The Issue Whether the Respondent Terra Bella and Associates, Inc., owes the Petitioner $17,806.20 for sod purchased from Petitioner, Action Sod and Landscape, LLC.
Findings Of Fact Action Sod is a 25-year-old business that sells plants and sod for lawn and landscaping. Terra Bella is a construction landscape maintenance company that has been in existence since 2004. 2011. Great American was the surety for Terra Bella during In the latter part of 2011, Action Sod sold and invoiced Terra Bella the following sod orders: Invoice 114825 on November 16, 2011, for Vero Beach in the amount of $1,979.50; Invoice 114828 for Parkland Heron Bay on November 16, 2011, in the amount of $1,979.50; Invoice 114875 for Parkland on November 16, 2011, in the amount of $2,268.40; Invoice 115360 for Pickup at Okechobbe Farm on November 21, 2011, in the amount of 1,455.20; Invoice 116151 for Harron Beach on November 29, 2011, in the amount of 3,852.00; Invoice 116350 for Enin 5613480172 on December 1, 2011, in the amount of $3,852.00; and Invoice 116880 for Pickup at Okechobbe Farm on December 6, 2011, in the amount of $1,369.60. Action Sod expected payment of each invoice within 30 days from date of pick up or delivery. After Barbara Callado Lopez ("Lopez"), Action Sod's President and Director, did not receive payment for the outstanding November and December invoices totaling $26,396.90, she called Terra Bella repeatedly to request payment. On January 24, 2012, Terra Bella paid Action Sod $9,640.00 for Invoices 113134, 113750, 114132, and 114626, leaving an outstanding balance of $16,756.20. On February 22, 2012, Action Sod filed a claim against Terra Bella with the Department because $16,756.20 had not been paid. Action Sod ultimately amended the claim to $16,806.20 to include the remaining monies owed for sod purchased plus the $50.00 filing fee for a claim. On February 29, 2012, Lopez went to Terra Bella's office requesting payment. The parties had a heated argument about the sod and monies owed. Lopez requested payment in the amount of $16,756.20. Terra Bella provided a counter offer to Action Sod of $13,006.20, which was calculated by subtracting $750.00 for pallets returned and $3,000.00 for the sod that didn't pass inspection and had to be replaced. Even though Lopez was dissatisfied with the offered amount of $13,006.20, she accepted it. Terra Bella paid Action Sod $13,006.20 with check #5098, which stated in the memo section, "Final Payment of Agreed Upon Open Bal." During the meeting, Lopez also signed six Final Waiver and Release of Lien forms for the following properties: Vero Lago, LLC,; The Ranches at Cooper City, LLC; Parkland Reserve, LLC; Miami Dade Aviation Department; Heron Bay; and Monterra Clubhouse. The waivers neither provided invoice numbers nor identified and described the property locations as listed on the invoices. Each waiver provided in relevant part the following: The undersigned lienor, received FINAL payment and hereby waives and releases its lien and right to claim a lien for labor, services, equipment, or materials furnished to Terra Bella & Associated, Inc., though February 29, 2012, on the . . . project. . . to the following property. . . Action Sod cashed check #5098 and therefore Terra Bella is not indebted to Petitioner for any sod sold in November and December of 2011.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Action Sod and Landscape against Terra Bella and Associates. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 5th day of September, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Adam Putnam Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capital, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Barbara Callado, President Action Sod and Landscape, LLC Post Office Box 833143 Miami, Florida 33283-3143 Dan Hurrelbrink Great American Insurance Company 580 Walnut Street Post Office Box 2119 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-3180 Dennis Hall, President Terra Bella and Associates, Inc. PO Box 22397 Hialeah, Florida 33002
The Issue Whether Respondent, FYV, Inc., d/b/a Miami Tropical Nursery, Inc. (Respondent or Buyer), owes Petitioner, Bud Sod, LLC (Petitioner or Seller), the sum of $7,168.09 for pallets of sod sold to the Buyer by the Seller.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner and Respondent were involved in the purchase and sale of an agricultural product grown and delivered in Florida. Under the terms of their on-going business relationship, Petitioner supplied Respondent with sod. There is no disagreement that Petitioner produced and sold the sod to Respondent. In fact, the parties had numerous dealings that covered many tickets noting deliveries and invoices noting the monies owed. Prior to July 7, 2010, the parties met without their attorneys to try and agree upon an amount owed by Respondent. At that time, they went through the volumes of paperwork related to the claim and reached a mutually-acceptable decision. Petitioner maintains that Respondent owes $17,168.09 as a compromised sum for the sod sold by Petitioner to Respondent. Of that amount, Petitioner acknowledges that Respondent remitted $10,000 to the Seller. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that the sum of $7,168.09 is owed and unpaid for the sod purchased by Respondent. Respondent presented no evidence to refute this amount.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving Petitioner's complaint against Respondent in the amount of $7,168.09. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Kathy Alves Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 968036 Schaumberg, Illinois 60196 Steven J. Polhemus, Esquire Post Office Box 2188 LaBelle, Florida 33975 Yolanda More FYV, Inc., d/b/a Miami Tropical Nursery, Inc. 104475 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent, Landtech Services, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $1,347.07 for the purchase of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Holmberg Farms, Inc., is a producer of agricultural products located in Lithia, Florida. Respondent, Landtech Services, Inc. (Landtech), is an agricultural dealer located in Largo, Florida. Respondent, Western Surety Company, is a surety and issued to Respondent, Landtech, a surety bond for the purchase of agricultural products in Florida. On or about April 9, 1993, Respondent, Landtech, purchased from Petitioner, on invoice number T7284, eleven hundred and ten (1,110) six inch honeysuckle ornamental plants for the price of $1,950.55. The terms of the sale between Petitioner and Respondent, Landtech, were C.O.D. at the time of delivery. However, Petitioner's truck driver was unaware of the terms of the sale and therefore, did not collect full payment at the time he