one at hearing testified that the records provided were complete, and Terry Vaughn testified that he signed a lot of documents, but often did not see the entire application. Given the unrefuted testimony that initial applications are often incomplete and errors and omissions are cleared up through amendments, without some assurance that the information in Petitioner’s Exhibit 122 and 123 comprise the entire application and insurance policy issued as a result, which they clearly do not, there is not clear and convincing evidence that McKinley made misrepresentations with respect to Lincoln 41. On April 1, 2010, John Crawford, as trustee, applied for additional insurance on the life of Terry Vaughn for the Merie M. Vaughn Trust F/B/O Connor E. Vaughn. The amount of the insurance for which he applied was $3 million, with an annual premium of $35,000. Both Terry Vaughn and McKinley also signed the application, which became the basis for Lincoln 24. The application for Lincoln 24 lists the Lincoln 41 policy as being in force on Terry Vaughn’s life. It does not list the Aviva 80 policy, but that omission is consistent with the stated intention in the Lincoln 41 policy application to replace the Aviva policy with the Lincoln 41 policy. The application does not list the Hancock 89 policy, which remained in force at that time, and there is some indication in the record that ultimately the Aviva 80 policy remained in force. Petitioner’s Exhibit 125, which represents those portions of the application in evidence, includes an appropriateness verification statement, which is included when the applied-for insurance is meant to replace some other insurance. The Lincoln 24 policy was issued April 7, 2010. The death benefit was $3 million, the amount for which the trust applied, with an annual premium of $35,000. The premium was rated at 2.5 for the first 27 years. Petitioner’s Exhibits 126 and 127 are parts of the Lincoln 24 policy. Petitioner’s Exhibit 126 includes the schedule of benefits and premiums at pages 3 and 4A-4F. Petitioner’s Exhibit 127 provides what appears to be most of the rest of the policy, but only includes page 17 of 17 of the illustration and, while it includes something called an indexed signature page, it does not include a policy receipt. In short, this policy, like Lincoln 41, does not appear to be complete. Like Lincoln 41, given the unrefuted testimony that initial applications are often incomplete and errors and omissions are cleared up through amendments, and given the incomplete nature of the documents related to Lincoln 41, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent misrepresented information in the application by omitting reference to Hancock 89 and Aviva 80. There was some testimony regarding the appropriateness of establishing the trust fund for the benefit of Connor Vaughn. Merie Vaughn testified that she was very concerned with Connor’s future, and much of her time after his diagnosis in late 2008 was spent working with Connor. A special needs trust permits funds to be used for a disabled individual without jeopardizing the individual’s ability to receive governmental assistance. Even Petitioner’s expert noted that a special needs trust would be an option that he would have wanted Mrs. Vaughn to consider with respect to Connor. The Department has not demonstrated that establishing the special needs trust was not in Mrs. Vaughn’s or her family’s best interest. Clearly, Terry Vaughn did not believe that $3 million dollars was necessary to fund any of Connor’s future needs. He had received assistance through a program at Florida State University at little to no cost to the family. However, he was unaware of what research his mother may have done with respect to programs for autism, and acknowledged that there are many costly programs available for autism should someone want to avail themselves of such a program. The Administrative Complaint alleges that on June 7, 2011, John Crawford, as trustee, directed the cancellation of Hancock 89 and requested the return of any cash value. The policy was canceled and on June 21, 2011, Hancock remitted a check for $35,114.29. The cancellation of this policy was several months after McKinley was no longer providing services to the Vaughn family at Mrs. Vaughn’s behest. Likewise, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Lincoln 41 and Lincoln 24 lapsed and were canceled on January 20, 2011, and September 8, 2011, respectively. Both events occurred several months after Mrs. Vaughn had terminated McKinley’s services. Moreover, as stated previously, it is the trustee, and not McKinley, that is responsible for the payment of insurance policies held by the various trusts. The record in this proceeding contains no evidence regarding what Mr. Crawford considered in making the decisions to retain or cancel various policies owned by the trusts. The Administrative Complaint also charges that McKinley “willfully avoided underwriting protections designed to prevent the wasting of Vaughn family assets.” There is no persuasive evidence to support this allegation. Mr. Saunders testified that there is a master insurance bureau that has a database which includes negative information on insurance applicants. If one company has negative information about an applicant, a second company with which the applicant files an application would have access to that information. Here, Terry Vaughn’s policies were rated because of his health condition. There was no testimony from any insurance company that they issued a policy without sufficient information or based on false information provided by McKinley. Count X: Policies on the Life of David Vaughn Count X of the Administrative Complaint addresses two insurance policies purchased for the David C. Vaughn ILIT: GPM Policy 000753784 (GPM 84), and ING Policy 7218635 (ING 35). On November 2, 2007, an application for insurance was submitted to GPM. The proposed insured was David Vaughn, and the application indicates that a trust was to be established that would be both owner and beneficiary of the policy. The application is signed by Merie Vaughn as trustee, David Vaughn as the insured, and McKinley as the agent.14/ GPM 84 was issued December 1, 2007, as a whole life policy with a death benefit of $1,601,233 and an annual premium of $37,192, calculated at standard rates. While Petitioner’s Exhibit 137 indicates that the policy issued on December 1, 2007, the policy illustration included was prepared February 6, 2008. No policy receipt or amendments are included in the exhibit. On March 25, 2010, John Crawford, as trustee, wrote GPM requesting that the policy be changed to paid-up status. No evidence was presented to explain what Mr. Crawford considered in making the request to change the policy to paid-up status. While the change meant that no more premiums would be paid, it also meant that the death benefit was reduced, effective June 2, 2010, to $22,612. Sometime in late December 2007, McKinley submitted an application for ING 35. While the application has the date December 25, 2007, it is unclear which signature the date purports to signify, and David Vaughn did not execute the document on that day. The insured for this policy application is David Vaughn. The owner and beneficiary is the David C. Vaughn ILIT. A Verification of Coverage document as of December 12, 2010, indicates that ING 35 issued April 10, 2008, with a death benefit of $731,000 and an annual premium of $12,807. The rating is listed as “Super Preferred non smoker.” The documents in Petitioner’s Exhibit 145 include an undated and unsigned policy receipt and a premium notice dated April 11, 2011. On June 7, 2011, John Crawford, as trustee, requested the cancellation of ING 35, with any surrender value to be forwarded to him. No evidence was presented to explain what Mr. Crawford considered in making the request to cancel the policy. His request is copied to Merie Vaughn. As a result of his request, ING forwarded a check to John Crawford for $3,893.57, representing the surrender value of ING 35. While the Administrative Complaint alleges that McKinley violated the public trust by the sale of these two life insurance policies, there is no allegation describing what about the sale of these two policies actually violated that trust. There is no allegation that David Vaughn was over-insured or that the policies were not in his best interest. Count XI: Vaughn Family Education Trust Policies Count XI of the Administrative Complaint deals with policies purchased for the Vaughn Family Education Trust (Education Trust). The Administrative Complaint asserts that there were seven policies originally issued, but applications for and partial copies of only three policies are included in Petitioner’s exhibits. Merie Vaughn testified that the Education Trust was something she agreed to, although she told Gary McKinley to fund it from something other than her IRA. The life insurance purchased was consistent with the plan she agreed to with John Crawford. She also acknowledged at hearing that providing life insurance benefits to her grandchildren is valuable to them. Likewise, Mike Saunders testified that purchasing life insurance on children is “absolutely appropriate,” and is done to plan for the future. His testimony is accepted. Buying life insurance at this age is a good idea because insurability can change quickly, and having a policy in place before any change in insurability occurs is wise. It also allows for the buildup of cash value over time, and the ability to borrow against the policy. Included in Petitioner’s exhibits is an application for life insurance with Metlife on the life of Avery Elizabeth Vaughn, David Vaughn’s oldest daughter. She was 19 years old at the time of the application. The application is for a whole life policy and the amount of insurance listed on the application is $580,650. Avery Vaughn signed the application as the insured, John Crawford signed as trustee for the Education Trust, and McKinley signed as the insurance agent of record. The application was signed on April 22, 2010. While this application is included with a policy numbered 210238538A1 (Metlife 38), it does not appear to be the application that led to the issuance of Metlife 38. For instance, while the application is signed April 22, 2010, Metlife 38 was issued February 7, 2010, two months before the application was submitted. Moreover, while the application referenced $580,650 in death benefits, the issued policy was for $990,000, with a total premium of $8,118.50. No policy receipt or amendments are included. Metlife 38 was surrendered on or about October 14, 2011, after McKinley was no longer acting as Mrs. Vaughn’s insurance agent, and $79.39 was paid to the trust. Similarly, on April 20, 2010, John Crawford, as trustee, applied for life insurance on the life of Chloe Lorraine Vaughn, David Vaughn’s second daughter, who was nine years old at the time. The application was signed by McKinley, John Crawford, and, inexplicably, Terry Vaughn. The amount of requested coverage identified in the application was $946,611. Metlife Policy 210275718A (Metlife 18) was issued September 1, 2010, listing Chloe Vaughn as the insured and the Education Trust as the owner. Metlife 18 had a $9,000 annual premium and a death benefit of $2,528,249. No amendments or policy receipt are included in Petitioner’s exhibits, as well as no explanation of how the death benefit changed so dramatically. The policy was surrendered in June 2011, after McKinley was no longer acting as Mrs. Vaughn’s insurance agent. There is also a Metlife application submitted by John Crawford, as trustee for the Education Trust on the life of Dawson Caldwell Vaughn, David Caldwell’s then-4-year-old son. The application is also signed by Terry Vaughn as opposed to David Vaughn, and is signed by John Crawford as trustee and by McKinley. The application is for a whole life policy with a death benefit of $1,136,250, and a proposed premium of $5,999.83. The policy in Petitioner’s exhibits on the life of Dawson Vaughn is Metlife 210275676A (Metlife 76), a policy issued September 1, 2010, with a death benefit of $2,594,204 and an annual premium of $9,000. The portion of the policy in the record contains no amendments and no policy receipt, and thus no explanation as to how or why the death benefit and premium were changed. No testimony was presented to explain the difference. The policy was surrendered in June 2011, after McKinley was dismissed as Mrs. Vaughn’s insurance agent. Contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, competent, persuasive evidence was presented to show that purchasing life insurance on children is an accepted practice. While the amounts of the life insurance policies seem extravagant, the only person testifying who regularly sells life insurance did not believe that McKinley encouraged the purchase of too much life insurance. Further, while the Administrative Complaint alleges “by willful misrepresentations and deceptive acts and practices,” Respondent caused the wasting of Vaughn family assets, the Administrative Complaint does not identify just what “willful misrepresentation” or “deceptive act and practices” Respondent committed with respect to the purchase of these policies. Count XII: Policies on the Life of Stephanie Eller Vaughn As noted above, Stephanie Eller Vaughn is married to Terry Vaughn, and they live in Tallahassee, Florida. Terry and Stephanie married on March 31, 2007, and Stephanie gave birth to their son, Connor, on February 1, 2008. At some point in 2008, Terry and Stephanie met with a financial planner who had suggested it would be prudent for Stephanie to have life insurance. Contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, no evidence was presented to demonstrate that McKinley “convinced” Merie Vaughn and Stephanie Vaughn to buy the Sun Life policy discussed below. Purchasing life insurance was already something contemplated by Terry and Stephanie Vaughn, before meeting with McKinley. Terry and Stephanie met with McKinley to begin discussions regarding a life insurance policy for Stephanie in May of 2008. Stephanie Vaughn applied for a Sun Life policy on January 6, 2009. She is listed as both the insured and the owner of the policy, and Terry Vaughn is listed as the beneficiary. The application proposes a $1.5 million death benefit, with a proposed monthly premium of $712.50. Stephanie Vaughn paid $1,425.00 for two months of premium with the insurance application. Sun Life Policy 003016889 (Sun Life 89) was issued on April 3, 2009, for a $1 million death benefit and a monthly premium of $487.34. The premium appears to be computed using standard rates for a non-smoker. The record includes a revised illustration signed by Stephanie Vaughn on March 10, 2009, and a signed, undated request for alteration of application changing the death benefit to the amount ultimately issued, as well as including a charitable benefits rider, also included in the policy issued. The policy receipt for Sun Life 89 is signed by Stephanie Vaughn on April 9, 2009. Terry Vaughn testified that while he and his wife made the initial premium payment, premiums were taken over by his mother, and Terry and Stephanie were reimbursed for the premiums they originally paid on the policy. In May of 2009, McKinley’s office requested that the premiums be changed from monthly to yearly, and forms were sent to accomplish that. On June 5, 2009, John Crawford made a payment of $4,423.06 from his trust account for the remainder of the annual premium, and in September 2009, a request for the appropriate paperwork was submitted to change the ownership of the policy from Stephanie Vaughn to the Stephanie Vaughn ILIT. However, while payments were made by John Crawford, and McKinley requested that all payment invoices and correspondence be sent to John Crawford, it is unclear whether that change of ownership ever occurred. According to Terry Vaughn, Sun Life 89 is still in force, but currently no