Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents Richard Elliott Templin, Jr., was qualified for licensure as a general lines agent and as a life and health insurance agent in Florida and represented the Okeechobee Insurance Agency, (OIA), located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is currently eligible for licensure as a general lines agent and as a health and life insurance agent in Florida. RAVEN MILLER In March, 1984, Raven Miller applied for and was issued automobile insurance by OIA. She contacted that agency among others and found that it quoted her the cheapest price for the coverage she wanted, coverage sufficient to protect her and the finance company from loss. During the application process, she signed several forms provided to her by the agent who briefly discussed her coverage with her but did not advise her it would include life insurance or accidental death insurance. When she initially went into the office to renew the policy, she asked for coverage on the vehicle but did not desire anything else. The employee with whom she talked indicated understanding of her desires and filled out the required paperwork for her without asking any other questions of her. When the paperwork was completed, Ms. Miller was told that the premium cost would be $347.00 for which she gave a check and received a receipt, plus $110.00 for a term life insurance policy. She was not told that that this latter coverage was separate from the automobile coverage. Ms. Miller filled out nothing during the application process. All the documents were filled out by the clerk. The application form was completely filled out except for her signature when she signed it. It reflected that uninsured motorist coverage was rejected but Ms. Miller was not asked by anyone at the agency if she desired that coverage. When she inquired about deductibles, she was advised there was a mandatory $250.00 deductible and though she is reflected to have rejected bodily injury coverage, this was not discussed with her, either. The only form that Ms. Miller filled out personally was the pink application to Fortune Insurance Company, (Fortune), on which she identified her "beneficiary." This form was not explained to her, however, nor was there any discussion with her of life insurance coverage. Ms. Miller, who works with the Post Office, has $140,000 in life insurance coverage through her job and had she known she was being offered additional life insurance coverage, would have rejected it. When Ms. Miller signed the summary of coverage form, it was completely filled out. The lady with whom she was dealing briefly went over the various items on it but did not discuss them with her or explained anything to her. The confirmation form which she signed was filled out prior to being given to her for signature. The explanation regarding it was brief and she was not advised that life insurance coverage was optional. The life insurance premium was not forwarded by OIA to the company. She did not receive a policy from either Fortune Life or ATA. At no time during her dealings with OIA did she meet or deal with Respondent and she does not know him nor would she recognize him. When she sold her car in March, 1985, Ms. Miller cancelled the policy in person at the agency at which time she was advised that her refund would come in the mail. Even after numerous contacts with the agency to inquire where the refund was, it was not given to her. At no time during her dealings with OIA was she aware of the fact that she was applying for an accidental death policy. All she asked for, all she wanted, and all she thought she was getting was auto insurance sufficient to cover her, her bank, and others with whom she might have an accident in the event of loss. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Miller signed an acknowledgment of explanation both at the time of the original policy and and the time of renewal, the explanation in both cases was extremely brief. She asked no questions to speak of and no information was volunteered. In short, at the time of renewal the agency merely renewed the prior coverage. They did not show her what they were comparing with. She assumes that the figures were the same as for the original policy and she assumed that whatever she got was a standard coverage and charge to every applicant. Ms. Miller was satisfied with the coverage she received and the package she purchased. Her complaint to the Department of Insurance related to the failure to receive her refund not to the sale of the insurance to her. In fact, at the time she filed her complaint, she did not even know that she had a life insurance policy. DENNIS AND ALETA NELSON Dennis Nelson, who has worked for the Post Office for approximately 10 years, on or about March 21, 1985 went to the OIA because, having spoken with Respondent over the phone, and having gotten a quote for "full coverage" on his automobiles from him, he liked the price. Mr. Nelson dealt with Respondent who took down the particulars on the cars to be covered, then went to his rate books, and quoted a price to Mr. Nelson which was satisfactory. In doing so, he laid out the explanation of coverage form and indicated what coverage the Nelsons would have. In the course of the application process, there was no discussion of the limits of liability insurance, uninsured motorist Coverage, deductibles, or life insurance. When the paperwork was completed, Mr. Nelson signed the applications for insurance given to him and a premium finance agreement. Respondent explained to Mr. Nelson the application for life insurance and gave him the impression that it was mandatory. It was made mandatory by the company that a customer buy the whole package, but it was not mandatory under the state requirements. The failure to make this distinction is misleading and deceptive. Mr. Nelson never received any policies from any of the companies from whom he was supposed to have received coverage, though he made his premium payments. By the same token, the company did not receive Nelson's premiums from the agency and, therefore, did not issue a policy. Approximately three months after the coverage went into effect, OIA notified the Nelsons that the cost of coverage on their Blazer would be raised by more than $200 for the year. Mr. Nelson made the initial inquiry call to the company writing this coverage but he was poorly treated by company representatives and got no information. Thereafter, Mrs. Nelson went to OIA's Okeechobee Boulevard office and spoke with Respondent who indicated he could not understand it either. Nonetheless, she paid a part of the increase, ($110.00), at the time in cash. The Nelsons checked with other companies and were quoted lower prices. Because OIA could not explain the raise, they went to the Petitioner's local office where they were told that the life insurance coverage they had purchased was not mandatory. As a result, they decided to cancel their coverage with OIA which Mrs. Nelson did in person. When she attempted to fill out the cancellation form, she was told by an agency employee that she could not cancel the life insurance portion only her husband could do that. Mr. Nelson thereafter attempted to reach the Respondent to discuss this situation with him but could never seem to get in touch with him. Mr. Nelson felt he got repeated run arounds from the employees at OIA and was repeatedly referred to the Lake Worth office. When they ultimately received the refund from OIA, it was dishonored and thereafter, the Nelsons were reimbursed for it in cash. ROBERT M. ANDERSON Mr. Anderson, an employee of Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Corporation in West Palm Beach, purchased automobile insurance from OIA in July, 1985. He selected that agency because they offered him the best price for the coverage which he had told them he wanted, which was "the minimum necessary to satisfy state and bank requirements." During the course of his negotiations with the agency, he dealt with an individual known to him as "Rich" but though Respondent looks familiar to him, he cannot identify Respondent as that individual. He advised the individual with whom he dealt what kind of car he had, (a Porche 911), his age, and that he wanted the best deal he could get. In response, the individual gave him a quotation for a 12 month policy which was too high for his budget. He asked for a quote on the rate for 6 months which was quoted to him as $1,816.00, for which he wrote a check. Mr. Anderson thereafter filled out an application package for coverage. The summary of coverage form was not discussed with him in detail. For example, the $2,000 deductible of PIP coverage was not discussed nor were any details or deductibles on other coverages. Accidental death coverage was not discussed with him nor did he request it. He recognizes his signature on certain documents and does not dispute having signed them. However, he does not recall any discussion about them nor does he recall signing a power of attorney form or even discussing the need to have one signed. There was no discussion with Mr. Anderson regarding life insurance coverage and in fact, he would have declined it had it been discussed because he was fully covered through his company's group policy. Mr. Anderson was not prevented from asking questions but did not do so because he did not know what questions to ask. He was given the opportunity to read the forms but did not review them in detail because he did not understand them then and does not understand them now. He did not, however, indicate that he did not understand. Because he had 9 points on his driver's record, he did not ask many questions. He was grateful to get any coverage and did not feel it was appropriate to take the time, as busy as Respondent appeared to be, to ask questions. It was his understanding that everything he got was a part of the "total package" that he requested. Mr. Anderson had no complaint about the coverage that he received. His complaint to the Petitioner was based on his failure to secure a prompt refund from the agency at the time he desired to cancel the coverage, and it was at this time, in discussing the matter with the Commissioner's office, that he first learned he had life and other undesired coverages as a part of his auto insurance package. He has, however, subsequently received the refund requested. All of the individuals referenced above received and paid for as a part of their insurance coverage, membership in an automobile motor club. On policies of this nature, the selling agency retains 90 percent of the premium and remits only 10 percent to the insurer. The motor club membership included a life insurance policy issued by Fortune Life. None of the persons involved with Respondent here knew they were buying either life insurance, accidental death insurance, or motor club membership. All had asked for "total" coverage, desiring thereby only that coverage necessary to operator a motor vehicle legally in this state. Neither life insurance, accidental death insurance, nor motor club coverage is a requirement of the state for the operation of a motor vehicle. It is not unlawful for an insurance agency to make those coverages a necessary part of a package and condition the issuance of liability, property damage, and PIP coverage upon the purchase of a total package including the other. What is improper, however, is a failure on the part of the agency to disclose that the life, accidental death, and motor club coverages are not a part of the insurance requirements of the state and the failure to disclose this is the nexus of the offense alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For Petitioner 1-4 Accepted and incorporated herein. 5-7 Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-16 Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-18 Accepted and incorporated herein. 19 Accepted and incorporated herein. 20 Accepted but irrelevant. 21 Accepted and incorporated herein. 22 Accepted. 23-26 Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. 28 Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 Accepted but irrelevant. 30 Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32 Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 Rejected as unproven. Witness never identified Respondent as the individual with whom he dealt. In the remaining paragraph rulings, it is assumed only that Respondent was involved. 35&36 Accepted and incorporated herein. 37-39 Accepted and incorporated herein. 40&41 Accepted and incorporated herein. 42&43 Accepted. For Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted not as a Finding of Fact but as a recitation of the evidence, Accepted in substance. Paragraph is long and involved. See 3 above. See 3 above. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Office of Legal Services Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 David W. Spicer, Esquire Tammy J. Kissell, Esquire NCNB Tower, Suite 910 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2363 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure as a life agent, a life and health agent, a general lines agent, a health agent and a dental health care contract salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and regulation of the insurance industry in this state. Respondent, Michael Charles Peppe was and is currently licensed and eligible for licensure in Florida as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, a general lines agent and a health insurance agent. He was an officer and director of M. Peppe Agency, Inc., a Florida corporation. During the period in issue herein, Respondent's agency had a brokerage agreement with William Sanner and Mary Lou Sanner who were employed as sub- agents. Constance Abraham, an 85 year old widow first met William Sanner when she moved to Ft. Lauderdale, some 20 or so year ago. They were neighbors in the same apartment building. At that time she was insured with Mutual of Omaha and her policy was transferred to him, an agent for that company, for service. Over the years she purchased quite a bit of other insurance from him. They were all different kinds of health insurance policies and over time, she estimates, she purchased somewhere around 50 policies. During the period between 1985 and 1991, Mrs. Abraham purchased numerous health policies for both herself and her son through Mr. and Mrs. Sanner, though she does not recall ever having dealt with Mrs. Sanner. Records disclose that her coverage was placed with nine different companies and provided coverage in such areas as Medicare Supplement, nursing home insurance, cancer insurance, and hospital expense - indemnity insurance. Over the years approximately 60 policies were issued through Respondent's agency to either Mrs. Abraham or her son. The applications were taken by Sanner who would collect the initial premiums and forward both to Respondent's agency for processing to the various insurers. Some policies were signed by Sanner as agent of record and some were signed by Respondent in that capacity. Only a few were signed by Mrs. Sanner. Mrs. Abraham claims she didn't realize how much health insurance she had. Mr. Sanner would come to her apartment and talk to her about a new policy and she would abide by his advice. Her purchases amounted to approximately $20,000.00 per year in premiums which she would pay by check to Mr. Sanner. At no time did she ever deal with or meet the Respondent, Mr. Peppe. She did not question Sanner deeply about why he was selling her so much insurance. Whenever she asked about a new policy, he would usually have what appeared to he to be a good reason for it such as something was lacking in her coverage. Even when she recognized he was selling her duplicate coverage, he told her it was a good idea to have more. At no time did he or anyone else tell her she had too much insurance. Mrs. Abraham claims to know nothing about insurance herself. However, she was cognizant of the nature of the policies she had, utilizing without prompting the terms, "indemnity", "supplemental", and "accident." Mr. Sanner would come to her home at least once a month She trusted him to help her with her health insurance and would talk with him whenever a policy came up for renewal. On some occasions he would recommend she renew and on others would recommend she drop that policy in favor of another. At no time was she aware, however, of the fact that she was duplicating policies. She also claims she never had to tell Mr. Sanner what she wanted from her coverage. He always seemed to know and would handle not only the purchase of her policies but also the filing of her claims. She can recall no instance where she asked for any coverage and he tried to talk her out of it. Mrs. Abraham denies she was the person who complained to the Department. It was her daughter who noticed what was going on and took matters into her own hands. At no time did either Sanner or the Respondent attempt to contact her after the complaint was filed. Mrs. Abraham and her husband had four children. Her son, Lewis, who is somewhat retarded, lives with her and she also purchased some policies for him. Over the years she has had many occasions to file claims under her policies. It is important to her that she have protection to provide full time care if necessary because she has no family locally to provide that care for her. She had coverage that provided nursing care, a private room in the hospital, and some policies which provided for extended or nursing home care. She recognizes that such care is expensive and wanted enough policies to give her total coverage without out of pocket expense if the care was needed. She keeps track of the policies she has on her personal computer and has been doing so for some six or seven years. She apparently is sufficiently computer literate that she knows what she has and what she is doing. Mrs. Abraham owns a condominium at the Galt Ocean Mile apartment in Ft. Lauderdale. The $20,000.00 figure in policy premiums she mentioned were for her policies only. Those for her son were extra. She has sufficient income from stocks and bonds to pay her premiums, pay her mortgage, and still live comfortably. Her son has his own income from a trust fund and his own investments. At one point in time, when Mrs. Abraham had some recurring health problems and was in and out of hospitals regularly, she received in benefits far more than her actual expenses and made a tidy profit. Nonetheless, she adamantly disclaims she purchased the policies she had for that purpose claiming instead that she wanted merely that both she and her son be able to pay for the best medical care possible in the event it is needed. To that end, Lewis Abraham has filed very few claims against his carriers. Most, if not all, of the companies which provided the coverage for Mrs. Abraham and her son have limits on the amount of total coverage any one policy holder can have in any line of insurance. The limit is cumulative and not limited to policies with a specific company. Taken together, the policies in force for Mrs. Abraham in some cases exceeded that limit and had the insurers been made aware of the totality of her coverage, their policies would not have been issued. This information was not furnished to the companies, however, by either Sanner or Respondent. In addition, on many of the policies the mental condition of a policy holder must be disclosed if that person is retarded or not fully competent. Respondent did not know of Lewis' condition though Mr. Sanner was fully aware of it both as it related to his retardation and his drop foot. On none of the policy applications relating to him, however, was either ever mentioned. Some companies indicated that if Lewis's mental and physical condition had been properly disclosed on the application, they either would not have issued the coverage or, at least, would have referred the matter to the underwriter for further evaluation and a determination as to whether to issue the policy and if so, at what premium. Even more, Lewis' physical and mental condition may have caused the company to decline payment of a claim within two years of issuance of any policy actually written. Respondent received monthly statements from the various insurers with whom his agency did business detailing the transactions for that month. Commissions on each sale were paid by the insurers to Respondent's agency and thereafter, pursuant to an agreement between Respondent and Sanner, the commissions were divided. The commissions paid to Respondent's company by the insurers on all these policies amount to in excess of $18,000.00. Respondent asserts that Mrs. Abraham knew exactly what she was doing and was, in effect, conducting if not a scam, at least an improper business activity through the knowing purchase of duplicative policies and redundant coverage. This well may be true, but even if it is, Mr. Sanner was a knowing accomplice and participant. In addition, while it is accepted that Respondent might not know the status of every policy purchased through his agency or the total activity with any particular client, when his name appears as signatory on policy applications forwarded to a company for whom he accepts or solicits business, as here, it is hard to find he did not have at least a working familiarity with the business written by his sub-agents . This finding is supported by the analysis done of Respondent's pertinent activities here by Milton O. Bedingfield, a 39 year insurance agent and broker for 10 companies, a Certified Life Underwriter, and an expert in life and health insurance. Mr. Bedingfield concluded, after a review of all the policies written for the Abrahams through Respondent's agency, there was a gross oversale of policies and repeated omissions of pertinent information on policy applications. He found a duplication of benefits and overlapping coverage, all without legitimate purpose, especially for an 85 year old woman. Since the average hospital stay is less than 2 weeks, she would not likely benefit from her insurance for the stay. He could not see where Mrs. Abraham would get back in benefits what she has paid in premiums. In Mr. Bedingfield's opinion, this is the worst case of oversale he has seen in his 39 years in the insurance business. He contends the agent stands in almost a fiduciary capacity to his clients - especially the aged who rely on their agent to properly advise them on adequate coverage. There is often an element of fear involved that the unscrupulous agent can profit from. Here, he feels, Respondent's practice falls far short of the state's standard of acceptability on the sale of Medicare Supplemental insurance. On balance, however, Mr. Bedingfield does not know if all the policies he saw stayed in force throughout the period of the policy. Many could have lapsed or been cancelled. In all fairness, as well, where insurance is brokered, as here, the ultimate placing agent normally does not meet the client but must rely on what he is told by the offering agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this case, Michael C. Peppe, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2708 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 22. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by evidence or record except for the fact that Respondent sign and processed applications and premium payments and received a financial benefit from the sales. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted so far as it relates Ms. Abraham was well informed and aware of her coverage. Not established, but insufficient evidence of actionable misconduct. Accepted. - 6. Not proper Findings of Fact but more Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Not a proper Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdrey 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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)
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 to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code as alleged in an Amended Order to Show Cause and, if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating viatical settlement providers in the State of Florida. The Respondent, Future First Financial Group, Inc., is licensed by the State of Florida as a viatical settlement provider. Its President and Chief Executive Officer is Mr. Randy Stelk. A viatical settlement contract involves the sale of a life insurance policy's benefits in exchange for an immediate discounted cash settlement to the original policy holder. A Florida resident "viator" (the insured) desiring to enter into a viatical settlement contract, acts through a Florida licensed broker, who provides the policy information to licensed viatical settlement providers like the Respondent, for subsequent re-sale of policy benefits to purchasers. Future First was initially licensed as a viatical settlement provider on December 26, 1997. The initial regulation of viatical settlement providers in the State of Florida by the Petitioner began at approximately the time Future First initially became licensed. Consolidated findings concerning Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, and 45: Future First was a licensee of and regulated by the Department of Insurance at all times pertinent hereto. The health status representations on the exhibits (referenced in the Department's Proposed Recommended Order) concerning each of these counts, which are the insurance policy applications in question in these counts, are materially inconsistent with the health status representations related to the later viatical settlement agreements contained in the other exhibits so referenced as to each of the above-enumerated counts. These latter exhibits constitute the showing of actual medical condition to the Respondent by the insureds or viators in each transaction referenced in these counts. The overall effect of this showing is to indicate to the Respondent that the viators in question in these counts were HIV positive or had the disease AIDS, along with related diseases and medical conditions, contrary to the representations initially made to the insurance companies issuing the subject policies, in the insurance policy applications referenced in these counts, wherein the viators represented that they suffered from none of the medical diseases or conditions referenced in those application forms, including AIDS. All the exhibits referenced in these counts came from the business files of Future First and were supplied to the Department by Future First upon the Department's request during the investigation process. These material inconsistencies should have caused Future First to be on notice or to know or believe that the viators in question in these counts had made or indeed may have made fraudulent or material misrepresentations on their insurance policy applications. Subsection 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, requires Department licensees to report to the Department any knowledge or belief that a fraudulent insurance practice, as defined in Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, had been or was being committed. Subsection 817.234(3), Florida Statutes, specifically prohibits the presentation of false, incomplete or misleading information in support of an insurance application or the concealing of any fact material to the application. Thus Subsection 817.234(3), supra, specifically prohibits the very act strongly suggested by the evidence presented in the exhibits supportive of the above-referenced counts of the Amended Order. Future First made no reports to the Department concerning these matters until it contends it first became aware of these inconsistencies in health status representations upon receipt of the Order to Show Cause and later the Amended Order to Show Cause. Consolidated Findings of Fact Concerning Counts 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, and 42: The facts established as to these counts are much the same as those referenced above. The health status representations on the insurance policy applications in question and in evidence (exhibit numbers cited in the Proposed Findings as to these counts in the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order) are materially inconsistent with the health status representation on the other exhibits which consist generally of the various documents of health or medical information provided to the Respondent by the viators in question, when the transactions leading to the viatical settlement agreements at issue were being entered into and finalized. The commonality among all of these counts as well as the counts in the above Findings of Fact (Part A above) consist of the viator's having been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS and/or related medical conditions sometime in the past prior to executing the insurance policy applications at issue and then responding in the negative on relevant questions on those policy applications, the overall effect of which was to deny the HIV positive test result, the HIV infection and the diagnosis of AIDS and related medical conditions. The viators at issue then openly revealed these conditions and the dates of the relevant diagnoses, all of which pre-dated the insurance policy applications, in the medical status representations they made to the Respondent and which were also revealed