delivered the plants to Landtech. Respondent, Landtech, paid Petitioner's driver the sum of $400.00 toward the purchase of the honeysuckle plants leaving a balance due of $1,550.55. On August 20, 1993, Respondent, Landtech, paid to Petitioner the payment of $250.00 of which $203.48 was applied to the balance and $46.50 was applied to interest owed. Petitioner, now claims the balance of $1,347.07. Respondent, Landtech, is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $1,347.07 as claimed in its complaint. As noted, Respondents, Landtech and Western Surety, did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the allegations in the statement of claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture issue its final order requiring that Respondent, Landtech Services, Inc., pay to Petitioner, Holmberg Farms, Inc., the amount of $1347,07, within fifteen (15) days of its Final Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Landtech, fail to timely remit payment to Petitioner, the Department shall call upon the surety to pay over to the Department, from funds out of the surety certificate, the amount called for in this order. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of March, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether Celebration Acres, Inc., or its surety, Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company, is liable for funds due Mike's Green Thumb, Inc., for the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Delray Beach, Florida, where it engages in the production of nursery stock. Mr. Michael Raimondi testified at the hearing on Petitioner's behalf. Respondent is a Florida corporation located in Coral Springs, Florida. At the time of the transactions which are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products supported by Surety Bond Number BD 0692212 (the Bond) in the amount of $16,000. Respondent engages in the business of landscaping. Mr. David Urs testified at the hearing on Respondent's behalf. Co-Respondent is a corporation, licensed to do business in the state of Florida as an insurer. As surety, it provided the Bond for Respondent. The conditions and provisions of the Bond are to assure proper accounting and payment to producers for agricultural products purchased by Respondent. From October of 1993 through February of 1994, Petitioner sold nursery plants of its own production to Respondent at a sale price in the total amount of $14,562.35. The parties have done business together for over six (6) years. During that time, they have not established a course of performance or course of dealing regarding the terms of payment. In fact they have consistently argued over this point through out their business relationship. Respondent did not always send Petitioner a purchase order. When Petitioner received purchase orders, they consistently stated at the top that the terms of payment would be "net 30." However, on some occasions, the Respondent also stamped the purchase orders with the following additional payment terms: Terms of payment are per contract between general contractor and Celebration Acres, Inc.; and (b) Material sold by this purchase order once installed by Celebration Acres, Inc. belongs to the owner of the property where installed. Payment is due to supplier when payment is received by Celebration Acres, Inc. Suppliers are encouraged to protect themselves by sending a notice to owner. Regardless of whether Petitioner received a purchase order, it always sent Respondent an invoice stating that payment was due thirty (30) days after the date of invoice. The parties agree that subject invoices reflect the correct sale price for plants delivered and accepted. On or before October 11, 1993, Respondent bought 1343 Liriope and 132 Indian Hawthorne from Petitioner for a total sale price of $4,419.25. The express terms of payment for this sale was net in 30 days as set forth in Purchase Order No. 157 and Invoice No. 6504. Mr. Urs, Respondent's witness, testified that Purchase Order No. 157 is incomplete and that Respondent sent Petitioner a subsequent purchase order containing the additional payment terms referenced above in paragraph six (6). Mr. Urs' testimony is contrary to the more compelling testimony of Mr. Raimondi, Petitioner's witness. Respondent admits that it owes and has not paid Petitioner $4,419.25 for Invoice No. 6504. Payment for this invoice is past due. On or before December 16, 1993, Respondent sent Petitioner Purchase Order No. 193 for 200 Variegated Liriope. This purchase order contains the additional payment terms referenced above in paragraph six (6), i.e., payment was due pursuant to the terms of the contract between Respondent and the City of Oakland Park. Pursuant to this order, Petitioner delivered and Respondent accepted 230 plants as described in Respondent's Invoice Nos. 7528 and 7713 for a total sale price of $379.50. Respondent admits that it owes and has not paid Petitioner $379.50 for Invoice Nos. 7528 and 7713. Record evidence indicates that Respondent has completed its work for the City of Oakland Park. Additionally, there is no pending dispute over that contract; Respondent expected payment by May 26, 1994. Petitioner has met its burden of proof regarding Invoice Nos. 7528 and 7713. Respondent presented no evidence to show that payment is not due. Accordingly, payment for Invoice Nos. 7528 and 7713 is past due. On or about November 29, 1993, Respondent sent Petitioner Purchase Order No. 175 requesting shipment of various kinds of nursery stock. Respondent stamped this invoice with the terms referenced above in paragraph six (6). After receiving the order, Petitioner sent Respondent Invoice Nos. 7236 and 7408 reflecting a total sale price in the amount of $5,490.50. At the formal hearing, Respondent produced a copy of a Final Release of Lien signed by Petitioner's representative indicating that Petitioner received payment for Invoice Nos. 7236 and 7408. The release appears to bear an imprint of Petitioner's corporate seal. Petitioner asserts that Respondent never paid for Invoice Nos. 7236 and 7408. Mr. Raimondi, Petitioner's representative, occasionally signed a release before receiving funds so that a general contractor would pay Respondent, who promised, in turn, to pay Petitioner. Respondent faxed the subject release to Mr. Raimondi who signed it and faxed it back to Respondent. Someone at Respondent's office notarized Mr. Raimondi's signature. Respondent presented no evidence to show whether Petitioner ever received payment for Invoice Nos. 7236 and 7408. Respondent admits that it would occasionally request the execution of a release before paying Petitioner for plant material. Mr. Urs, Respondent's representative, testified that Respondent may have paid Petitioner