payments are being made on the policy. It is paid up to some point, and he understands that it has some value, so they opted not to cancel it. While the Administrative Complaint alleges that McKinley made a commission of $19,269.42, that amount is not clear from the record in this case. There are statements regarding commissions for many of the policies. However, on many of these statements, including the statement for Sun Life, there are columns labeled as commissions and columns labeled as overrides. No one testified as to how these statements are interpreted, and it is not clear on the face of the statements how much of the commission goes to the individual agent and how much goes to the agency for whom he works. It is clear that McKinley did indeed earn a commission (and that is how insurance agents are generally compensated), but it is not clear how much or that the amount was inappropriate. Stephanie Vaughn also applied for a life insurance policy with Nationwide. She submitted an application on March 9, 2009, with herself listed as the insured. The application contains a notation requesting that Nationwide contact the agent when preparing to issue the policy to see if the policy will be owned by Stephanie Vaughn or to a trust. The application contemplated a death benefit of $750,000, and was amended to include a long-term care supplement of $300,000 on June 19, 2009. On June 22, 2009, Nationwide Policy number B500118060 (Nationwide 60) was issued, listing Stephanie Vaughn as the insured and as the owner. The policy had a death benefit of $750,000, as requested, and an annual premium of $5,914, using non-tobacco standard rates. Terry Vaughn wrote a personal check for $1,762.08 for a premium payment on Nationwide 60 on July 15, 2009, and Stephanie Vaughn signed both the policy receipt and an amendment reflecting the long-term care rider that same day. John Crawford also wrote a check from his firm’s trust account for $5,000 on July 21, 2009. McKinley’s office requested that the overpayment of $838.08 be refunded to Stephanie Eller Vaughn at her address in Tallahassee. John Crawford also paid the $5,914 premium on May 25, 2010, and McKinley had requested earlier that year that John Crawford receive the invoices, as he was the one paying the premiums. As was the case with the Sun Life 89 policy, the premium payment made by Terry and Stephanie Vaughn was reimbursed by Terry’s mother, Merie Vaughn. Stephanie Vaughn requested cancellation of Nationwide 60 on July 5, 2011, because she and her husband did not want to continue paying for it. They did not receive any cash value for the policy. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Nationwide 60 was never placed in the Stephanie Vaughn ILIT. However, there is no allegation, nor proof, that McKinley was ever instructed to arrange for the transfer of the policy to the trust, nor is there any evidence indicating that there was a discussion of any kind regarding its ownership after it was issued. McKinley earned a commission on the sale of the Nationwide 60 policy. No evidence was presented to indicate that there was anything unusual about the commission earned. The Administrative Complaint alleges that by selling these two policies to Stephanie Vaughn, McKinley violated a public trust in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-215.210. There is no indication in the Administrative Complaint as to how the sale of these two policies is a violation of the public trust, and no proof of such a violation was presented. Count XII: Policies on the Life of Yvette L. Day Finally, Count XII of the Administrative Complaint deals with the policies sold on the life of Yvette L. Day, the wife of David Vaughn. Those policies are Pacific Life Policy VP65887630 (Pacific Life 30) and John Hancock Policy 82233941 (Hancock 41). On April 15, 2009, Yvette Lori Day applied for a Pacific Life universal life insurance policy, which resulted in the issuance of Pacific Life 30. While the Administrative Complaint alleges that McKinley “convinced” Mrs. Vaughn and Ms. Day to purchase the policy, David Vaughn testified his wife actually insisted on picking the insurance company for the policy. The application lists Yvette Day as the insured, and the Yvette L. Day ILIT as the owner and beneficiary of the policy. The proposed coverage on the application is $137,447, with a planned premium of $5,000. The application is signed by Yvette Day, John Crawford, and McKinley. The policy issued on April 1, 2009, being backdated to take advantage of a lower premium. Pacific Life 30 was issued for the amount applied for and for the suggested premium of $5,000, and Ms. Day was considered a preferred non-smoker for rating purposes. An amendment to the policy was signed by both John Crawford and McKinley on September 14, 2009, as was the delivery receipt. Checks for $5,000 were issued from the Marks Gray trust account by John Crawford for premiums on September 1, 2009, and May 25, 2010. On June 7, 2011, John Crawford requested cancellation of Pacific Life 30, and return of any cash surrender value. Pacific Life responded by outlining the options to consider as alternatives to surrender, and advised that the tax loss upon surrender at this point would be $6,263.23. Mr. Crawford confirmed the intent to seek surrender, and on June 10, 2011, a check representing the surrender value of $3,760.90 was issued to the Yvette Day ILIT. A commission of $5,223.83 related to the policy was paid to Intervest, who in turn paid the premium to McKinley. Yvette Day also applied for a policy with John Hancock on April 15, 2009, with Yvette Day listed as the insured and the Yvette L. Day ILIT as the owner and beneficiary. The policy was issued on October 7, 2009, with a death benefit of $415,959 and a premium of $5,000. Yvette Day was listed as a preferred non-smoker for purposes of rating. John Crawford, as trustee, paid $5,000 in premium from his Marks Gray trust account on October 12, 2009. The policy receipt was signed by John Crawford on October 26, 2009, along with a form documenting that the policy would be backdated to April 17, 2009. Also completed on that day is an amendment answering a series of questions that were not answered on the original application, including questions related to the financing of the policy. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “when you, Gary L. McKinley, were asked by Hancock underwriting to respond to questions 10(a) and (b), you and attorney/trustee Crawford answered by providing Hancock with an application supplement dated October 26, 2009, stating that the premium payments would be coming from the insured’s income and ‘No’ as whether any entity other than the insured would be funding the premiums. Both answers were false.” In fact, however, McKinley did not sign the application supplement at all. The form is signed by Yvette Day and John Crawford. No evidence was presented to show that McKinley even knew about answers contained in the amendment. Moreover, contrary to the Department’s statement in its Proposed Recommended Order, the language on the amendment that “it is agreed that [the additions, corrections and amendments] are to be of the same effect as if contained in the application” does not transform a statement made by Yvette Day and John Crawford into a false statement by McKinley. The most logical meaning of this phrase, consistent with the testimony of Mike Saunders, is that the information provided by amendment is treated as if it was part of the original application. It does not mean that somehow Respondent’s signature on the original application embraces statements he did not make, but were in fact made by others in subsequent amendments. On June 7 and 11, 2011, John Crawford, as trustee, sent letters to Hancock requesting cancellation of Hancock 41 and the return of any cash value. Because of a discrepancy related to the identified date of the trust, a third letter was sent on August 8, 2011, correcting the listing of the trust date and