Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to the allegations of the First Amended Administrative Complaint, respondent Dennis Victor Daniels was licensed as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent in Florida and was employed by Gulf Health/Life, Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida. On or about January 14, 1980, Julie Stratton (then Julie Marzec) contacted respondent at the offices of Gulf Health/Life, Inc. for the purpose of purchasing health insurance. She and respondent discussed different insurance policies, and respondent informed her that if she joined the American Benevolent Society (ABS) she could obtain a lower rate for her policy and obtain the best policy for her money. Mrs. Stratton could not remember if respondent informed her of the exact amount of money she would save on her insurance if she joined the ABS. She was informed that other benefits and discounts from area businesses would be available to her as a member of the ABS. Mrs. Stratton joined the ABS in order to obtain less expensive insurance. She wrote two checks -- one in the amount of $15.00 payable to the ABS and the other in the amount of $54.26 payable to CNA Insurance Company. She obtained two insurance policies. The form numbers on these policies were 51831 and 52176. Based upon a referral from an agent with Allstate Insurance Company, John Valentine and his wife went to the offices of Gulf Health/Life in order to obtain hospitalization and surgical insurance coverage. Before moving to Florida, Mr. Valentine was covered by a group policy through his place of employment. Respondent informed Mr. Valentine that members of the ABS could obtain a policy at group rates which entailed a lesser premium than individual rates. Mr. Valentine wrote two checks -- one in the amount of $178.73 payable to CNA Insurance Company and the other in the amount of $25.00 payable to the ASS. Mr. Valentine received two policies from CNA -- one bearing form number 51831 and the other bearing form number 52176. He also received a brochure listing the places of business from which he could receive discounts as a member of the ABS. Gulf Health/Life, Inc. was a general agent for CNA. During the relevant time periods involved in this proceeding, CNA had different policies for health insurance. Policies with a form number of 51831 required the policyholder to be a member of an organization endorsing CNA in order to purchase that policy. Form 51831 policyholders paid a lesser premium for their policies. The difference in premiums between the group or organization policy and an individual policy with the same coverage is approximately $10.00. To obtain the policy bearing form number 52176, there is no requirement that the policyholder be a member of a group or an organization. Ms. Watkins, a secretary employed with Gulf Health/Life, Inc. between December of 1978 and June of 1979 observed a device known as a "light box" on the premises of Gulf Health/Life. This was a square-shaped plywood box with a slanted glass top and a high-intensity lightbulb within the box. On from a half-dozen to a dozen occasions on Fridays between January and April, 1979, Ms. Watkins observed respondent bent over the light box with a pen in his hand tracing a signature onto an insurance application. She could not produce any documents or recall any names of any insurance applicant whose signature was traced or copied by the respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the First Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent on April 29, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Franz Dorn, Esquire 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William A. Patterson, Esquire Masterson, Rogers, Patterson and Masterson, P. A. 447 Third Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") properly disallowed Petitioners' expense for liability insurance and accrued contingent liability costs contained in AHCA's audit of Petitioners' Medicaid cost reports.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioners operate licensed nursing homes that participate in the Florida Medicaid program as institutional providers. The 14 Palm Gardens facilities are limited liability companies operating as subsidiaries of New Rochelle Administrators, LLC, which also provides the facilities with management services under a management contract. AHCA is the single state agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. One of AHCA's duties is to audit Medicaid cost reports submitted by providers participating in the Medicaid program. During the audit period, Petitioners provided services to Medicaid beneficiaries pursuant to Institutional Medicaid Provider Agreements that they entered into with AHCA. The Provider Agreements contained the following relevant provision: (3) Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA. Section 409.908, Florida Statutes (2002)1, provided in relevant part: Reimbursement of Medicaid providers.