in one of two ways: (a) by Respondent's check (company or certified); or (b) by the general contractor's check payable jointly to Respondent and Petitioner. The testimony of Mr. Urs, Respondent's representative, concerning the parties' execution of releases in general, and the subject release in particular, is contrary to the more compelling testimony of Mr. Raimondi, Petitioner's representative. Petitioner has met its burden of proving that payment for Invoice Nos. 7236 and 7408 is past due. On or about January 27, 1994, Respondent sent Petitioner Purchase Order Nos. 232 and 234 for assorted nursery plants. Both purchase orders contain the additional payment terms referred to in paragraph six (6) above. In response to these orders, Petitioner sent Respondent Invoice Nos. 8026 and 8027 for $660.75 and $612.35 respectively. Respondent admitted at the formal hearing that it owed Petitioner for Invoice Nos. 8026 and 8027 and that payment was past due. On or about February 14, 1994, Petitioner sent Respondent Invoice No. 8244 for 1500 Fern Sword listing the sale price in the amount of $3,000. Neither party produced a corresponding purchase order for this invoice and Petitioner did not recall receiving one. Mr. Urs, Respondent's representative, testified that Respondent owed Petitioner for Invoice No. 8244, but that payment is not due because Respondent has not received payment from the general contractor or the owner, Palm Beach County. Petitioner admits it has been in contact with the general contractor's bond company in an attempt to collect the debt. However, there is no persuasive record evidence that Petitioner ever agreed to defer payment until the general contractor or owner paid Respondent. Petitioner has met its obligation of proving that payment for Invoice No. 8244 is past due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I recommend that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order directing Respondent and/or its surety and Co-Respondent to pay Petitioner $14,562.35. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22 day of December 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 21st day of October, 1994. COPIES FURNIHSED: Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Legal Dept.) Post Office Box 147030 Gainesville, Florida 32614 Michael Raimondi, President Mike's Green Thumb, Inc. Post Office Box 6279 Delray Beach, Florida 33445 David S. Urs, Vice President Celebration Acres, Inc. 3300 University Dr. #514 Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Should the Department of Insurance (now known as the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation) (Department) approve three insurance endorsement forms that State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) filed on November 15, 2001?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: State Farm is a domestic insurance company that the Department has licensed to transact property and casualty insurance in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the duty to regulate insurers doing business in the State of Florida. State Farm offers five types of homeowners' policies that have been approved for use in Florida, an FP-7921 (HO1), FP-7923 (HO3), FP-7924 (HO4), FP-7925 ( HO5-Extra), and FP-2926 (HO6). The HO1 is a "named perils" policy and provides coverage only for those perils specifically named in the policy. This policy is not offered in other states, and in Florida accounts for less than one percent of all of all policies in force. The HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies are known as "open perils" policies providing coverage for all risks unless specifically excluded by the policy. Although similar to HO3, the HO5 policy provides somewhat broader coverage with respect to settlement provisions. The HO6 policy is specifically geared toward condominium owners and the HO4 policy is the policy form that applies to renters. Of all the policies offered in Florida, the HO3 is the most widely used policy form and will be quoted from and used as the exemplar in this Recommended Order. The HO3 policy contains introductory provisions entitled "Declarations" and "Definitions," and is then divided into two coverage sections, Sections I and II. Section I refers to property coverage and with Section II referring to liability coverage. Section I is divided into a number of subcategories including the following: Coverage A (Dwelling), Coverage B (Personal Property), Section C (Loss of Use), Additional Coverage, Losses Insured, Losses Not Insured, and Conditions. Following the Section II provisions there are additional sections entitled "Section I and II-Conditions" and a section entitled "Optional Provisions." The HO3 policy provides coverage under Coverage A (Dwelling) for all risks of loss unless it is a "loss not insured." As stated in the policy: "We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) However, coverage for personal property (Coverage B) does not provide such "open perils" coverage. Rather, it provides coverage only for 16 named perils, contains a number of limitations on personal property that it does cover, and reflects a number of personal property items that it does not cover. All of State Farm's homeowners' policies currently provide some limited coverage relating to mold. Although the policies exclude mold as a covered peril, they provide some limited coverage for mold-related losses resulting from covered perils, such as a covered water loss that causes mold-related damage. Historically, there have been exclusions in property insurance for ordinance of law, earth movement, flood, war, the neglect of the insured, and nuclear hazard. Mold that resulted from a covered peril has historically not been excluded. On November 15, 2001, State Farm filed three proposed endorsement forms (Fungus (Including Mold) Exclusion Endorsement): (1) FE-5397 for use with HO1 policies; (2) FE- 5398, for use with HO3, HO5, and HO6 policies; and (3) FE-5399 for use with HO4 policies. The homeowners' policies, which the endorsements were to apply, had been previously approved by, and were on file with the Department, in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes. The goal of the endorsements was to eliminate mold coverage from State Farm's existing homeowners policies in Florida. State Farm's current rates do not include the cost of providing the mold coverage that the endorsements seek to exclude. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that State Farm would need to substantially raise its rates to include those costs. Before filing the mold-exclusion endorsements, State Farm entered into discussions with the Department about giving policyholders the choice of buying back some of the to-be- excluded mold coverage through buy-back endorsements (buy- backs). State Farm filed its buy-backs in June 2002, after failing to work out a solution with the Department that would have allowed for their approval. Although the Department disapproved the buy-backs in December 2002, State Farm has committed itself to provide policyholders with the optional buy-backs, if the exclusions are approved. If the exclusion endorsements are approved along with the buy-back provisions, any cost increase would be restricted to those policyholders who choose to purchase mold coverage through a buy-back. State Farm's filings of mold-exclusion endorsements are consistent with a nationwide effort by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, an affiliate of State Farm to eliminate mold coverage in homeowners policies. In Florida, State Farm's endorsements accomplish the complete elimination of mold coverage chiefly through the addition of a new exclusion for fungus, including mold, within "SECTION I - LOSSES NOT INSURED." (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements, when coupled with the underlying policy, state in relevant part as follows: 2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as result of any combination of these: * * * g. Fungus. (Emphasis in the original.) (The text of the endorsement is underlined.) The endorsements delete all references to the term mold found in SECTION 1 - LOSSES INSURED. (Emphasis in the original.) The endorsements define fungus as follows: "fungus" means any type or form of fungus, including mold, mildew, mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts produced or released by fungi. (Emphasis furnished.) This total exclusion of mold coverage, using language clearly encompassing all manner of causation and occurrence, replaces the mold exclusions in the existing policies that do not use such broad language. The difference between the post- and pre-endorsement policies can be seen from comparing the above-quoted endorsement as incorporated into HO3 policy on the one hand, with the mold exclusions as they currently exist in the HO3 policy on the other hand. While the endorsements totally exclude coverage for fungus (mold), and deny payment for mold damage historically provided to insureds, the endorsements are not ambiguous, notwithstanding the testimony offered by the Department to the contrary, which lacks credibility. The endorsements do not add coverage. Instead, the endorsements eliminate coverage for mold that currently exists. However, this fact alone does not render the endorsements inconsistent, misleading, or deceptive when the endorsements are read in their entirety along with the remaining provisions of the policies. State Farm's endorsements were initially deemed approved pursuant to Section 627.410, Florida Statutes, which provides that an endorsement filed with the Department is deemed approved if it is not approved or disapproved within 30 days, or 45 days if there has been an extension, of its filing.. By letter dated June 28, 2002, the Department withdrew its deemed approval of the three endorsements and notified State Farm of its basis for disapproval. The Department's original disapproval letter cites three bases for disapproval. The Department asserts that State Farm's endorsements: (1) contain ambiguities in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; (2) deceptively affect the risk purported to be assumed in the general coverage of the contract, also in violation of Section 627.411(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and (3) deny policyholders the right to obtain "comprehensive coverage" as that term is used in Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which is part of the policyholders' bill of rights. On December 4, 2002, the Department moved for leave to amend its original disapproval letter. The motion was granted. The Department's amended disapproval letter, which the Department back-dated to June 28, 2002, reiterates the previously alleged bases for disapproval and cites two additional bases for disapproval: (1) the alleged violation of Section 626.9641(1)(b), Florida Statutes, itself constitutes a violation of Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and (2) the endorsements, because they exclude coverage that "through custom and usage has become a standard or uniform provision" in Florida, violate Section 627.412(2), Florida Statutes. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the provision for mold coverage has, through custom and usage, become a standard or uniform provision. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that there is a "natural association between mold and water." In the fall of 2001, the Department began receiving a large influx of filings seeking to exclude or severely limit coverage for mold. Including State Farm's filing, the Department received between 400 and 450 filings representing between 200 and 250 insurers primarily between October 1, 2001, through the end of 2002. In the face of the inordinate number of filings, the Department sought input from all sectors of the public. The Department met with insurers and other interested persons and held four public forums around the state to determine the impact the filings would have on insurance contracts, the industry, and the market place. In the mean time, the Department routinely sought waivers from the insurers of the statutory review period set forth in Section 627.410(2), Florida Statutes, and additionally requested that insurers withdraw their filings. Insurers were advised by the Department that failure to waive the statutory review period or to withdraw their filings would result in the filing being disapproved. The Department initially approved the endorsements to limit or exclude mold coverage of three insurers: USAA, Maryland Casualty, and American Strategic. However, the Department withdrew its approval for each of these companies in letters dated September 18, 2002. The Department asserts that it does not have a policy to disapprove filings simply because they discuss mold or seek to limit or exclude coverage for claims involving mold damage. The Department admits that it is required to examine all filings based upon the statutory scheme. However, the Department has not approved a single one of the over 450 filings, regardless of the language or structure of the endorsements. The simple fact is that the Department had a policy from the fall of 2001 through December 16, 2002, imposing a moratorium on the exclusion or limitation of mold coverage. The Department altered that policy on December 17, 2002, when it entered into a settlement with Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), wherein Farm Bureau's endorsement was approved allowing a reduction in mold coverage from policy limits to a sub-limit of $10,000.00 per occurrence, $20,000.00 annual aggregate. The Department's previous position that policies offered to Florida's consumers should not be significantly reduced was abandoned at that time. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the $10,000.00 coverage was a reasonable amount of coverage for the vast majority of claims for mold damage. The endorsements seek to limit or exclude coverage for mold that has existed for decades. There is scant Florida experience to support the need for limitations or exclusions on mold coverage. Even so, the Department cannot disapprove endorsement forms without authority to do so. There is no statutory authority mandating mold coverage to the extent of policy limits or otherwise in order for policyholders to have comprehensive coverage. Beginning September 15, 2001, the Department did not approve a single mold endorsement seeking to exclude or limit coverage for mold as a resulting loss from a covered peril until December 17, 2002, when it approved a filing by Farm Bureau as a part of a settlement of an administrative proceeding in which the parties were awaiting ruling after a final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the endorsements filed with the Department by State Farm on November 15, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services Office of Insurance Regulation 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Ryan Reetz, Esquire Jim Toplin, Esquire Amie Riggle, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Vincent J. Rio, III, Esquire State Farm Florida Insurance Company 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 344 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Boyer Produce, Inc. and its surety, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, owe petitioner $1,751.80 as alleged in the complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In July 1993, petitioner, Patricia Thomas, was given authority by her brother to sell all remaining watermelons on his farm located in Citra, Florida. This amounted to approximately one truckload. She eventually sold them to respondent, Boyer Produce, Inc., a dealer (broker) in agricultural products located in Williston, Florida. Its owner and president is Kennedy Boyer (Boyer), who represented his firm in this proceeding. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and is in the amount of $75,000.00. Although the parties had never had business dealings before this transaction, through a mutual acquaintance, Randy Rowe, respondent learned that petitioner was interested in selling her watermelons. After Boyer visited the field and examined three watermelons which he described as "good," Boyer offered to purchase a truckload for 4 per pound if all melons were of the same quality. Thomas declined and counteroffered with a price of 5 per pound. The parties then agreed to split the difference and arrived at a sales price of 4 per pound. During the negotiations, Rowe acted as an intermediary between the parties and observed the formation of the contract as well as the loading of the goods onto the truck. Although the matter is in dispute, it is found that both parties agreed that Thomas would be paid 4 per pound for "good" watermelons delivered. This meant that petitioner would not be paid unless and until the watermelons were delivered to their final destination in "good" condition. In the trade, being in "good condition" meant that the watermelons would meet U. S. Grade No. 1 standards. Respondent also agreed to provide a truck and driver at petitioner's field and to transport the produce to Brooklyn, New York, the final destination. At the same time, petitioner was given the responsibility of loading the watermelons on the truck. To assist petitioner in meeting her up- front labor costs, respondent advanced $500.00 as partial payment for the shipment. Winston Smith was hired by respondent to transport the melons to New York. He arrived at petitioner's field on Saturday, July 16, 1993, and remained there while approximately 46,000 pounds of melons were loaded on an open top flat bed trailer. One of the loaders said the melons were "packed real tight," and four bales of straw were used in packing. According to Rowe, who observed the loading, the watermelons packed that day were in "good" condition, and any nonconforming watermelons were "kicked" off the truck. Also, by way of admission, the driver, as agent for Boyer, acknowledged to Rowe that the melons loaded were in "good" condition. Late that afternoon, a thunderstorm came through the area and, due to lightening, no further loading could be performed. Since around 46,000 pounds had already been loaded, petitioner desired for the truck to be sent on its way north. Smith, however, told petitioner he wanted 50,000 pounds in order to make his trip to New York worthwhile and he would not go with anything less. Acceding to his wishes, petitioner agreed to meet Smith the next morning and load an additional two hundred watermelons, or 4,000 pounds, on the truck. Smith then drove the loaded truck to a nearby motel where he spent the night. That evening it rained, and this resulted in the uncovered watermelons and straw getting wet. The next morning, Smith telephoned petitioner and advised her to meet him at 9:00 a. m. at a local Starvin' Marvin store, which had a weight scale that could certify the weight of the shipment. Petitioner carried two hundred watermelons to the store at 9:00 a. m., but Smith did not arrive. Around noon, she received a call from Smith advising that his truck was broken down at the motel and would not start. The watermelons were then taken to the motel and loaded onto the trailer. In all, 50,040 pounds were loaded. Smith's truck would still not start after the watermelons were loaded, and Smith refused to spend any money out of his own pocket to repair the truck. Not wanting to delay the shipment any longer, petitioner gave Smith $35.00 to have someone assist him in starting the vehicle. In order for the repairs to be made, the loaded trailer had to be jacked up and the truck unhooked from and later rehooked to the trailer. This was accomplished only with great difficulty, and Smith was forced to "jostle" the trailer with the power unit for some two hours altogether. According to Rowe, he warned Smith that such jostling could bruise the melons and "mess them up." Smith was also cautioned early on that he should make the necessary repairs as soon as possible so that the load of watermelons would not continue to sit uncovered in the sun. The truck eventually departed around 9:00 p. m., Sunday evening after the uncovered trailer had sat in the sun all day. The shipment was delivered