providing a copy of the trust. Accordingly, on August 24, 2011, Hancock forwarded to John Crawford a check for $282.85, representing the unused premium for Hancock 41. McKinley received $5,336.23 in commissions related to the sale of Hancock 41. No person testified that the amount of the premium earned on this policy was unusual. Of the policies discussed above, 15 of them either lapsed or were canceled or surrendered after October 2010, when Respondent was no longer working with the Vaughns at Mrs. Vaughn’s direction. It cannot be determined what cash value would have been created had some or all of the policies remained in place. The most that could be said, based on the evidence that was presented, is that McKinley participated in the creation of an ambitious estate plan with a lot of moving parts. He replaced policies with more efficient policies, and while it may appear at first blush that he did so too quickly, the more persuasive evidence indicates that he did so to take advantage of changes in insurability while the opportunity to do so existed. There is no question that Respondent consulted with Mrs. Vaughn numerous times and made every effort to help her understand not only the overall plan but the specifics of the plan as well. Moreover, McKinley did not act alone. The trusts were established based on the recommendations of the estate planning team, which included Mrs. Vaughn, McKinley, and various other professionals and advisors. Attorney and trustee John Crawford, as well as attorney Tim McFarland, provided legal advice regarding the implications of the creation of the trusts, and the team considered a number of relevant factors in advising Mrs. Vaughn to establish these trusts. Once the decision was made to go forward with the identified estate plan, Respondent worked with Crump and Capitas insurance organizations, as well as representatives from various nationally-recognized and state- certified insurance companies, to obtain appropriate products to effectuate the goals established by the team. It is also clear that, while a significant amount of money was spent on life insurance premiums, the replacement of policies was undertaken with the goal of reducing the amount used for premium and increasing the death benefit, a course of action which Mrs. Vaughn approved in writing. Financial expert John Linnehan testified that the products purchased provided benefits to Mrs. Vaughn and her family, and that there were sufficient assets to sustain the premiums incurred for life insurance, even assuming her stated living expenses. His testimony is credited. Moreover, the reduction in Mrs. Vaughn’s assets was in large part caused by something other than the payment of insurance premiums. When asked where the rest of her money went, she answered, “I don’t know. It’s just gone.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was licensed as a General Lines Insurance Agent at all times material hereto. He generally wrote insurance for the various insurance companies he represented through General Agents such as Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc. and Amalex, Inc. The Respondent operated his insurance agency under the corporate name Pennington Insurance Agency, Inc. The Respondent was owner and President of Pennington Insurance Agency, Inc. and exercised supervision and control over its employees, and in particular the employee Earnest L. Middleton. All funds collected from insured pertinent to this proceeding were premium payments and represented trust funds held by the Respondent in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of his General Agent or the insurance companies whose policy contracts generated the premiums. From August through December, 1981, the Respondent engaged in negotiations with representatives of Amalex, Inc. and specifically, Mr. Walter Gibson, President of Amalex, Inc. and Mr. Larry Durham of Durham and Company Insurance Agency. These negotiations ultimately led, in November of 1981, to the Respondent becoming an employee-agent of Amalex, Inc. The Respondent was to be paid a salary which was to be an advance upon commissions earned at the rate of 75% on new policies and 60% on "renewals." This commission-salary arrangement was entered into pursuant to an oral agreement between the Respondent and Walter Gibson of Amalex. There was never any written contract between the Respondent and Amalex, Inc. delineating the employment arrangement or the compensation which Respondent was to be provided by Amalex, Inc. in return for his "brokering" business for Amalex, Inc. There was never any written contract concerning the method of forwarding of premium payments to Amalex, Inc. This oral agreement was modified at the behest of Amalex, Inc. on or about March 19, 1982, so as to reduce the compensation of the Respondent. The Respondent's new compensation under the modified arrangement provided for a 60% draw against commissions for new business and a 50% draw against commissions on renewal business. The Respondent received payments from Amalex, Inc., totaling $5,980 as advances on commissions for times pertinent to the allegations in the Complaints. The regular course of business practice established by Amalex, Inc. with the Respondent, required the Respondent to forward premium collections within 45 days of receiving a statement or bill from Amalex, Inc. During the period August, 1981, until December, 1981, numerous discussions and negotiations were had between the Respondent and Mr. Gibson in an effort to work out the details of the employment terms between Respondent and Amalex, Inc. Additionally, these negotiations hinged somewhat upon a proposed merger of Durham and Company and Amalex, Inc., which never occurred. In any event, the Respondent held the good faith belief that during the period of time from August, 1981, through December, 1981, until their business relationship got successfully started, that he had been authorized by Mr. Gibson to retain all premiums on commercial lines policies written by his office. In his testimony, Mr. Gibson disagreed with the Respondent's version of their arrangement concerning business insurance premiums. There was clearly a disagreement between Gibson and Respondent as to what the terms of the Respondent's compensation were to be. In fact, the Respondent received notice no later than March 19, 1982, in a letter from Gibson to the Respondent, that indeed there was a dispute as to his compensation arrangement and the manner in which he was to remit premium payments to Amalex, Inc. In a letter to Mr. Gibson of May 27, 1982, the Respondent reveals his recollection of the oral agreement and states it to be his belief that he was authorized to retain commercial account premiums only from September 1, 1981, through December, 1981. The letter reveals, by its content, that he was aware that Amalex, Inc. opposed his retention of commercial policy premiums, at least after December, 1981 (Respondent's Exhibit 5, in evidence). The Respondent was clearly not permitted by Amalex to retain all premiums collected on commercial policies sold by him during the entire period of their business relationship. Indeed, many of the commercial accounts were, in fact, paid when collected, in whole or in part, by the Respondent during the business relationship with Amalex which extended through most of 1982. One account, the American Legion Policy Account, eventually was paid in full by Respondent to Amalex. The Respondent's testimony and that of his former employee, Ernest Middleton, is at odds with that of Mr. Gibson, the president of Amalex and the Respondent's own testimony, in different portions of the record, is to some extent, inconsistent. At one point the Respondent indicated that he was authorized to retain all commercial premiums for coverage of his office operating expenses. At another point, both he and Middleton testified there was an allowance of $1,200 a week from Amalex for expenses to run the office. At still another point, by way of an