in the medical records provided to the Respondent at some point prior to the issuance of the Order to Show Cause and Amended Order. The health status representations made by the viators at these two different, germane points in time are materially inconsistent. Those material inconsistencies reasonably should have caused Future First and its operating officers to be on notice, to know or to believe that the viators made or may have made fraudulent or material misrepresentations on their insurance policy applications. Moreover, the evidence, as to these counts delineated in Part B above, shows that Future First was actually informed specifically that the policies in question had been rescinded by the insurers because the viators had made material misrepresentations on their policy applications. Exhibits such as the Future First policy summary forms show that Future First had been informed of the policy recisions as to the Counts referenced in Part B above. All of the documents constituting the Department's exhibits supportive of these findings, and the policy summary forms included, were found within the business files of Future First and were supplied to the Department by Future First upon its request during the investigative phase of this prosecution. Subsection 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, requires Department licensees to report to the Department any knowledge or belief that a fraudulent insurance practice as defined in Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, had been or was being committed. Subsection 817.234(3), Florida Statutes, specifically prohibits the presentation of false, incomplete or misleading information in support of an insurance application or the concealing of any fact material to the application. Thus, Subsection 817.234(3), supra, specifically prohibits the acts suggested by the documentary evidence presented by the Department, which supports the Findings of Fact herein. Future First made no report on these matters concerning the viators and policies to the Department, prior to the investigatory audit. Additional Findings of Fact Concerning Counts 2, 5, 41, 42, 43, and 44: Concerning Count 2, Exhibits 15 through 17 are viatical settlement purchase agreements entered into between Future First and various viatical settlement purchasers. These agreements represent to those purchasers that the policies, which are the subject of the agreements, are beyond the contestability period (typically two years) during which an insurer company may rescind its policy. The settlement purchase agreements specify that the "contestability period" runs for two years from the date of policy issuance. Exhibit 2 shows, however, that the policy in question was issued on January 22, 1998, and Exhibits 15 through 17, the agreements, were entered into in February, March and April of 1998, well before the January 22, 2000, conclusion of the contestability period. Future First thus had within its possession, in its files, the documents and information to show that the policies were not beyond contestability when the interests in those policies were sold to the investors or viatical settlement purchasers. The purchasers, by initialing the relevant portion of their purchase agreements had indicated and contracted for the purchase of non-contestable policies or policies which had survived the two-year contestable period before being purchased by these investors or viatical settlement purchasers. The vice-president in charge of underwriting, Mr. Sweeney, under the business practices of Future First, essentially made all the calculations and decisions involved in negotiating and effecting the settlement purchase agreements with the investors and the viatical settlement agreements with the original viators or insureds. As an experienced insurance executive and underwriter who had all of the relevant documents available to him, he is chargeable with knowledge that the policies he and Future First were conveying to the settlement purchasers were still within the contestability period, despite his being on documentary notice that the investors had contracted to purchase only non-contestable policies. The officers and directors of the Respondent allowed him to have this independence of action, freedom of conduct and bargaining power on behalf of Future First and therefore, Future First, the corporation, is chargeable with the conduct it allowed him to engage in, even assuming, arguendo, that no other officer, director or employee of the company knew of the relevant details of these transactions. Thus Future First misrepresented to its investors that the policies were beyond contestability when in fact they were not. It thus is chargeable with knowingly selling interests in contestable policies to investors, who had specifically contracted for the purchase for non-contestable policies. This misrepresentation was material to the purchases because the insurers' ability to rescind the policies during contestability, thereby destroying the very instrument securing the purchasers' investment, was not made known to those purchasers. The potential destruction of that instrument and the consequent loss of the investment to the purchaser is material to any reasoned decision to invest. CEO Randy Stelk's testimony at hearing to the effect that computer input error had caused contestable policies to be inadvertently sold to purchasers who contractually specified a non-contestable policy is rebutted by Future First's own documents from its records which correctly and explicitly identify the policy as contestable. See Exhibits 11a and 11f, at pages 1 and 4, and Exhibit 24, all of which correctly identify the policy as contestable. Exhibit 24 specifically notes the dates at which the policy was projected to emerge from its contestability period. Thus this documented evidence, together with the evidence of Mr. Sweeney's close and direct involvement with arranging for the transactions and making decisions as to which policies to sell to which investors belies Mr. Stelk's testimony in this regard. Concerning Count 5, Exhibits 50, 54, 55, 56 and 57, are viatical settlement purchase agreements which inter alia represented to the respective viatical settlement purchasers that the policy in question was beyond the contestability period during which an insurer may rescind the policy. The "contestability period" runs for two years from the date of policy issuance. However, Exhibit 39, shows that the policy in question was issued on February 3, 1998, and Exhibits 50, 54, 55, 56 and 57, were respectively entered into in February of 1998, well prior to the February 3, 2000, end of the contestability period. Here again, Future First's own records, which correctly and explicitly identify this policy as contestable also specifically note, at Exhibits 42d and 46, the date at which the policy was projected to emerge from the contestability period. The purchase agreements referenced above clearly show that the investors contemplated and contracted to purchase a non-contestable policy. These documents clearly were available to Mr. Sweeney and to Future First at the time Mr. Sweeney was making the underwriting decisions and entering into the agreements with the investors, and consequently this knowledge is chargeable to him and to Future First. Again Mr. Stelks' testimony that computer input error had caused inadvertent sale of contestable policies to purchasers who had contractually specified non-contestable policies is rebutted by Future First's own records, the evidence concerning Future First business practices and specifically Mr. Sweeney's underwriting methods and conduct. Thus, Mr. Stelk's testimony in this regard is not credited. Thus, it is inferred that Future First, through Mr. Sweeney, knowingly represented to investors that the policies were beyond contestability when they were not and such a representation was material to the purchase because the insurers' ability to rescind a policy during contestability and destroy the very instrument securing the investment was not made known to the purchaser. The potential destruction of that instrument and the consequent loss of investment is material to any reasoned decision to invest. Concerning Count 41, the fifth page of Exhibit 428, contains a paragraph entitled "Incontestability" which establishes that the life insurance policy in question was subject to a two-year contestability period, during which the insurer could rescind the policy. Exhibits 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 and 451, are all viatical settlement purchase agreements through which the viatical settlement investors purchased an interest in the death benefit of the life insurance policy in question. Each of those purchase agreements contains a standard section entitled "Minimum Criteria" which is initialed by the purchaser, thereby indicating the purchaser's decision to purchase an interest only in a policy which was beyond contestability. Future First nonetheless placed all of those investors' monies into the policy in question (See Exhibit 428) while it was still within the two-year contestability period without informing the purchasers of that fact. Future First had the policy in its possession and necessarily had to have a copy of it in possession in order to purchase the policy from the viator, which it did in July of 1998. It thus knew the policy was still within its contestability period when interest in it were sold to the purchasers in question. The same reasons found with regard to Counts 2 and 5 prevail here with regard to Mr. Sweeney's involvement. The documents were in Future First's possession and within its knowledge such that the circumstantial evidence clearly shows that Future First is chargeable with knowledge or belief that it sold contestable policies to investors who had no reason to believe they were purchasing contestable policies. Concerning Count 42, Exhibit 453 is dated March 24, 1998, and is a viatical settlement purchase agreement between Future First and the viatical settlement purchaser named therein. The agreement contains the same initialed provision found with regard to the agreements in Counts 2, 5 and 41, indicating the purchasers' decision to invest only in a policy which was beyond the two-year contestability period. The agreement bears the designation "PRA 58075" in the lower left hand corner of the first page (purchaser number). Exhibit 459 is a letter dated May 21, 1998, authorizing Charles R. Sussman, Trustee for the Fidelity Trust (identified in numerous exhibits, including 454 in this count, as the escrow agent used by Future First for viatical settlement contract transactions), to wire funds from that trust to Compass Bank for the purchase of an interest in the death benefits of the Farmers New World Life Insurance policy on the viator named therein, which purchase was accomplished through the execution of Exhibit 454 on June 6, 1998. Among the PRA numbers identified in Exhibit 459, is 58075, corresponding to Exhibit 453, the above-referenced purchase contract. Exhibit 455 is an internally prepared Future First document that clearly states that the life insurance policy in question was still well within its contestability period on May 21, 1998. The exhibits thus establish that Future First represented to the investor that the policy it would purchase with his funds was beyond contestability when, because of the unequivocal documents in its possession, Future First had to have known, through Mr. Sweeney, that it was not. Indeed all of those exhibits were found within the business files of Future First and Future First stipulated that included in those exhibits are its purchase request agreements that contain the contestability provision in question. Exhibits 462 and 463 establish that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy referenced in those exhibits was issued on March 28, 1998. Exhibit 465, establishes that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy was purchased by Future First on June 22, 1998. Exhibit 468, establishes that on July 1, 1998, purchaser 58075's funds were used to purchase an interest in that Manhattan National Life Insurance policy obviously well within the two-year contestability period since the policy was only issued on March 28, 1998. This was despite an express representation otherwise in the viatical settlement purchase agreement. Exhibits 471 and 472, show that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy was rescinded during the contestability period in September 1998. Exhibit 473 establishes that Future First decided to switch the viatical settlement purchaser's funds out of the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy into a John Hancock Life Insurance Company policy. However, it did not inform the purchaser that the Manhattan National Life Insurance policy had been rescinded during its contestability period. Exhibits 485 and 486, establish that the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy referenced therein was issued on January 23, 1998. Exhibit 487 establishes that the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy was purchased by Future First in November of 1998, using the purchaser's funds referenced in Exhibits 488 and 489. Among those purchaser's funds were those of Purchaser 58075. Thus, Purchaser 58075's monies were used to purchase an interest in the death benefit of the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy in question. Despite the "beyond contestability" representation made in the viatical settlement purchase agreement between Purchaser 58075 and Future First, Future First placed that purchaser's money into the Lincoln Benefit Life Insurance policy while it was still in its contestability period. Future First's own records refute Mr. Stelk's testimony that computer input error caused inadvertent sales of contestable policies to purchasers who had specified, contractually, their desire for non-contestable policies. The documents from Future First's own records in evidence, explicitly identify this policy as contestable and that the purchasers involved had desired non- contestable policies. In light of the foregoing reasons found as fact as to Counts 2, 5 and 41, which are adopted as to Count 42, Future First is chargeable with knowledge that it was selling contestable policies to purchasers who had specified contractually their wish and intent to purchase non-contestable policies. Count 43 involves the sale by Future First of interests in the death benefits of J.C. Penny Life Insurance Company Policy No. 25184/74L40L3762 in January of 1998, to three different viatical settlement purchasers. This is evidenced by Exhibits 498, 499 and 500, the