to Brooklyn on the following Tuesday afternoon or evening, and it was inspected by a government inspector on Wednesday morning. According to the inspection report, which has been received in evidence, the load was split evenly between crimson and jubilee melons, and 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of the two types of melons failed to meet grade. No greater than a 12 percent "margin" is allowed on government inspections. Almost all of the defects cited in the report were attributable to the melons being "over-ripe." The buyer in New York rejected the entire shipment as not meeting standards. Respondent then sold the shipment for only $1350.00 resulting in a loss of $350.00 on the transaction. In addition, respondent says the driver (Smith) accepted $1200.00 instead of the $2,000.00 he would have normally charged to transport a load to New York. When petitioner asked for her money a few weeks later, respondent declined, saying the goods had not met specification when delivered to their destination, and if she had any remedy at all, it was against Smith, the driver. If petitioner had been paid 4 per pound for the entire shipment, she would have been entitled to an additional $1,751.80, or a total of $2,251.80. Petitioner contends that the melons failed to meet grade because of the negligence of the driver. More specifically, she says the loaded melons sat in the sun for almost two days, including all day Sunday after being soaked from the Saturday evening rain. If wet melons are exposed to the hot sun for any length of time, they run the risk of "wet burning," which causes decay. But even if this occurred, only 1 percent of the shipment was found to have "decay" by the government inspector. Petitioner also says that by being jostled for two hours on Sunday, the melons were bruised. Again, however, the melons were rejected primarily because they were over-ripe, not bruised. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the inspection report, it is found that the jostling and wet burning did not have a material impact on the quality of the melons. Respondent contended the melons were close to being fully ripened when they were picked and loaded. In this regard, Charles Strange, Sr. agreed that if the melons sat in the field for another four or five days, they would have started "going bad." By this, it may be reasonably inferred that, unless the melons were loaded and delivered in a timely manner, they would have become over-ripe and would not meet grade within a matter of days. Therefore, a timely delivery of the melons was extremely important, and to the extent respondent's agent, Smith, experienced at least a twenty-four hour delay in delivering the melons through no fault of petitioner, this contributed in part to their failure to meet grade. Petitioner is accordingly entitled to some additional compensation, a fair allocation of which is one-half of the value of the shipment, or $1125.90, less the $500.00 already paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioner $625.90 within thirty days from date of the agency's final order. In the event such payment is not timely made, the surety should be liable for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Post Office Box 1985 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1985 Patricia Thomas Post Office Box 522 Archer, Florida 32618 Kennedy Boyer 15A South West 2nd Avenue Williston, Florida 32696
The Issue The issue is whether Garden World of Holiday, Inc., d/b/a Garden World (Respondent), and its surety, Platte River Insurance Company, owe funds to Sturon, Inc. (Petitioner), for the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products, specifically tropical foliage materials. The Respondent was a dealer of agricultural products and was apparently involved in a large project that required obtaining substantial quantities of tropical foliage plant product. In July 2006, the Respondent contacted the Petitioner and inquired as to the availability of tropical foliage plant product. The Petitioner and the Respondent had not previously done business together. At the beginning of the sales transactions, the Respondent sought, and the Petitioner granted, a line of credit for the plant material purchases. Beginning on July 28, 2006, and continuing through September 22, 2006, the Respondent purchased and took delivery of tropical foliage plant product from the Petitioner. All materials sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were in response to telephone orders placed by the Respondent. There is no evidence that the Petitioner charged for any plant materials that were not ordered by the Respondent. All charges for all plants sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent were billed on invoices that were sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent within one day of each delivery. The quantities and prices of the plants were clearly set forth on the invoices. The evidence establishes that the Respondent received the invoices and was aware of the prices being charged by the Petitioner. The Respondent has asserted that there were conversations about the prices being charged by the Petitioner, but there was no evidence presented that there was any agreement between the parties under which the Petitioner agreed to reduce the prices being invoiced. Despite the alleged price concern, the Respondent continued to order plant materials from the Petitioner. Based on a review of the invoices, the total cost of the plant materials sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent was $164,362.67. The Respondent has paid a total of $66,968.69 to the Petitioner. The total unpaid amount is $97,393.98. The Petitioner routinely grew various types of foliage product. When the Petitioner's own supplies were insufficient, or the material requested was not of a type grown by the Petitioner, the Petitioner located and obtained plant materials from other producers for purposes of resale to dealers. The prices of plants obtained from other producers for resale included a "markup" for locating and obtaining the materials for purchase by a dealer. In supplying the plant materials requested by the Respondent in this case, the Petitioner sold from its own inventory and obtained materials from other producers for resale to the Respondent. There was no evidence that the markup was unreasonable or was not common practice in the industry. There is no evidence that the Respondent attempted to locate and obtain plant materials from other suppliers rather than from the Petitioner because of dissatisfaction with the Petitioner's prices. At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent asserted that the Respondent's refusal to pay was related to "price