exhibit (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 in evidence), the Respondent appeared to be of the belief that the expense allowance from Amalex was to be $400 per week for operating his office. In any event, by his letter of May 27, 1982, to Amalex and Mr. Gibson, the Respondent clearly reveals it to be his belief that the authorization to retain all commercial account premiums did not extend beyond December, 1981, which arrangement is more logical since it was, in the Respondent's own words, an arrangement to cover expenses until the business "got rolling." Thus the Respondent knew no later than May 27, 1982, by his own admission, that he was expected, after December, 1981, to forward all premium payments, both on personal lines and commercial lines policies to Amalex or the policies would be cancelled. This letter, the letter of March 19, 1982, from Mr. Gibson to the Respondent, portions of the Respondent's testimony, as well as the testimony of Mr. Gibson and his employee Mary Stratton, taken together, belies the Respondent's assertion that he could retain the commercial premiums to cover his own office expenses without accounting for them and forwarding them to Amalex. Such was clearly not the case after December 31, 1981, at the very latest. The Respondent additionally had agency contracts with Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc., a General Agent, for which concern the Respondent wrote insurance policies. These contracts required him to forward premium collections within 30 days of receipt of them from the insured. On or about March 20, 1984, the Respondent sold to Ollie Rodgers an automobile insurance policy and collected $211 from Mr. Rodgers as a down payment and also received $428 from National Premium Budget Plan for financing the balance of the premium payment over time. Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint involves solely the Ollie Rodgers policy. That policy was brokered through Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc. This only count concerning the MacNeill business arrangement with the Respondent does not charge a general failure to remit premiums to MacNeill in violation of the agency agreements and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Thus, although evidence is of record concerning the Ollie Rodgers incident and several thousand dollars in disputed other premium amounts MacNeill maintains the Respondent owes it, the charge in the Administrative Complaint concerning MacNeilles and the Respondent's business arrangement, and the question concerning the withholding of premiums due MacNeill, only concerns the Ollie Rodgers' policy and account. The alleged failure of the Respondent to remit several thousand dollars in premiums owed to Frank MacNeill contained in the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses at hearing, specifically Joe McCurdy, the secretary- treasurer of Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc., is not the subject matter of any charge or allegation in the Administrative Complaint. Mr. McCurdy testified that the Respondent had ultimately paid all monies due Frank MacNeill except for $734.23 in court costs and attorneys fees. He was the only witness testifying concerning the Frank MacNeill business arrangement and none of his testimony linked the premiums paid by Ollie Rodgers to the Respondent with any delinquent premium amount actually owed Frank MacNeill and Son, Inc. There was no testimony tying the account balance which Pennington ultimately paid MacNeill, after litigation ensued, with the Ollie Rodgers account and premium amount paid to the Respondent by Rodgers. There is no specific proof that the Ollie Rodgers account itself was unpaid by the Respondent. From March 4, 1982, to November 9, 1982, the Respondent received premium payments from one Irving Herman in the amount of $7,161 on a commercial insurance premium account. The Respondent forwarded some of these funds to Amalex, Inc., but an outstanding balance of $2,353 remains which has not been paid by the Respondent to Amalex. The Respondent has asserted that he could lawfully retain this balance because it was a commercial account and he was authorized to keep all premiums for commercial insurance to pay his office expenses. For the reasons found above, the Respondent was not authorized to retain any commercial premium funds in his own account and in his own business after December, 1981, as he admits himself in his letter of May 27, 1982, to Gibson of Amalex, Inc. The Respondent was required to forward all the premium payments attributable to the Herman policy, and in this instance, he forwarded only some of them, without accounting to Amalex as to why he retained the balance of the Herman premiums. The Respondent also collected $799 in premium payments from Irving Herman on an individual insurance policy. The Respondent forwarded most of this premium to Amalex, Inc. but retained $95 of it. The business practice of Amalex was to send a monthly statement to the Respondent detailing amounts payable on new business. When a policy was sent to the Respondent for coverage he had written, an invoice was included. Additionally, Amalex and its president, Mr. Gibson, sent numerous letters to the Respondent requesting payment of the large amount of past due accounts. The premium amounts paid by Mr. Herman for his individual policy and his commercial policy to Respondent was received on behalf of his General Agent, Amalex, a substantial amount of which he failed to remit. Since the above amounts were not remitted to Amalex, Inc. by the Respondent, it can only be inferred that he used the unremitted funds for his own purposes. On September 23, 1982, or thereafter, the Respondent collected premium payments from Joseph S. Middleton on behalf of his company, Florida Lamps, Inc., in the amount of $1,467. The Respondent remitted a portion of this to Amalex, but retained $917.55. This premium, for insurance for that business, was collected for insurance written well after the Respondent was on notice from Amalex that he was not authorized to retain premiums collected on commercial lines or business insurance, as found above. A monthly statement, invoice, as well as numerous letters were directed from Amalex to the Respondent requesting payment of this past due amount, to no avail. Thus, the above- referenced balance of the premiums related to the Florida Lamps, Inc. insurance policy and account were retained by the Respondent for his and his agency's own benefit and use rather than remitted to Amalex, the entity entitled to them. The Respondent failed to properly account to Amalex regarding the use of or the whereabouts of these funds. On or about October 20, 1982, the Respondent received from Eric Gunderson, on behalf of Eric's Garage, $182, which represented the premium down payment on a garage liability policy, a type of commercial-lines insurance. About the same time, the Respondent also received $438 as the remaining balance., on the premium on this policy from the Capitol Premium Plan, Inc., a premium financing company. This premium payment was received by the Respondent well after notice by Amalex, his General Agent, that it was not acceptable for the Respondent to retain commercial account premiums on policies written for companies for whom Amalex was General Agent. None of this premium payment was ever forwarded to Amalex, even after repeated demands for it. Rather, the premium funds were retained by the Respondent and used for other purposes. On March 3, 1982, the Respondent sold to Citiweld Welding Supply, a package business policy including workers' compensation coverage issued by the Insurance Company of North America through Amalex, Inc., as its General Agent. The Respondent collected a total of $2,162.62 in premium payments from Citiweld. He collected those payments in six monthly installments following a down payment of $500. The Respondent made monthly payments of $163 to Amalex, Inc., and then later monthly