respective settlement purchase agreements. Each of those purchase agreements includes a provision that required the purchase of an interest only in a policy which was beyond contestability. Exhibits 494, 496, 498, 499 and 500, together however, show that the interest in the policy sold to those purchasers were sold while the policy was still contestable, without informing the purchasers. All of these exhibits came from the business files or records of Future First and Future First stipulated that included in those exhibits are the purchase request agreements that contain the provisions restricting purchases to policies which were beyond the two-year contestability period. In light of the findings made as to Counts 2, 5, 41 and 42, next above, it is determined that Future First, the Respondent, is charged with knowledge that it, and specifically its vice-president in charge of underwriting, Mr. Sweeney, sold those policies which were still contestable to the relevant purchasers; that those purchasers had specified in their purchase agreements their intent to purchase only policies which were uncontestable and that it had not so informed those purchasers. Count 44, concerns a viatical settlement purchase agreement entered into by Future First on March 24, 1998, relating to the sale and purchase of an interest in the death benefit of an insurance policy. See Exhibit 510, in evidence. That agreement represented to the purchaser that the interest to be purchased was to be from a policy which was beyond the two- year contestability period. See Exhibits 508 and 510. However, the policy selected for investment for that purchaser by Future First was not beyond contestability. Exhibit 506, obtained from Future First's own files, clearly shows that the issuance date of the policy was May 6, 1998, and Exhibits 504, 508 and 510 considered together, indicate that the policy was sold to that purchaser while it was still contestable. Future First thus subjected the purchaser's investment to the undisclosed risk of rescission of the policy. The existence of such a risk would certainly be material to that investor's decision about whether to so invest. Thus by investing the purchaser's funds in a contestable policy instead of an uncontestable policy, without advising that investor of such a deviation from their contractual agreement, is, in effect, a material misrepresentation in that transaction. For the reasons found as to Counts 2, 5, 41, 42 and 43 above, Future First is chargeable with knowledge that the policy was contestable and that it had invested the purchaser's funds in a contestable policy when it was contractually bound to only invest that purchaser's funds in an uncontestable policy, as established by the terms of the viatical settlement purchase agreement. Future First's business practices. Future First conducts its business in various states through representatives resident in such states known as viatical settlement brokers. Viatical settlement brokers gather all relevant information, including available medical information and usually provide it to various viatical settlement providers in order to solicit multiple bids on a particular policy. Future First does not solicit viators itself. During the time period relevant to the allegation in the Amended Order, when Future First initially received a package from a broker, it was divided into its insurance and medical components. The insurance component was provided to Mr. William Sweeney, Future First's Vice-President of Underwriting. The medical component was provided to a nurse on the staff with Future First for initial medical review and then forwarded to Future First's independent medical consultant, Dr. Michael Duffy. During the time period relevant to the Amended Order, Future First offered a one, two or three-year viatical purchase program. That is, viators must have a certified life expectancy of one, two or three years in order to qualify with Future First. After Dr. Duffy reviewed a particular file and the viator was deemed qualified as to one of the three available programs, Dr. Duffy would certify and assign a life expectancy to the viator and return the file to Mr. Sweeney. Life expectancy estimates are inherently subject to many variables, are unpredictable and constitute a risk to the purchaser. Mr. Sweeney's responsibilities included verification that the insurance information provided with any particular file was correct and complete (including insurance policy applications), that the policy actually existed and was in force, that premiums were paid up to date, that the insurance company had the appropriate rating, as well as conducting other verifications. Before a policy was approved for purchase, it was Mr. Sweeney's ultimate responsibility, pursuant to Future First's existing corporate policy, to compare the date of initial diagnosis of a potential viator's medical condition to the insurance policy application to look for any inconsistencies. Mr. Sweeney next completed a "file summary cover sheet" referencing certain information and verifications and attached it to the file. Mr. Sweeney was essentially a "one-man operation" in exclusive control of Future First's underwriting department and was ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not Future First would offer to bid on a particular policy. Future First's business operations in effect at the time relevant to the Amended Order were so compartmentalized that other officers or employees at Future First might not know any details associated with Mr. Sweeney's activities. After Mr. Sweeney authorized Future First to bid on a particular policy, the file was transferred to the bidding department. The bidding department did not re-visit or otherwise question Mr. Sweeney's decision to bid on a particular policy, but only reviewed the cover sheet to establish a bid price. If documentation was missing from any file, it was Mr. Sweeney's responsibility to contact the broker to request the missing documents. All viatical settlement brokers with whom Future First did business in Florida were required to be licensed by the Petitioner. Future First currently no longer conducts business with the broker "Funds For Life" because that particular broker dealt solely in "contestable" policies and Future First no longer purchases such policies, at least since the Petitioner's audit. Future First no longer has a business relationship with the Texas-based broker "Southwest Viatical," in part because Southwest Viatical routinely failed to provide complete documentation to Future First, including the insurance applications of viators. Southwest Viatical was specifically requested to provide insurance policy applications regarding the relevant policies referred to in the Amended Order but refused to do so. Most of the Southwest Viatical files purchased by Future First did not include insurance applications at the time of purchase. The insurance applications were ultimately obtained by Future First, however, at some point prior to the 1999 audit by the Petitioner. Future First became concerned about the character of individuals associated with Southwest Viatical and when requested by Southwest Viatical to forward commission funds to an offshore account, Future First declined to do so and immediately ceased doing business with Southwest Viatical. Future First cooperated thoroughly with Texas authorities in their investigation of Southwest Viatical, ultimately culminating, as a direct result of Future First's assistance, with the apprehension and subsequent incarceration of two principals of Southwest Viatical. During the period of time alleged in the Amended Order Future First received, on the average, between 400 and 600 policies per month from brokers requesting a bid. Future First rejected and never bid on the majority of policies referred to it by Southwest Viatical. On the average, Future First ultimately purchased approximately 25 percent of the policies submitted to it for a bid. Mr. Sweeney was primarily responsible for communicating with brokers as to all aspects of a potential viatical settlement transaction and to request all required documentation, including insurance policy applications. During the course of Mr. Stelk's affiliation with Future First he personally became familiar with the handwriting of William F. Sweeney. It is Mr. Sweeney's initials which appear on the cover sheets entered into evidence by the Petitioner, exemplified by Petitioner's Exhibit 4a. All the remaining "cover sheet" exhibits of the Petitioner contain the initials "WFS" on the top right hand corner which are Mr. Sweeney's initials. Mr. Sweeney is not currently an officer, director or employee of Future First because he was removed from any position with the Respondent corporation by order of the Petitioner. No other officers, directors or employees of the Respondent have been subject to a similar removal order, nor has Future First itself. The criminal proceedings currently pending against the Respondent are the direct result of Mr. Sweeney's activities while employed by Future First. The Petitioner's lead investigator reviewing Future First's business activities recommended that individual charges only be brought against Mr. Sweeney and against no other individual employed by or affiliated with the Respondent. Future First has a business relationship with licensed life insurance agents and/or securities brokers throughout the United States to solicit funds from individuals for ultimate purchase of viatical settlements. Those licensed individuals present an approved Purchase Request Agreement (PRA) to a potential purchaser to discuss the various Future First programs available and to help the purchaser finalize a PRA. Depending on what state the purchaser resided in, the purchaser would then issue a check either to Future First directly or to the Fidelity Trust (Future First's escrow agent), to be held until such time as Future First could purchase from a viator a policy matching the program desired by that purchaser. Thereafter, a formal "closing" would occur when the purchaser was, where appropriate, made a beneficiary on one or more insurance policies; all verifications and notifications to the insurance company and other entities were completed; an attorney and the trustee, would approve all aspects of the transaction within their purview, and a copy of the closing package would be sent to the purchaser for his or her records. After the closing, Future First would engage Life Watch Services, Inc., an unaffiliated company, to monitor the health status of the viator on a monthly basis in order that all appropriate actions may be taken at the time of the viator's death, so that the policy benefits may be promptly paid to the purchaser. Future First initially engaged in the purchase of contestable policies only after being approached by groups of agents with potential purchasers willing to assume the risk associated with contestable policies. Understanding the risk associated with such policies, Future First reserved 20 percent of its potential profit from such transactions and placed those funds in trust in a "Guaranty Fund" in the event that an insurance company rescinded a policy within the contestable period. In the event an insurer rescinded a contestable policy, Future First purchased a new policy for its customer out of the Guaranty Fund, at no additional cost to the customer. No purchaser ever lost any "investment time" if a policy was rescinded by an insurance company because that purchaser would be provided a new policy involving a viator with the same ultimate remaining life expectancy. Thus, without any prompting by a governmental authority, Future First made the business decision to voluntarily exceed the protections of Florida law by establishing the Guaranty Fund in order to purchase replacement policies for its customers if the initial policy was rescinded by the insurer. The Guaranty Fund was also utilized to make the purchaser whole even when an insurance company cancelled or non- renewed an insurance policy on an entire group, or if a new insurance carrier for a particular group later reduced the benefit level assigned to the purchaser. The Guaranty Fund was also used for the benefit of purchasers if a viator as a member of an employer group, quit his or her job and the viator exercised a statutory right to have the group policy benefits converted to an individual policy. Because benefit levels on such individual policies are typically lower, the Guaranty Fund was used to purchase additional insurance benefits to assign to the purchaser. Additionally, if a policy lapsed for any reason, the Guaranty Fund was used to procure a new policy or policies in order that the purchaser would be fully protected according to the terms of the PRA. No policy purchased by Future First has ever lapsed for failure of Future First to pay the premium. Funds from the Guaranty Fund have been used to purchase new policies when a viator committed suicide and the insurance company later rescinded the policy, as well. The Guaranty Fund maintained by Future First existed to cover other contingencies beyond just the possible recession of insurance policies because of the misrepresentation of the viator discovered by the insurer within the contestable period. Future First, through use of the Guaranty Fund, has replaced approximately 17 million dollars in face value of insurance policies, equating to about 12.4 million dollars in direct cost to Future First and, as a result, no Future First purchaser has ever been harmed. The 12.4 million dollars used to purchase replacement policies would otherwise have been retained by Future First as profit. Today Future First does not purchase contestable policies in the regular course of its business. The only exception to that occurs when an insured group undergoes a carrier change and a new contestable period is automatically instituted by the new carrier. There is no prohibition in Florida either presently or during the times relevant to the Amended Order, against the purchase of contestable policies by a viatical settlement provider. The recission of the contestable policies at issue in fact immediately followed an inquiry from the Department of Insurance to the insurers, which alerted them that the Department suspected fraud in the inception of the policies. That is, it suspected fraud on the part of the viators or insureds on those policies, not Future First. Future First immediately utilized the Guaranty Fund and began replacing the policies. None of the rescinding insurers have accused Future First of any complicity in any alleged fraud with respect to the policies referenced in the Amended Order, nor has the