gouging" by the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the Petitioner engaged in "price gouging." There was no evidence that the Respondent could not have located and obtained the plant materials from the same sources from which the Petitioner obtained the materials it did not produce. Although prior to the hearing, the Respondent asserted that some plant materials were not of appropriate quality; there was no evidence presented at the hearing of any quality problems that were not immediately resolved at the time of delivery. At one time, the Respondent asserted that the entity for which the Respondent was purchasing and installing plant materials was tax exempt and that the amount owed should have been accordingly reduced, but there was no evidence offered in support of the assertion and no reduction has been set forth in this Recommended Order. The Respondent presented no evidence to establish any legitimate reason to avoid payment of the $97,393.98 owed to the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order directing that the Respondent pay the total of $97,393.98, to the Petitioner, and providing for such other procedures as are appropriate to provide for satisfaction of the debt. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2007.
The Issue Petitioner claims that Respondent owes approximately $6,000.00 for the purchase of grass sod. Respondent argues that the funds claimed by Petitioner are for repairs on equipment, not sod, and that its only indebtedness to Petitioner is $6.00, mistakenly omitted from a payment. The issue is whether Petitioner's claim is proper and cognizable under section 604.31, F.S., related to complaints of breach of agreement by a licensed dealer in agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. (Hillside) produces grass sod for sale to landscaping firms and similar customers. Its business address is 1620 East State Road 46, Geneva, Florida. Bill Hatfield Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bill's Landscaping (Hatfield) is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, bonded by Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety. Hatfield's business address is 1116 State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida. Sometime around April 1989, Hatfield began purchasing sod from Hillside. Hatfield uses a lot of sod in his landscaping business. The arrangement between the parties was that Hillside would charge an extra 1/2 cent a square foot on his price for the sod for the use of heavy equipment (forklifts). Hillside owns twenty-seven such machines and loaned three out to Hatfield. The equipment stayed at Hatfield's job sites and was operated by Hatfield's crew. When the equipment broke down, Hatfield notified Hillside, who had it repaired. At least some of the repair bills were sent to Hatfield, who paid them. Sometime around the end of September 1989, Avery Wisdom complained to Bill Hatfield about what he thought was an excessive amount of repairs on his equipment. He felt Hatfield's workers were rough on the machines. He suggested several alternatives, including pulling the machines off the jobs and letting Hatfield provide his own machines. He also suggested that he could purchase new equipment and let Hatfield pay all its expenses over a period of time, ultimately buying the equipment, in a lease-purchase type of arrangement. Another suggestion was that he would get the equipment overhauled and let Hatfield pay all the repair bills. Suggestions one and two were apparently rejected, and it is not clear that suggestion three was formally accepted. Nothing was put in writing. Hatfield claims now that he offered to pay an additional 1/2 cent per square foot of sod for the use of the equipment. Avery Wisdom claims that he did raise the price of his sod, but that it was an across-the-board price increase for all of his customers due to increased costs of production, and not related to rental. The October 9, 1989 invoice #13290 from Hillside to Bill's Nursery reflects an increase of $2.00 per pallet of Bahia sod and $2.50 per pallet of Floratam sod, or 1/2 cent per square foot increase. Debra Ludewig, the bookkeeper and general office manager for Hatfield, asked Hatfield why the price" went up, and he told her it was for the equipment. Hillside continued to bill Hatfield for repairs on the equipment after October 1989. These repair costs are reflected on invoices to Bill's Landscaping and are backed up by separate special "repair order" forms itemizing each repair bill. The "special repair order" forms were also furnished to Bill's Landscaping. The repairs are listed on the invoices with a date, reference to the "special repair order" (SRO number), and a total cost which is calculated into the purchaser's running total at the bottom of the invoice. Payments were made on a continuing basis by Hatfield in varying amounts, and rarely in an exact amount to correspond to the total on an invoice. That is, Bill's Nursery maintained a running balance of its account with Hillside, sometimes totalling as much as $20,000.00. Each time she made a payment to Hillside, Debra Ludewig wrote the invoice number on the check. Sometimes more than one check would reflect a single invoice number. After October 1989, Debra Ludewig started deducting the repair bill portion of the invoices when she computed her payments to Hillside. She did this on her own initiative, without direction from Hatfield, because she understood that the 1/2 cent price increase was to cover the repairs. She did not question why the repair bills were being sent and were still being included on the invoices; she just deducted them without any notice to Hillside. In the meantime, the invoices kept coming from Hillside, showing the running balance on Hatfield's account. The top of the invoices reflected the prior outstanding balance, then payments since the last invoice, then additional charges for sod, then repair orders (if any), and then the total amount outstanding. It is clear from the invoices maintained by Hillside and provided to Hatfield, that Hillside was applying Hatfield's checks to the total outstanding balance, which balance included any repair bills, as well as sod delivered. On the other hand, the invoice numbers referenced on Hatfield's checks to Hillside substantiate that Ms. Ludewig was unilaterally deducting sums from certain invoices, which sums corresponded to the amounts being charged for repairs. It is not clear that Hillside was aware of the bookkeeping discrepancy, as nothing was said about deducting the repair bills until the parties' relationship came to an end in June 1990. Hatfield found a new sod producer, claiming that a customer complained about the quality of Hillside's sod. The total amount of