payments of $153. The Respondent collected a total of $2,162.62 which was $80.62 in excess of the actual premium due on the policy. This policy was not financed by a financing agreement, which might be characterized by an additional financing fee, thus the Respondent collected $80.62 in excess of the amount of premium due on the policy. The Respondent ultimately remitted to Amalex a total of $1,275. Thus, $807 is still due and owing to Amalex by the Respondent. The Respondent, according to his own former employee, Earnest Middleton, was collecting an additional $20 a month service charge on the Citiweld account. There is no evidence that he was authorized to collect the additional $20 per month service charge, and no portion of that service charge was ever forwarded to Amalex. It was retained by the Respondent. The fact that the Respondent was making periodic monthly payments to Amalex during this period, without the existence of a financing agreement with the insured, corroborates the position of Amalex, established by Mr. Gibson and Ms. Stratton, that there was no authority to withhold commercial account premium payments at this time, and that premiums due Amalex from the Respondent were to be paid pursuant to monthly statements or billings sent to the Respondent. Ms. Stratton's and Mr. Gibson's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the letter of March 19, 1982, to the Respondent from Gibson (in evidence), wherein he was informed that such commercial insurance business and related premiums should be billed and paid for on a monthly basis. On or about August 31, 1981, Respondent sold a package workman's compensation policy to B & L Groceries, Inc. to be issued through Amalex, Inc., who represented the insurance company for whom the policy was written. The Respondent received approximately $3,350 from B & L Groceries, which represented the premium on the above policies. The premium payments were not forwarded in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. On or about December 17, 1981, the Respondent sold to B & L Seafood Restaurant, Inc., a package commercial insurance policy and endorsement also issued through Amalex. The Respondent collected $2,112 premium on that policy. That premium was not forwarded in the regular course of business to Amalex. On September 1, 1981, the Respondent sold to Parker's Septic Tank Company, a general liability and business automobile insurance policy, also issued through the General Agent, Amalex, Inc. He collected from that business approximately $2,542 as premium payment on the insurance policies. The automobile policy was cancelled thereafter, such that a total net premium of $1,056 remained due and owing to Amalex, which the Respondent failed to forward in the regular course of business. These policies sold to B & L Groceries, B & L Seafood Restaurant and Parker's Septic Tank Company, were sold during the time when the Respondent believed that he was authorized by Amalex, Inc., and its president, Mr. Gibson, to retain premiums on all such commercial or business insurance policies to cover his office expenses, and thus it cannot be found that he willfully retained and misappropriated those premiums, although Amalex's entitlement to those premiums was later the subject of a civil action between the Respondent and Amalex, Inc., such that Amalex did demand payment of those premiums, which the Respondent failed to do. On or about March 4, 1982, the Respondent sold to The Cypress Gallery a package business insurance policy and endorsement issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected at least $883 from The Cypress Gallery, representing the earned premium on that policy which was cancelled on July 22, 1982. He failed to forward the earned premium in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. On March 16, 1982, Respondent sold to Eurohouse Custom Builders, Inc., fire, general liability, automobile and builder's risk policies together with several endorsements issued through Amalex, Inc. He collected premium payments on those policies in the earned amount of $1,197, although the policies were later cancelled after that amount of premium was earned by the insurance company and Amalex. He failed to forward the $1,197 earned premium to Amalex in the regular course of business. On July 9, 1982, the Respondent sold to Byron Hood, a package commercial insurance policy and automobile policies issued through Amalex, Inc., on which the Respondent collected a total premium amount of $1,430 from IMAC, a premium finance company. The Respondent failed to forward this premium amount in the regular course of business to Amalex, Inc. On May 14, 1982, the Respondent sold to Jeanes Swap Shop, a package commercial insurance policy with an endorsement which was issued through Amalex, Inc., and upon which the Respondent collected and received a $314 premium. The Respondent forwarded most of the premium to Amalex, but failed to forward $39 of it. On or about March 31, 1982, the Respondent sold to Lawns Unlimited a commercial policy issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected and received from Lawns Unlimited $816, which represented the premium payment for that policy. This premium payment was never forwarded to Amalex in its entirety and an earned premium of $242 is still due Amalex as General Agent. On or about July 2, 1982, the Respondent sold to Robert Lewis a package commercial insurance policy issued through Amalex. The Respondent received $500 from Lewis as a premium payment for that policy. The Respondent failed to forward $150 of that premium to Amalex. On or about April 1, 1982, the Respondent sold to Joe Strickland a homeowners and boat insurance policy issued through Amalex, Inc. He collected a premium from Mr. Strickland in the amount of $353 which he failed to forward in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. This was a personal homeowners and marine insurance policy issued to Mr. Strickland, and the $353 premium could not possibly have been the subject of any misunderstanding concerning Respondent's retention of it for coverage of office expenses. On April 30, 1982, the Respondent sold to "Pop-a Top Lounge" a general liability and fire insurance policy issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected a premium of $647 on that policy and failed to forward it in the regular course of business to Amalex, the party entitled to it as General Agent. Near the end of 1982, the Respondent sold to Arnold Construction Company various endorsements on its existing business insurance coverage so as to add coverage for additional motor vehicles. That policy and the endorsements were issued through Amalex, Inc. The Respondent collected from Arnold Construction Company a premium payment in the amount of $1,302 and failed to forward it in the regular course of business to Amalex, the General Agent. Numerous requests were made of the Respondent by Amalex, Inc. for the payment of the delinquent premiums the Respondent owed it on all outstanding accounts beginning in March, 1982. In October, 1982, Amalex began requiring cash remissions with applications for insurance written by the Respondent. The Respondent has failed to pay the outstanding account balances representing premium trust fund payments due to Amalex, Inc., such that in excess of $18,000 in outstanding premium payments have not been remitted to that firm. It is true that two of the amounts billed and depicted on Exhibit No. 12 as constituting that approximate $18,000 outstanding premium payment amount, represent $1,368 and $174 for business written in November and December of 1981, during which time the Respondent was under the genuine belief that he had an agreement with Amalex, Inc., to retain in his office all business insurance premium payments. Even though that is the case, and the B & L Groceries, B & L Seafood and Parker Septic Tank Co. premiums are attributable to this time period, the fact remains that the greater portion of the disputed approximate $18,000 amount remains outstanding and has never been paid by the Respondent to Amalex, Inc., the entity entitled to the funds. The amounts collected and not remitted by the Respondent on the insurance accounts delineated above constitute trust funds held in a fiduciary capacity by the Respondent on behalf of the General Agent, Amalex, Inc., who is General Agent for the insurance companies for whom the Respondent wrote the policies.1 The Respondent thus misappropriated these trust funds by failing to remit them in a timely fashion to the General Agent, Amalex, Inc., in the regular course of business. Although the Respondent clearly failed to properly account for and deliver the subject funds, there is no evidence to show that the Respondent was guilty of faulty record keeping in his own agency. In fact, Petitioner did not adduce any competent, substantial evidence to indicate what manner of record keeping the Respondent engaged in, good, bad or indifferent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, John Wayne Pennington's General Lines Insurance Agent's license be suspended for a period of two years, in accordance with Section 626.641, Florida Statutes. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1986.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance and insurance related activities in Florida. Petitioner is the agency responsible for regulating any licensed or unlicensed person or entity engaged in unfair insurance trade practices within the meaning of Section 626.951, Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent, Leroy Preston, is licensed to sell life and health insurance in Florida. The other Respondents are not licensed to transact insurance in Florida and are not otherwise licensed by Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 624 through 632, 634, 635, 637, 638, 641, 648, and 651 (the "Florida Insurance Code"). Respondent, American Family Benefits Group, Incorporated ("AFBG, Inc.") is a Florida corporation wholly owned by the four individual Respondents. Respondent, Roy L. Beach, is an officer and director of AFBG, Inc., and is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Respondents, Preston, Kenneth King, and Robert King, are officers and directors of AFBG, Inc. The individual Respondents comprise American Family Benefits Group ("AFBG") and the board of directors for AFBG, Inc. (the "Board"). Background Respondents designed a marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. Promotional materials describing the benefits of membership were reviewed and approved by each member of the Board and mailed to thousands of prospective customers in 50 states. Memberships were offered to individuals at a price of $99 per membership. The benefits of membership included: life insurance up to $350,000 at no cost to members; a certificate of deposit of $5,000; a major bank credit card, regardless of credit history, secured by the certificate of deposit; non- qualifying mortgage loans; non-qualifying automobile leases; discounted long distance service; and discounted catalog prices. Respondents received approximately 140,000 applications for membership. Approximately 600 applications included payment of the $99 membership fee. Petitioner issued a Notice And Order To Show Cause on February 10, 1994. The marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. was terminated by Respondents. Respondents returned the membership fee paid by approximately 300 applicants. On May 6, 1994, Petitioner issued an Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause ("Amended Notice"). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Sections 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a), (b), (h), (l), and (n). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(a) by making misrepresentations for the purpose of effecting an assignment or pledge of insurance policies to secure a loan. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(b) by representing that insurance policies obtained on the life of members would be used to secure a loan that would fund membership benefits. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(h) by offering the payment of money to induce customers to enter into an insurance contract. The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(l) by inducing customers to pledge, assign, borrow on insurance policies, convert insurance policies, or to take out an insurance policy with another insurer ("twisting"). Finally, the Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(n) by offering free insurance as an inducement for the purchase or sale or services directly or indirectly connected with real or personal property. Pledge Or Assignment To Effect A Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(a) Respondents knowingly issued and circulated a statement or sales presentation (the "promotional materials") that was a misrepresentation. The misrepresentation was made for the purposes of: effecting a pledge or assignment of an insurance policy; and effecting a loan against an insurance policy. Payment of the $99 membership fee did not entitle a new member to any of the benefits of membership. A new member was not required to elect any membership benefit, including the insurance benefits. Such a member could simply pay Respondents $99 and choose to receive none of the benefits of membership. A new member who wished to elect any of the benefits of membership was in substantially the same position as a new member who chose to receive no benefits. A new member who desired any one of the benefits of membership was first required to elect the insurance benefits. Insurance benefits entitled a new member to five universal life insurance policies on the life of the new member. Each policy was to be issued for $70,000. 2/ No life insurance policies were available unless a new member applied for and obtained all five policies and assigned four of the five policies to a bank. The bank must then make a loan in an amount and terms that were sufficient to fund all of the benefits of membership. 3/ A loan in the gross amount of $84,000 was needed to fund the benefits of membership. The net loan proceeds were to be used to purchase an annuity, a certificate of deposit to secure the credit card for the new member, pay Respondents a profit of $5,000, pay commissions and referral fees to independent parties up to $3,000, pay administrative costs, and fund the other benefits of membership. 4/ Respondents' pro forma projections of economic feasibility for the membership program showed an annual interest rate of six per cent, an amortization period of 20 years, and level periodic payments of principal and interest. Respondents' pro formal projections were based, in relevant part, on three assumptions. First, the insurance policies would be used as part of the collateral securing the loan needed to fund the benefits of membership. Second, Respondents were to be personally liable for each loan. Third, an annuity would secure the loan, pay the debt service on the loan, and pay the premiums for the insurance policies assigned to the lender. The insurance policies that new members were required to assign to the lender to secure the purported loan had no loan value. Respondents represented to prospective members that the life insurance policies were universal life policies. However, the policies were "skeleton" universal life policies that had de minimis cash value and no loan value. The loan to value ratio of any loan secured by the insurance policies would necessarily exceed 100 percent. Respondents' personal liability for loans to new members lacked economic substance. Capital contributions to AFBG, Inc. and Respondents' individual assets were inadequate to secure individual loans of $84,000 to 140,000 members. The annuity needed to pay the debt service on the loan and the insurance premiums on the policies securing the loan was not economically feasible. 