Department of Insurance alleged any such fraud against Future First. All but one or two of the rescinded policies have been replaced and the purchasers made whole, pursuant to the terms of their original PRA. One of the two policies not fully replaced as of the date of the hearing was being contested by Future First as to the legality of the insurance company's rescission, and Future First will replace the policy, if needed, at such time as that legal issue is resolved. Of all the policies at issue in the Amended Order, including, as well, any replacement policy subsequently purchased by Future First with money from the Guaranty Fund, only one or two contestable periods had not expired as of the date of the hearing. Those contestable periods were to expire thirty to sixty days after the date of the final hearing in this matter. Future First regularly monitors and verifies the status of all policies assigned to its purchasers, including the status of all replacement policies. The direct costs to Future First to purchase replacement policies for the rescinded policies referenced in the amended order was approximately $1.5 million dollars paid out of the Guaranty Fund. Since its initial licensure in the State of Florida, Future First has cooperated with the Petitioner concerning pending legislation, rule development and other contacts with the Petitioner agency. It has cooperated fully with the Petitioner when the audit of Future First occurred in February of 1999, provided all requested information and documentation and made all personnel available to confer with examiners in a full and frank manner. In the course of the four-week on-site audit, Mr. Stelk personally met with the Petitioner's examiners once or twice a week to discuss the Petitioner's suggestions for improving compliance. The Petitioner issued a draft "Report of Examination" as a result of its audit on August 5, 1999. It contained suggestions, comments and recommendations which had been discussed during Future First's staff meetings with the examiners. Future First addressed many of the Petitioner's concerns raised in the Report of Examination (report) and implemented certain suggested changes in its business practices. Mr. Stelk directed that a formal response to the report be filed, addressing the specific points raised by the Petitioner and explaining any corrective action taken where applicable. Future First viewed certain of the findings and suggestions made at the earlier meetings and later contained in the draft report as potentially helpful to its business. It therefore implemented those suggestions even before receiving the draft of the report. Certain suggestions in the report of such as a request to formalize a refund policy, were not strictly required by a controlling statute. However, Future First nonetheless voluntarily implemented such a refund policy. Future First has cooperated with all governmental agencies interested in reviewing its files at all times during the course of its licensure as a viatical settlement provider and during the course of the relevant investigations. There has been no allegation or suggestion that it has in any way altered any documents, tampered with its files or that any information was purposely missing. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner had no knowledge as to when any particular documents were received into Future First's files, including insurance applications, medical diagnosis information or other documents and has conceded that some policy applications or medical documentations may not have been received until after the bid process and viatical transactions in some cases were actually closed. Thus, Future First would not have been able to compare documents to detect possible fraud as to those situations. Therefore, Future First could not have been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation to its purchasers as to such transactions and files if it had no documentation at the point of the transaction being closed to indicate to it that possible insurance fraud in the inducement, by a viator, had occurred. In point of fact the Petitioner is not accusing Future First of fraud. However, as of the time of the audit in February 1999, because of the discussions and information it received at meetings with Department agents and employees, and certainly as to formal notification on August 5, 1999 in the Department's report, the Respondent knew that many insurance applications in its files had medical diagnosis information or disclosures by viators which were at odds with the medical information it obtained in the viatical settlement and contracting process. It still failed to report that knowledge (and indeed circumstantial evidence clearly indicates that at least Mr. Sweeney had that knowledge even before the February 1999 audit, as to many of the files). Future First still did not report potential fraud on the part of viators to the Department that it obviously had knowledge of until it began to actually report it in a formal way, after the first Show Cause Order was served (January 2000). It is also clear that the Department knew about this inconsistent medical information and probable insurance fraud by the time of its February 1999 audit. In November of 2000, as part of its efforts to cooperate with the requirements of the Department and the relevant statutes and rules, Future First filed an Anti-Fraud Education and Training Plan (Plan) with the Department, Division of Insurance Fraud. Neither Future First nor any of its representatives received any notice from the Department that the Plan was in any way deficient or otherwise non-compliant with Florida law. It has implemented that Plan and adherence to it has had a positive effect on Future First's business. The Anti-Fraud Plan stresses that Future First will not bid on a policy for purposes of viatical settlement unless the viator's insurance application is present in the file at or before the time of the bid. Future First's corporate policy, even prior to the implementation of the Anti-Fraud Plan has been that the insurance application must be reviewed and compared with available medical documentation for any inconsistencies prior to bidding on a policy. It is also apparent, however, that Mr. Sweeney and those under his direction and control apparently did not do so in many cases. During the course of the investigation, the "free- form" stage of this proceeding and the formal stage of this proceeding, Future First has made numerous form and other filings with the Petitioner seeking approval in connection with a new PRA and various other purchaser disclosures required by recent amendments to Florida Statutes. After comments and questions from the Department, resulting in some revisions to such documents, the new PRA and disclosure documents were approved by the Department, approval of the last document being obtained in April 2001. The Respondent, by its involvement through Mr. Stelk with the Viatical Life Settlement Association of American and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, has made a bonafide effort to gain knowledge of specific, appropriate business practices of other viatical settlement providers doing business in the United States as well as in Florida. Unlike certain other viatical settlement providers operating in Florida and elsewhere, Future First has never made premium payments on insurance policies out of the personal checking accounts of officers, directors or employees, has never instructed viators not to contact insurance companies and has never required viators to sign undated, change-of-ownership forms for filing with the insurer after the contestability period expired for any reason whatever, including as part of an effort to conceal from an insurance company the fact that an insurance policy was subject to viatical settlement. No such activity or effort to conceal has been alleged. (Compare, Accelerated Benefits Corporation documents in evidence pursuant to the Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition). On March 19, 2000, February 8, 2001, and March 6, 2001, Future First filed with the Department identifying information and documents pursuant to the requirements of Subsection 626.989(6), Florida Statutes, to the effect that fraud may have been involved in the procurement of all of the rescinded insurance policies referenced in the Show Cause Order and the Amended Order. The three separate fraud notifications constitute the Respondent's Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 and correspond to the time period shortly after service of the initial Show Cause Order and the Amended Show Cause Order.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent's license as a viatical settlement provider in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated June 29, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Insurance (Department), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of viatical settlement providers and the regulation of the viatical settlement industry in this state. The Respondent, Accelerated Benefits Corporation (ABC), was licensed as a viatical settlement provider in Florida. Pursuant to an investigative subpoena issued by the Department, in November and December 1999, investigators of the Department examined the records of the Respondent, as well as other viatical settlement providers operating within the state, looking into the viatical settlement industry's practices in Florida. As a part of the investigation, Janice S. Davis, an examiner/analyst with the Department, copied records of the Respondent relating to at least six individual viatical settlement transactions in which the Respondent was involved. These files relate to Counts 5 through 7 and 9 through 11 of the Administrative complaint. Ms. Davis also obtained from the Respondent the information regarding the location of several other cases, the files for which had been confiscated by the Statewide Prosecutor as a part of an ongoing investigation into the viatical settlement industry, and subsequently obtained copies of those files from the office of the Statewide Prosecutor. Those files relate to Counts 1 through 4 and 8 of the Administrative Complaint. As outlined in Count Five of the Administrative Complaint, in May 1998, D.K. applied to The United States Life Insurance Company (US Life) for a $250,000 life insurance policy. As a part of the policy application, D.K. stated that he had not consulted with any physician or other practitioner within the five years prior to the application. On July 29, 1998, Life Benefit Services (LBS), a viatical settlement broker used by ABC, obtained a "Confidential Application Form" completed by D.K. which revealed that sometime in 1982, D.K. had been diagnosed as HIV positive. LBS prepared a "Policy Summary Sheet" regarding D.K.'s application on which it noted that D.K. had been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. LBS also had records from D.K.'s physician reflecting that D.K. had been under a doctor's care during the preceding five years. The policy was issued to D.K. on or about August 1, 1998. Notwithstanding the information it had on hand, LBS brokered the sale of the instant policy to ABC. On or about August 25, 1998, D.K. and the Respondent entered into a contract which called for the Respondent to purchase D.K.'s $250,000 life insurance policy for $25,000. At that point, the policy was still contestable. As a part of the transaction, the Respondent gave D.K. written instructions not to contact his insurance company until advised to do so by ABC. The Respondent also had D.K. sign an addendum to the purchase contract in which he agreed to not advise US Life that he had sold his policy and acknowledged his recognition that his life insurance policy was still contestable. D.K. was also asked and agreed to sign an undated change of ownership form for use by ABC at the expiration of the period of contestability. While the policy was still contestable, an employee of the Respondent, Jennifer Grinstead, paid the annual premium on the policy out of her personal checking account. This served to conceal the fact that D.K. had sold the policy to the Respondent. Ms. Grinstead was reimbursed for the premium payment by American Title Company of Orlando. American Title was the Respondent's trustee. The Respondent did not report any of the information it had regarding D.K.'s actual health history to US Life or the Department. A review of the documentation related to this transaction reflected that the Respondent purchased the policy rights from D.K. after it knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that D.K. had made material misrepresentations regarding his health to US Life, and nonetheless attempted to conceal those misrepresentation from US Life. With regard to Count Six, the evidence of record indicates that on May 4, 1997, W.E. applied for a $45,000 life insurance policy from Life USA Insurance Company (Life USA). On the application form he signed and submitted, W.E. specifically stated he had not received any medical or surgical advice or treatment within the preceding five years, had not been advised by a medical doctor that he had AIDS or ARC, and was not, at the time, taking any medication. Based on the representations made by W.E., the policy was issued on November 12, 1997. Notwithstanding the representations made by W.E. to Life USA, W.E. also advised United Viatical Settlements (UVS), the settlement broker used by the Respondent, on December 17, 1997, through a corollary application form, that he had been diagnosed with HIV "a few years ago," and several different other forms utilized by the Respondent reflect that the Respondent knew W.E. had AIDS or HIV, and was under a doctor's treatment for the condition during the preceding five years. Nonetheless, UVS brokered the sale of this policy to the Respondent. In late December 1997, at which time the policy was still contestable, the Respondent entered into a contract with W.E. for the purchase of the $45,000 policy for $4,914.25. As a part of the sales procedure, the Respondent issued to W.E. instructions not to contact his insurance company until instructed to do so by the Respondent's representative, and it also had W.E. sign an addendum to the purchase agreement in which W.E. acknowledged that the policy in issue was still contestable. W.E. was also asked to agree not to inform Life USA of the sale of the policy to the Respondent and to sign an undated change of ownership form for use by the Respondent to transfer ownership when the contestability period had expired. The arrangement between the Respondent and W.E. called for Jennifer Grinstead to pay the annual premium