repairs charged by Hillside to Hatfield between October 1, 1989, and June 1990, was $7150.25, compared to approximately $300,000.00 for sod,. The final invoice from Hillside to Bill's Landscaping reflected a total balance due of $13,872.59. This invoice #14070 is dated June 18, 1990. On June 21, 1990 and June 29, 1990, payments were made by Hatfield in the amounts of $3,000.70 and $4,641.00 respectively. This left a balance due of $6,230.89. Avery Wisdom concedes that this total should be adjusted: an invoice #13256 (9/22/89) charged $4.50 sales tax in error, and invoice #13406 (11/13/89) included a math error in the amount of $206.70. The proper adjusted total is $6,019.69. The last invoice to include repairs to equipment is dated April 16, 1990. After that date, according to invoices dated from April 23, 1990 to June 18, 1990, Hatfield purchased $39,943.98 in sod from Hillside. The most recent $6,019.69, therefore, is not attributable to repairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its final order finding Respondent indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $6,019.69 and requiring payment within fifteen (15) days after the order becomes final as provided in Section 604.21(7), F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery P. Wisdom, President Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. 1620 E. State Road 46 Geneva, FL 32732 Bill Hatfield, President Bill Hatfield Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bills Landscaping 1116 State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Ohio Casualty Insurance Company 136 North Third Street Hamilton, OH 45025 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Senior Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rosario and Vito Strano d/b/a Strano Farms (Strano Farms), is a grower and shipper of fresh produce in Florida City, Florida (Dade County). Respondent, Mager Corporation d/b/a Gulf Provision Company (GPC), is an agricultural dealer in Jacksonville, Florida, subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (agency). As such, GPC is obligated to obtain a dealer's license from the agency and to post a surety bond executed by a surety corporation to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this latter requirement, GPC has obtained a surety bond in an undisclosed amount from respondent, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. This controversy involves a dispute over payment for a shipment of tomatoes purchased from Strano Farms by GPC for further sale to retail vendors. The origins of the dispute began on or about February 2, 1987, when a salesman for Strano Farms accepted a telephone order from Neil R. Sandler, president of GPC, for two lots of "Poppa's Famous" tomatoes. The order was later memorialized by petitioner in a memorandum dated February 7, 1987 reflecting the following: Quantity Description Pkq. Grade Size Price Amount 176 Tomatoes 20# Poppa's Famous 5x6 5.60 $985.00 176 Tomatoes 20# Poppa's Famous 6x6 3.80 528.00 Palletizing .15 52.80 352 Total Due: 1566.40 In addition, Strano Farms prepared a broker's memorandum on February 5, 1987 reflecting that GPC ordered two lots of "breakers," a specific grade of tomato. However, Strano Farms contended the reference to "breakers" was a typographical error by the clerical employee who prepared the document and that actually a different grade had been ordered. According to Rosario Strano, a partner and owner of petitioner, Sandler ordered 176 cartons each of light pink and pink tomatoes. This was corroborated by the fact that in early February, 1987 petitioner had no breaker tomatoes in stock. Sandler could not dispute this since more than fifteen months had passed since the order was placed, and he had no independent recollection of the transaction. The United States Department of Agriculture has established a color classification for tomatoes that sets forth the color of tomatoes by stage of maturity. In ascending order of maturity and color, they are green, breakers, turning, pink, light red and red. Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. (Homestead) is the exclusive packer and shipper for Strano Farms. Homestead processed GPC's order and shipped the tomatoes to GPC on February 3, 1987. Prior to the shipment, sub-lot inspections of the produce from which GPC's shipment was drawn were made by an agency inspector on January 28 and February 2, 1987. The inspector's report indicates that the produce had a "mixed color", that there was no decay and the produce was within the tolerance limits for defects. It reflected further that the shipment met the pink and light pink standards. When the tomatoes arrived in Jacksonville on February 4 or 5, Sandler inspected the produce but was not satisfied with the condition of the tomatoes. He ordered a federal inspection the same day. The report reflected that the 6x6 lot of tomatoes was within federal standards while the 5x6 lot deviated slightly because of bruising and decay. However, the tomatoes conformed to pink and light pink standards. Sandler telephoned Strano Farms and requested that a price adjustment be made. When no agreement could be reached, GPC unilaterally adjusted the amount due to $894.80 and tendered Strano Farms a check in that amount. This amount was based upon a total price of $880.00 for both lots of tomatoes, $52.80 for pelletizing, less $38.00 spent by GPC for an inspection. The total payment was $618.80 less than originally agreed upon by the parties, or the amount being claimed by petitioner. Petitioner contends the adjustment made by respondent is "excessive" and not justified by the actual condition of the tomatoes. Strano Farms is willing to allow an adjustment of up to $1.15 per box for that percentage of boxes in the 5x6 lot that failed to meet standards. This adjustment is consistent with the quality of the tomatoes reflected in the federal inspection report. It is also consistent with the industry practice that any price adjustments should correspond with the condition of the produce as reflected on the federal inspection report. Because the adjustment proposed by petitioner is reasonable and consistent with the report, it should be made. Therefore, respondent should deduct $1.15 per box for those boxes in the 5x6 lot that failed to meet federal standards because of bruising and decay. It should also deduct the cost of the inspection report ($38) and pay petitioner all other amounts due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent pay petitioner the additional amount due within thirty days from date of final order. In the event payment is not timely made, the surety company should be required to pay this amount. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of June, 1988.