5/ The membership fee of $99 was inadequate to pay the first year insurance premium on one $70,000 policy, much less the other four policies required to fund any of the benefits of membership. The economic reality of the membership program required a new member to pay Respondents $99 and to apply for and obtain five insurance policies from independent insurance agents. There was little or no probability of receiving any of the benefits of membership because the loan needed to fund those benefits had little or no economic reality. Thus, the membership program required a new member to pay $99 to Respondents for no benefits of membership. If $99 had been paid by all 140,000 applicants, Respondents would have received $13,860,000 in return for illusory promises of membership benefits. Insurance Policies To Secure Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(b) Respondents knowingly published, circulated, disseminated, and placed before the public an untrue statement concerning the business of insurance. Respondents represented that the universal life insurance policies obtained by individual members would be used as collateral to secure the loan needed to fund their insurance benefits. Respondents knew that the insurance policies were skeleton policies with little or no cash value and no loan value. The untrue statements issued by Respondents concerned the business of insurance. Respondents used economic incentives to induce prospective members to obtain life insurance policies. Without life insurance policies, new members were not entitled to any of the other benefits of membership including, a certificate of deposit, a credit card, non-qualifying mortgages, and non- qualifying car leases. The purchase and assignment of life insurance policies was an integral part of the business conducted by Respondents. The economic incentives used by Respondents were designed to effectuate a contract of insurance. Respondents effectuated approximately five contracts of insurance. The subsequent assignment of insurance policies to a lender also constituted the business of insurance. Those assignments constituted the transaction of matters subsequent to the insurance contract and arising out of the insurance contract. Unlawful Rebates: Section 626.9541(1)(h) 27. Respondents knowingly offered an indirect rebate of an insurance premium to prospective members as an inducement to enter into an insurance contract. Respondents' offer to pay the insurance premiums on members' insurance policies was a valuable consideration intended to induce new members to enter into insurance contracts. Twisting: Section 626.9541(1)(l) 28. Respondents knowingly made misleading representations with respect to insurance policies for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce new members to pledge, assign, borrow on, or convert an insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer. Respondents representations were misleading. 29. Respondents' representations led prospective members to believe that a pledge, assignment, or conversion of their insurance policies could be used to secure a loan needed to fund other membership benefits. The representation that a loan could be obtained by new members upon assignment of their insurance policies had no economic reality. Free Insurance: Section 626.9541(1)(n) Respondents offered to provide free insurance as an inducement for new members to purchase real or personal property. The benefits of membership included non-qualifying mortgages in real property, non-qualifying car leases, and non-qualifying bank credit cards. None of those benefits were available to new members unless they obtained life insurance policies and assigned those policies to a lender. The insurance policies were free to new members. There was no cost to new members. The insurance premiums were to be paid out of the annuity to be purchased from the net loan proceeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of all of the charges in the Amended Notice and ordering Respondents to permanently cease and desist the marketing of memberships in AFBG, Inc. It is further recommended that a fine of $4,000 should be imposed on each of the Respondents, not to exceed the aggregate amount of $20,000, and that the license of Respondent, Leroy Preston, should be suspended for 30 days. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 28th day of March, 1995.
The Issue The issues which developed were: Did Pomeroy receive the coverage as asserted by Department of Administration, and What deductions were made from Pomeroy for the coverage, and What deductions were required for the coverage, and Did Pomeroy owe additional for the coverage, and Should the doctrine of laches be applied against the State to prevent the State from asserting the claim?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Kathleen Pomeroy was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, on April 3, 1984. When she was employed, Pomeroy became eligible for participation in the state's health insurance plan. She applied for coverage on April 3, 1984, filling out and signing the application form, Petitioner Exhibit 2. Ms. Pomeroy indicated she desired Family I Coverage, insuring herself and her husband, Albert Pomeroy, who was not a state employee. See Petitioner Exhibit 2. Family I Coverage was provided by the State as indicated by issuance of an insurance card. Although the Pomeroy's never had occasion to make a claim against the insurance, the insurance was in effect from the date of acceptance into the program through the date of the hearing. (Pomeroy's Testimony) The State erroneously failed to deduct the correct amount for insurance premiums from Pomeroy's salary. For May, June and July 1984 the State should have deducted $48.46/month. From August 1984 until March 1986 when the error was caught and corrected, the State should have deducted $55.64/month. However, the State deducted only $7.59 per pay period. Ms. Pomeroy had twenty six (26) pay periods per year, which converts to a monthly payment of $16.45($7.59 x 26 divided by 12 equals $16.45) For May, June and July 1984 the State failed to deduct $96.03, ($48.46 - $16.45 x 3 equals $96.03). From August 1984 to March 1986 the State failed to deduct $1,057 over 19 months, ($55.64 - $16.45 x 19 equals $1,057). This is a computed total of $1,153 based upon Petitioner Exhibit 1. However, the State asserts a claim against Pomeroy totalling $914.74. The State, as indicated above, discovered its error in March 1986 and began deducting the appropriate premium and asserted at that time Pomeroy owed back premiums totaling $914.74.
Recommendation The State should recover $914.74 from Kathleen Pomeroy for underpayment of insurance premiums in 78 equal payments over the next three years, or recover any remaining unrecovered balance from Ms. Pomeroy's last pay check as a lump sum. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2110 The following constitute my specific rulings on petitioner's proposed findings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Respondent did not file proposed findings. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1 adopted. Paragraph 2 adopted. Paragraph 3 rejected as irrelevant and argumentative. Paragraph 4 rejected. No facts support these specific findings, although computations indicated premiums were first paid in May. Paragraph 5 rejected. See paragraph 3, Finding of Facts, which is substituted. Paragraph 6 rejected as irrelevant and argumentative. Paragraph 7 regarding May, June and July 1984, there is no evidence to support the finding that $13.28 was deducted each month. See Finding of Facts paragraph 5. Regarding premiums August 1984 - March 1986 the computations follow those in Finding of Facts, paragraph 6. Regarding April 1986, there is no evidence to support a premium payment of $35.41. Paragraph 8 and 9 essential parts adopted in paragraph 8 of Finding of Facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard L. Cauvel, Esquire RANO, CAUVEL & JOHNSON, P.A. 233 East Rich Avenue DeLand, Florida 32724