on the policy for W.E. from her personal account and to receive reimbursement for those payments from American Title Company, the Respondent's trustee. This arrangement served to conceal from Life USA the fact that W.E. had sold the policy to the Respondent. The Respondent did not report the fact that it had knowledge of W.E.'s medical condition to the Department. The evidence of record reflects that at the time of the purchase of W.E.'s policy, the Respondent knew or should have known that W.E. had made material misrepresentations regarding his medical state to Life USA on his application for life insurance from that company, and it thereafter took actions which served to conceal those material misrepresentations from the company. In the Case of Count Seven, on April 26, 1997, A.T. applied for a life insurance policy from Lincoln Benefit Life (Lincoln) in the amount of $48,000. On the application form, A.T. specifically stated that he had not been under medical observation or treatment within the preceding five years, and that he had not been diagnosed as having AIDS or ARC, or tested positively for HIV. The policy was issued by the company on or about June 2, 1997. Notwithstanding those representations, on January 14, 1998, Medical Escrow Society, a viatical broker used by the Respondent in its dealing with Lincoln, received an application form from A.T. on which A.T. indicated he had tested positive for HIV on August 8, 1989, had been diagnosed with AIDS ON August 10, 1994, and was under the care of a physician. Medical Escrow Society nonetheless brokered the sale of the policy to the Respondent. Shortly after the contestability period on this policy expired. On June 25, 1999, the owner of the policy, Ralph Cahall, entered into a contract with the Respondent whereby the Respondent bought Cahall's interest in the proceeds for $29,238.72. At the Respondent's request, ownership of the policy was changed from Cahall to American Title Company of Orlando, the Respondent's trustee without either Lincoln or the Department being informed of the transfer. The file relating to this policy indicates that the Respondent brought about the transfer from Cahall after it knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that A.T. had made material misrepresentations regarding his health on the application to Lincoln, and that the Respondent, though it did not report what it knew to the Department, also thereafter undertook a course of action which was designed to conceal that information from Lincoln. With regard to Count Nine, the evidence indicates that on or about September 30, 1996, R.M. submitted an application for a $100,000 life insurance policy to Interstate Assurance Company (Interstate). On the application, R.M. indicated he had not been diagnosed with an immune system disorder within the preceding ten years, and the policy was issued on October 9, 1996. Notwithstanding that representation, on July 18, 1997, R.M. completed an application form for Benefits America, a broker used by the Respondent with regard to this policy, in which he stated he had been tested positive for HIV on February 11, 1994. A "Policy Acquisition Worksheet" utilized by the Respondent on or about July 22, 1997, when R.M. was dealing with Benefits America regarding the viatication of his life insurance policy, reflects that the company was aware at that time that R.M. had been diagnosed with HIV in 1994. Even with that knowledge, the Respondent went through with the viatication, and on July 31, 1997, while the policy was still within the contestability period, bought the policy for $15,430. On August 4, 1997, R.M. executed an addendum to the purchase agreement at the behest of the Respondent, wherein he recognized the policy was still contestable and agreed, among other things, not to contact his insurance company or tell them he had sold the policy to a viatical settlement provider. He also was asked to sign, and signed, an undated change of ownership agreement for use by the Respondent at the end of the contestability period. Jennifer Grinstead, an employee of the Respondent, paid R.M.'s annual premium on the policy during the contestibility period out of her personal checking account. This action, when done in conjunction with R.M.'s failure to advise the insurance company of the sale, served to conceal the transfer of ownership from R.M. to the Respondent. Ms. Grinstead was reimbursed for the premium payments by the Respondent's trustee. The Respondent did not report to Interstate or to the Department that R.M. had made material misrepresentations regarding his health in procuring the issuance of the policy even though it knew or, in the exercise of due diligence, should have known that the material misrepresentations had been made. As to Count Ten, on May 12, 1997, J.R. submitted an application to Interstate for a life insurance policy on his life in the amount of $980,000. On his application, J.R. indicated he had not been diagnosed with an immune system disorder within the preceding ten years, had not been treated by a member of the medical profession in the preceding five years, and was not, at the time, on medication or undergoing treatment or therapy. The policy was issued on May 19, 1997. Notwithstanding those representations, on July 9, 1997, J.R. filled out an application form for the Respondent's broker for this transaction, Life Benefit Services, on which he indicated he had been diagnosed as HIV positive in May 1996. A "Mortality Profile" provided to the Respondent by AVS indicated that J.R. was first diagnosed as being HIV positive in August 1995, nine months or so earlier than he admitted, and that he had been undergoing treatment by a doctor and receiving medications well within the five years preceding the application. On August 20, 1997, J.R. entered into a contract with the Respondent calling for the sale of this insurance policy to ABC for a net sum of $107,800. At this point, the policy was still contestable. At that time, the Respondent instructed J.R. in writing not to contact his insurance company until told to do so by the Respondent's representative. The Respondent also had J.R. sign an addendum to the purchase agreement in which he acknowledged the policy was still contestable, that he would not inform Interstate of the sale, and that he would sign an undated change of ownership form for use by ABC when the contestability period expired. Notwithstanding that the Respondent knew of the material misrepresentations made by J.R. as to his health when he procured the policy, it did not report what it knew to the Department, and took steps to insure Interstate was not informed of what was going on. With regard to Count Eleven, on May 16, 1996, the same J.R. applied to Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, later, Conseco Life Insurance Company (Conseco), for a $99,900 life insurance policy. On his application, J.R. stated he had never had any medical tests or any known indication of diseases, conditions, or physical disorders which were not mentioned on the form. AIDS, ARC, and HIV positive were not mentioned on the form, and if known to have been present, should have been noted. About a year and three months later, on July 9, 1997, J.R. submitted an application form to Life Benefit Services, the broker used by ABC on this policy, on which he stated he had tested positive for HIV in May of 1996. By letter dated July 28, 1997, Life Benefit Services advised ABC that J.R. was terminally ill and had been on medication and undergoing treatment by a physician within the preceding five years. In addition to this information, the Respondent had available to it the information regarding J.R.'s condition discovered as a result of the purchase of the Interstate policy. Notwithstanding this knowledge, on September 17, 1997, while the policy was still contestable, ABC purchased the Conseco policy from J.R. for the net sum of $13,986. By letter dated September 17, 1997, the Respondent advised J.R. not to contact his insurance company until instructed to do so by Ms. Holman, the Respondent's Director of Contracts, and requested he execute an addendum acknowledging those instructions and that the Conseco policy was still contestable. He was also asked to agree to sign an undated change of ownership assignment for use by ABC after the contestability period had expired. While the policy remained contestable, the annual premiums due from J.R. were paid from her personal checking account by Ms. Grinstead, an ABC employee, who was reimbursed therefor by American Title, ABC's trustee. None of the above information was reported by the Respondent to Conseco or the Department even though it knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that J.R. had made material misrepresentations regarding his physical health in his application for life insurance to Massachusetts General Life Insurance company, and it appears the Respondent attempted to conceal those misrepresentations from Conseco.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing Counts One through Four and Eight of the Administrative Complaint, but finding the Respondent guilty of Counts Five though Seven and Nine through Eleven of the Complaint, and both revoking its license and its eligibility for licensure as a viatical settlement provider in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark K. Logan, Esquire Smith, Ballard & Logan, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Insurance should discipline the Respondent for alleged violations of provisions of the Insurance Code governing agents.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Frank Lefler, Jr., is licensed in the State of Florida as a life and variable annuity contracts salesman, as a life insurance agent, and as a general lines insurance agent. During 1991 and 1992, he was employed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). In the summer of 1991, a woman named Theresa Novovesky, a registered professional nurse living in New Orleans, Louisiana, received a telephone solicitation regarding a "Nurses Insured Retirement Plan." At the time, she was engaged to be married later in the summer to an Air Force pilot named David Russell. Not wanting to deal with the matter over the telephone, she asked the caller to mail her the information. She later received in the mail a brochure advertising for a "Nurses Insured Retirement Plan" being offered by "Metropolitan Life and Affiliated Companies." The Plan was advertised as "a convenient way for you to accumulate cash for the future you deserve." The plan's five "important benefits" included: CONTROL If you should leave your present nursing position, your retirement benefits can stay with you. FLEXIBILITY Accessibility of cash. TAX BENEFITS Tax deferred accumulation while providing a life insurance benefit. SECURITY Can be used to provide life time income. DISABILITY Your monthly contribution can continue to be deposited by Metropolitan should you become disabled. Novovesky was interested in the program described in the brochure and telephoned the toll-free number on the brochure for more information. Her call was received at the Tampa, Florida, offices of MetLife, and she used the descriptions contained in the advertising brochure to attempt to describe the reason for her call and the area of her interest. She left her telephone number so that she could be contacted at her residence in New Orleans. Not long afterwards, the Respondent telephoned Novovesky in New Orleans. She again used the descriptions contained in the advertising brochure to attempt to describe the reason for her call and the area of her interest. The Respondent made an appointment to visit Novovesky at her apartment complex in New Orleans to show her the MetLife products that were consistent with her area of interest. He mentioned at the time that he was new and in training with the company and that he would have his supervisor, Rick Urso, with him to assist. Urso and the Respondent met with Novovesky on July 25, 1991. They discussed aspects of Novovesky's career, personal and financial goals and ascertained that she was interested in a retirement savings plan. The Respondent presented a MetLife product that actually was a whole life insurance policy. He described the tax-free accumulation of cash value from contributions of $100 a month, and he estimated the cash value at age 59 as in the neighborhood of $600,000. It is unclear whether the Respondent orally explained to Novovesky in so many words during the July 25, 1991, meeting that the product being presented was in fact a whole life insurance policy. She testified that he did not, and the product could have been explained in terms that did not clarify to her that it was in fact a life insurance policy. But Novovesky also testified that she did not understand life insurance or investment terminology and knew little about either. It is conceivable that the Respondent explained the true nature of insurance product in terms that she should have been able to understand but that she did not understand what he was telling her. In his testimony, her husband (then fiance) confirmed that possibility. In addition, by Novovesky's own testimony, the Respondent asked her to verify the accuracy of information the Respondent took from her during the meeting and wrote on a form entitled, "Application for Life Insurance." Among other things, the form included a section on "Medical Data" "TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PERSONS TO BE INSURED." Although Novovesky denies that she read or understood the form, she clearly signed it. Although she testified that she did not recall, Novovesky also apparently was required to undergo a physical examination, including blood sampling and testing, to qualify for the insurance for which she had applied. When applying for the insurance she ultimately bought, Novovesky post- dated the check for the initial premium until after her fiance's scheduled return to the United States in August, 1991, for a brief period of leave from active Air Force duty in England. She reasoned that, in addition to helping her make final arrangements for their imminent wedding, he could advise her on whether to go through with the application she had signed. During the hustle and bustle of the prenuptial arrangements, her fiance telephoned the Respondent to assure himself and his fiancee that she had made reasonable retirement plans. From what she had told him, he assumed that she had purchased an annuity-type of retirement investment. He previously had made it clear to her that he did not think it was smart for her to buy life insurance. For whatever reason--perhaps because she preoccupied with planning their imminent wedding, or perhaps because she was afraid to tell him that she had applied for life insurance against his advice, or perhaps because she truly did not comprehend that she had in fact applied for a life insurance policy--she apparently did not tell him that she had applied for life insurance. Working from the incorrect assumption that his fiancee had purchased annuity-type of retirement investment, he asked the Respondent certain questions regarding guaranteed and anticipated performance and was given certain answers that did not alert him that the Respondent was referring to a life insurance policy. Satisfied with the answers he had gotten, Novovesky's fiance told her that it looked "OK" to him, and they got on with their busy lives. It appears that, on or about August 30, 1991, someone with MetLife delivered to Novovesky her whole life insurance policy, as well as a typical written illustration of predicted performance of the whole life insurance policy, given certain assumptions. The illustration included references to: life paid up at 95; total, initial annual, and initial semi-annual premium; annual dividend; a guaranteed death benefit; additional insurance purchased by dividends; illustrative death benefit; guaranteed cash value; cash value of additional insurance; illustrative cash value; life insurance surrender cost index; and life insurance net payment cost index. It is difficult to understand how, but Novovesky testified that, even after receipt of the policy and illustration, she still did not understand that she had applied for and purchased life insurance. She testified that she did not read the material when she received it and that, after the wedding, Novovesky (now Mrs. Russell) moved with her husband to England. The policy and other papers she relating to her dealings with the Respondent were packed away in boxes and were relatively inaccessible until after their return to the United States. Notwithstanding her testimony at final hearing and her prior hearsay statements to Insurance Department regulators, not only were the words "life insurance" mentioned in written statements she received from MetLife, she herself wrote a letter to the Respondent on November 4, 1991, advising that, while she was living in England with her husband, she would be unable to utilize the "Check-O-Matic" payment plan the Respondent had set up for her and that personal checks would be "my only means of paying my life insurance monthly." When the Mrs. Russell did not receive monthly or even quarterly statements from MetLife, and MetLife responded to inquiries by saying that only an annual statement was due her, Mr. Russell especially became concerned about exactly what his wife had purchased. Still, the policies and information was inaccessible, and they decided it could wait until after their return to the United States. When they returned and Mrs. Russell received her first Anniversary Statement in the mail, Mr. Russell could tell that his wife had not purchased an annuity-type investment, and he decided it was time to find the policy and related MetLife information to determine just what was going on. When he located and inspected the documentation, an incredulous Mr. Russell realized for the first time that his wife had purchased a life insurance policy, which was precisely what he told her not to buy. His reaction was that he could not understand how she could have been so foolish, and he told her so. She blamed it on the Respondent and MetLife. Approximately a year later, in summer of 1993, the Russells read a newspaper article indicating that many MetLife policyholders were registering similar complaints and that state insurance regulators were investigating. Mr. Russell became persuaded that, after all, perhaps MetLife, and not his wife, was to blame for the mistake. They successfully pursued their desire to rescind the life insurance policy, get a full refund from MetLife, and reinvest the refund in another investment vehicle. (Initially, they invested in an annuity; they later changed to a stock mutual fund.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in this case. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2210 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7. The visit was on July 25, 1991; otherwise, first sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven exactly what the Respondent said. 8.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that life insurance was not discussed. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that she did not read any of the application. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 12.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven: (1) that Russell formed any opinion about what the Respondent "was soliciting" (he was concerned only about what his fiancee was buying); or (2) that life insurance was discussed. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the documents were "numerous" or that she did not "review" them. Accepted, but not proven that the Respondent knew about them or sent them, and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that she did not know she had purchased a life insurance policy. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted, technically, but unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven; second sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, implication that they were informed for the first time is rejected as not proven.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; second sentence, accepted and incorporated. "Unknowingly" is rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second and third sentences, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is rejected as not proven. "Understandingly unhappy" is rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as being conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. The year 1990 is rejected as being contrary to facts found. (The meeting was in 1991.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, not clear from the evidence. Otherwise, accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as being argument. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-14. Accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 15.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 23.-24. Accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. As to last sentence of the first paragraph, rejected as contrary to the evidence that "any misperception stemming from the brochure" "could not be due to" the Respondent (although not proven that it was). Otherwise, the first paragraph is accepted and incorporated. The second paragraph is argument and a transcript excerpt that is subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 27.-28. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 29. Accepted but argument, subordinate, and unnecessary. 30.-31. Cumulative. (Also, subordinate and argument.) Rejected as contrary to facts found that Lefler was not identified. Otherwise, largely accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Argument and subordinate. 34.-35. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Argument, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as being argument and as being subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 38.-40. Largely accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 41. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as argument, as subordinate and as unnecessary. 42.-44. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Argument, subordinate and unnecessary. Largely, accepted and incorporated to the extent not argument, subordinate or unnecessary. Cumulative. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts found. Second sentence, cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: James B. Bossart, Esquire Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jonathan L. Alpert, Esquire David Ferrentino, Esquire Alpert, Josey & Hughes First Union Center 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners, as beneficiaries of their deceased father's life insurance policy, are entitled to a payment of $7,500 in addition to the $2,500 benefit already paid. As set forth more fully herein, since Florida's statutory and rule framework do not require that notice provided to the Division of Retirement be shared with the Division of State Group Insurance, Petitioners did not demonstrate that they are entitled to the additional benefit.
Findings Of Fact The Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI) is an administrative unit located within the Department of Management Services (DMS), and pursuant to Section 110.123(3), Florida Statutes, is designated as the agency responsible for the administration of the State Group Insurance Program (Program). The life insurance program at issue in these proceedings is a part of the Program. DMS has contracted with Northgate Arinso, formerly Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an online system known as "People First." The term "employee benefits" refers to insurance, but not to retirement benefits. People First became the system of record for DSGI benefits data, including addresses, on January 1, 2005. Petitioners Martha L. Kenerson and David R. Kenerson, Jr., are the daughter and son of David R. Kenerson (Mr. Kenerson), a retired employee of the State of Florida, and the beneficiaries of the life insurance that was provided through the Program. Mr. Kenerson died a resident at 156 56th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida, on March 31, 2009. Since Mr. Kenerson's retirement, the State of Florida, through DSGI, has maintained a Group Life Insurance Policy (the Policy) covering the individual lives of its former employees who elected to be covered. The Policy is a benefit available to retirees of the State of Florida which Mr. Kenerson, as a retiree, accepted. The Insured, Mr. Kenerson, was entitled to inclusion in the group of State of Florida retirees who were covered under the Policy that was offered by the State of Florida to its retirees. Mr. Kenerson received a pension for life from the State of Florida. Beginning January 1, 2000, and subsequently, the life insurance coverage was $10,000. It was changed beginning in Plan Year 2007, as to all retirees, due to DSGI's determination of the impending loss of the Advanced Premium Account. As to Mr. Kenerson, it was reduced from $10,000 to $2,500 beginning in Plan Year 2007 for the following reasons: He defaulted in responding to the Open Enrollment Notice; Neither Mr. Kenerson nor anyone on his behalf submitted any notification of election pursuant to such Open Enrollment Notice; and DSGI determined that it was necessary to change the coverage for death benefits because of such impending loss of the Advanced Premium Account. On April 10, 2009, Minnesota Life Insurance Company claims examiner Latrice S. Tillman contacted Petitioner Martha L. Kenerson regarding the death of Mr. Kenerson, asking for the death certificate of the Insured and the Preference Beneficiary Statements from both Petitioners. On April 17, 2009, Petitioners filed the appropriate documents with the Minnesota Life Insurance Company as beneficiaries of Mr. Kenerson's life insurance policy. On May 20, 2009, Petitioners each received a check in the amount of $1,257.59, constituting $1,250 of insurance proceeds (totaling $2,500) and the balance of interest on the $2,500 insurance proceeds. On May 24, 2009, Petitioner Martha L. Kenerson wrote a letter to DSGI requesting an appeal. On June 9, 2009, Ms. Kenerson received a letter dated July 9, 2009, from Michelle Robleto, the Director of DSGI, denying Petitioners' Level II Appeal and informing Petitioners of their right to request a hearing. On June 26, 2009, Ms. Kenerson timely petitioned for an evidentiary hearing regarding Mr. Kenerson's policy. Approximately 29,391 State of Florida retirees were covered under the Policy in Class A (i.e., with initial $10,000 coverage excluding Classes having such initial coverage) at the time when Respondent sent the Change Notice of the proposed changes in coverage that applied also to Mr. Kenerson's Policy. Approximately 5,921 State of Florida retirees were covered under Class A of the Policy and elected, in response to the Change Notice, to increase the premium in order to retain the coverage at $10,000. None of the State of Florida retirees in Class A under the Policy who failed to respond in writing to the Change Notice was contacted by Respondent prior to the effective date of coverage change. Respondent never attempted to call retirees regarding their wishes as to the Change Notice. Respondent has no proof that it spoke with the Insured to explain the proposed change of coverage and/or premium in January 2007. Respondent did not mail the Open Enrollment Notices to retirees by a method that required affirmative identification of the recipient, such as by certified return receipt or other postal proof of delivery. The premiums for the Policy were paid by the State of Florida from Mr. Kenerson's pension as a deduction from the payment of the gross pension payments. From at least January 1, 2003, to the end of the Open Enrollment Period for Plan Year 2007, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) never communicated to Respondent the address that DFS was using for Mr. Kenerson. DFS has a separate and independent data base from that used by Respondent. At no time did DMS send to the Insured c/o Petitioner David R. Kenerson, Jr., any Open Enrollment Notice for any plan year before the 2008 plan year relating to the terms of the Policy. As administrator of the Policy, it is and has been DMS's responsibility to maintain a database of addresses for contacting retirees who are eligible for coverage under the Policy. In August 2002, DMS contracted with Convergys as a third party service provider to perform administrative functions, including the maintenance of the retirees "address of record" database for insurance purposes and for recordkeeping relating to retirees whose lives were insured under the Policy. With respect to the July 31, 2006, mailing to retirees, DMS retained direct control of the stuffing, sending, and addressing of the letters, as well as the collection of mail that was returned as undeliverable. In 2004, DMS delivered to Convergys a copy of the retiree address of record contained in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES), previously maintained only by DMS. Tom Lockridge, Respondent's Benefits Team Manager in 2005, noted his confusion with how many different databases exist that cover retirees of the State of Florida. He was aware that DSGI and the Division of Retirement Services (DRS) each has its own databases. Retirees entitled to enroll in the Policy managed by DSGI are also entitled to pension eligibility or other post- retirement activities managed by DMS, DRS, or the State University System. Since the inception of the DMS website, www.myflorida.com, two separate databases, the People First database and the DRS database, have been maintained. At all times since 2000, Mr. Kenerson was listed as a retiree of the State of Florida in the databases of DSGI and DRS. During the Open Enrollment period for Plan Year 2007 for the Policy, DMS records maintained by Convergys in the "address of record" database showed that Mr. Kenerson lived at 1737 Brightwaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida. DMS, through its agent Convergys, sent the Open Enrollment Notice for Plan Year 2007 for the Policy to Mr. Kenerson at the Brightwaters Boulevard address. In 2001, Mr. Kenerson sent to DRS, but not to DSGI, a written notice of change of address showing his new address as 156 56th Street South, Villa 37, St. Petersburg, Florida. DMS never received an affirmative notice from Mr. Kenerson electing to either adopt the $2,500 coverage; increase to $10,000 in coverage; or terminate his enrollment altogether. In connection with the Open Enrollment notice, DMS contract with Convergys did not require Convergys to seek data from other Florida agencies or divisions to update the database of retirees' addresses and contact information. In connection with the Open Enrollment notice, DMS records management policies did not require DMS personnel to obtain data from other Florida agencies or divisions to update the DMS database of retirees' addresses and contact information. In designing the offered choices on the Open Enrollment notice, DMS allocated $6.33 per month from the Advance Premium Account to subsidize each retiree's premium for Plan Year 2007. Approximately 80 percent of the then-current retirees elected, or were deemed to have elected by default, to reduce their coverage from $10,000 to $2,500 as a result of the Open Enrollment process conducted by DMS. As of October 2006, 24,488 retirees elected the $2,500 life insurance policy for Plan Year 2007, while 4,769 retirees elected the $10,000 coverage. The Open Enrollment notice did not explain why those electing the $10,000 in coverage were required to pay almost eight times the amount of premium charged for $2,500 of coverage ($35.79 per month versus $4.20 per month). A "positive enrollment" means an individual must affirmatively elect each and every benefit or a certain type of benefit. A "passive enrollment" is where, by taking no action, the individual continues to have the same benefit level as previously. Respondent used the "passive enrollment" system for Plan Year 2008, when the life benefit premium changed due to the fact that Convergys would have charged a significant fee (seven figures) to conduct a "positive enrollment." DMS elected not to incur the additional expense. Since the state has designated People First as the system of record for its retirees relating to their benefits and information regarding Open Enrollment, any changes in address are made through the People First system. The agreement between DMS and Convergys does not require Convergys to communicate with other agencies regarding updating of the address of record database for retirees. Convergys, as the contractor to DMS, routinely destroys mail returned as undeliverable after 90 days. Neither DMS nor Convergys maintains a list of "bad addresses," those to which mail has been returned as undeliverable. DMS told Convergys not to synchronize their address database with the Florida Retirement System (FRS) database. DMS was aware that there were retirees who sent address changes to DRS and not to People First. DMS was aware that its address of record database for retirees contained at least some addresses that were not current for some customers. DMS was aware that some number of Open Enrollment packages was returned every year as undeliverable due to incorrect addresses. DMS does not maintain a record of returned Open Enrollment packages. DMS has adopted no rules to record the names and addresses of retirees whose Open Enrollment packages have been returned as undeliverable. DMS has adopted no rules to compare or synchronize the DMS address of record used for Open Enrollment packages with other databases maintained by DMS, DFS, the Florida Department of Revenue, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, local voter registration, or any other State of Florida address lists. DMS has adopted no rules to update the address of record database used by DMS for notices to retirees relating to group term life insurance policies such as the one at issue here. DMS has adopted no rules to create, preserve, or update records, and to destroy names of retirees whose notices are returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable due to no forwarding address. The ultimate custodian of the State of Florida database containing addresses of record for retirees' insurance benefits is Convergys, Inc. At all times from January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2009, the FRS, administered by DMS, has maintained a database of State of Florida retirees that includes their address records in connection with pension and retirement income and expense matters. This FRS database is separate from the address of record database maintained by Convergys/People First for the same period. The letter dated July 31, 2006, relating to the 2007 plan year, advised State of Florida retirees that they could change their election of life insurance benefit up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of DSGI, maintains benefits data for People First/DSGI. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. He created a file used in a mail merge program to send all retirees a copy of the July 31, 2006, letter. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance in July 2006, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record from the benefits data he maintained. The DSGI address of record for Mr. Kenerson in July 2006 was 1737 Brightwaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida 33704, and was included in the mailing addresses file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockridge on July 3, 2006. Thomas Lockridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of DSGI. DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes, a mailing system company, to mail the July 31, 2006, letter to all State of Florida retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the DSGI print shop, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing the names and addresses of the retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters were assembled by Pitney Bowes and delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen, and the State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Kenerson at the Brightwaters address, by first class mail, using the State of Florida permit for DSGI. The return address on the envelope containing the July 31, 2006, letter was DSGI, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 215, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0949. Any letters returned to DSGI as undeliverable were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of DSGI. Each letter returned to DSGI was handled in one of two ways: If the envelope showed a different address on the yellow sticker applied by the U.S. Postal Service, the letter was re-mailed to that address; or If the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of DRS was made; a copy of the print screen showing the address in the DRS database was made, if different from the address on the database of DSGI; and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the DRS database. A copy of each DRS print screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. There was a DRS print screen for every person whose letter was returned and for which there was not another address. The absence of a DRS print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. No DRS print screen exists for Mr. Kenerson, an indication that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to DSGI. Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in COPES. When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits on January 1, 2005, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys/People First system. People First and DRS do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. In addition to the letter discussed at length above, each year, DSGI must hold an "Open Enrollment" period for the health program. Open Enrollment is the period designated by DMS during which time eligible persons, not just State of Florida retirees, may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period for the 2007 plan year ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During Open Enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending Open Enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Kenerson's Open Enrollment package to the Brightwaters Boulevard address on September 3, 2006. The mailing of Open Enrollment packages is noted on the Open Enrollment screen by the Item Code "FSAE." The Open Enrollment packages, like the July 31, 2006, letter to retirees, were mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class prepaid postage. The Open Enrollment package mailed to Mr. Kenerson on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Kenerson's Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of DSGI; Information of Note; a Privacy Notice; a Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and the 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included a detailed description of the reduction in life insurance benefits from $10,000 to $2,500 unless an affirmative election was made to pay a higher premium. Neither Mr. Kenerson nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 for Plan Year 2007. Because the $10,000 life insurance option was not affirmatively made by the Insured or anyone on his behalf, upon his death, Respondent determined that he was entitled to $2,500 in death benefit. For those retirees who did not make a timely election pursuant to the Open Enrollment notice sent in 2006 for Plan Year 2007, the death benefit automatically became $2,500, effective January 1, 2007, for a monthly premium of $4.20. As of Open Enrollment 2005, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending Open Enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. The letter contained in the Open Enrollment package for 2006 for Plan Year 2007 stated as follows: The State conducts a "passive enrollment." If you want to keep the same insurance and benefits plans indicated, you do not have to do anything. Your Flexible Spending Account will be continued at the same annual amounts if no charges are made during Open Enrollment. The reverse side of this letter contains important information regarding changes, new offerings, and reminders regarding processes necessary to ensure a successful enrollment. Please review these items of note. Included in the Open Enrollment package was an "Information of Note" which set forth the reduction in life insurance benefit as well as the amounts to be charged for either the $2,500 or $10,000 benefit. Prior to January 1, 2007, funds in the Advanced Premium Account were applied to payment of costs of life insurance premiums under the policy for retirees. Once the funds in the Advanced Premium Account were depleted, the monthly premium for the $10,000 policy increased significantly to $35.79. DSGI has consistently mailed Open Enrollment packages, including Benefits Guides, to the addresses of record for all retirees, including Mr. Kenerson. Prior to May 1999, Mr. Kenerson actually resided at the Brightwaters Boulevard address, which had been his address of record since at least 1988. DSGI had mailed all correspondence to that address for Mr. Kenerson. In the past, DSGI had mailed, from time to time, newsletters to retirees. These newsletters were mailed to the addresses of record for the retirees. The newsletter for January-March 1999 contains the telephone number and address for DSGI and the following notice under the heading "Reminder Tidbits": "Notify both the Division of Retirement and the Division of State Group Insurance in writing if your mailing address changes." The newsletter for July-September 1999 contained the following: "Q. What if I do not receive my Open Enrollment package? A. If you do not receive the Open Enrollment package by September 17, contact the Division of State Group Insurance. You should also confirm your mailing address when you call." Prior to Mr. Kenerson moving from the Brightwaters Boulevard address, notices mailed to him there included notification that retirees were required to update any changes in address with DSGI. Throughout the years, the Benefits Guides that are included in the Open Enrollment packages have informed all program participants of their responsibility to maintain a current address with DSGI. Even if Mr. Kenerson had changed his address with DRS, such update would not have been provided to DSGI. Neither DSGI nor DRS notifies the other of receipt of a change of address. A change of address with one division of DMS does not automatically change the address in another since the two divisions have separate databases. Within DMS there is no centralized database of records containing addresses of record for all DMS functions. Retirees and active employees of the State of Florida are not required to have one address of record for all functions and services received through DMS. In fact, many State of Florida employees have different addresses for different DMS division functions. DSGI and DRS serve different functions and do not share databases. DRS consists of all retirees who participate in FRS, including local governments. The total number of individual participants is over 300,000. The synchronization of databases would be an expensive undertaking and no funding has been provided to synchronize DSGI with DRS or any other state agency or public entity. No evidence demonstrated that Mr. Kenerson informed DSGI in any way that he desired to maintain his $10,000 life insurance benefit, or that DSGI assumed or accepted that responsibility.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 10th day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martha Lynne Kenerson, Esquire Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10170 William B. Bierce, Esquire Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10170 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