-- Subject to specific appropriations, the agency shall reimburse Medicaid providers, in accordance with state and federal law, according to methodologies set forth in the rules of the agency and in policy manuals and handbooks incorporated by reference therein. These methodologies may include fee schedules, reimbursement methods based on cost reporting, negotiated fees, competitive bidding pursuant to s. 287.057, and other mechanisms the agency considers efficient and effective for purchasing services or goods on behalf of recipients. . . . * * * (2)(a)1. Reimbursement to nursing homes licensed under part II of chapter 400 . . . must be made prospectively. . . . * * * (b) Subject to any limitations or directions provided for in the General Appropriations Act, the agency shall establish and implement a Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Medicaid) for nursing home care in order to provide care and services in conformance with the applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and quality and safety standards and to ensure that individuals eligible for medical assistance have reasonable geographic access to such care. . . . AHCA has adopted the Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (the "Plan") by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-6.010. The Plan incorporates the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") Publication 15-1, also called the Provider Reimbursement Manual (the "Manual" or "PRM"), which provides "guidelines and policies to implement Medicare regulations which set forth principles for determining the reasonable cost of provider services furnished under the Health Insurance for the Aged Act of l965, as amended." CMS Pub. 15-1, Foreword, p. I. The audit period in these cases spans two versions of the Plan: version XXIII, effective July 1, 2002, and version XXIV, effective January 1, 2003. It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two versions of the Plan because their language is identical as to the provisions relevant to these cases. Section I of the Plan, "Cost Finding and Cost Reporting," provides as follows, in relevant part: The cost report shall be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in accordance with chapter 409.908, Florida Statutes, on the form prescribed in section I.A. [AHCA form 5100-000, Rev. 7-1-90], and on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) as incorporated by reference in Rule 61H1-20.007, F.A.C., the methods of reimbursement in accordance with Medicare (Title XVIII) Principles of Reimbursement, the Provider Reimbursement Manual (CMS-PUB. 15-1)(1993) incorporated herein by reference except as modified by the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan and State of Florida Administrative Rules. . . . Section III of the Plan, "Allowable Costs," provides as follows, in relevant part: Implicit in any definition of allowable costs is that those costs shall not exceed what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer pays for a given service or item. If costs are determined by AHCA, utilizing the Title XVIII Principles of Reimbursement, CMS-PUB. 15-1 (1993) and this plan, to exceed the level that a prudent buyer would incur, then the excess costs shall not be reimbursable under the plan. The Plan is a cost based prospective reimbursement plan. The Plan uses historical data from cost reports to establish provider reimbursement rates. The "prospective" feature is an upward adjustment to historical costs to establish reimbursement rates for subsequent rate semesters.2 The Plan establishes limits on reimbursement of costs, including reimbursement ceilings and targets. AHCA establishes reimbursement ceilings for nursing homes based on the size and location of the facilities. The ceilings are determined prospectively, on a semiannual basis. "Targets" limit the inflationary increase in reimbursement rates from one semester to the next and limit a provider's allowable costs for reimbursement purposes. If a provider's costs exceed the target, then those costs are not factored into the reimbursement rate and must be absorbed by the provider. A nursing home is required to file cost reports. The costs identified in the cost reports are converted into per diem rates in four components: the operating component; the direct care component; the indirect care component; and the property component. GL/PL insurance costs fall under the operating component. Once the per diem rate is established for each component, the nursing home's reimbursement rate is set at the lowest of four limitations: the facility's costs; the facility's target; the statewide cost ceiling based on the size of the facility and its region; or the statewide target, also based on the size and location of the facility. The facility's target is based on the initial cost report submitted by that facility. The initial per diem established pursuant to the initial cost report becomes the "base rate." Once the base rate is established, AHCA sets the target by inflating the base rate forward to subsequent six- month rate semesters according to a pre-established inflation factor. Reimbursement for cost increases experienced in subsequent rate semesters is limited by the target drawn from the base rate. Thus, the facility's reimbursement for costs in future rate semesters is affected by the target limits established in the initial period cost report. Expenses that are disallowed during the establishment of the base rate cannot be reclaimed in later reimbursement periods. Petitioners entered the Medicaid program on June 29, 2002. They filed cost reports for the nine- month period from their entry into the program through February 28, 2003. These reports included all costs claimed by Petitioners under the accrual basis of accounting in rendering services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. In preparing their cost reports, Petitioners used the standard Medicaid Cost Report "Chart of Accounts and Description," which contains the account numbers to be used for each ledger entry, and explains the meaning of each account number. Under the general category of "Administration" are set forth several subcategories of account numbers, including "Insurance Expense." Insurance Expense is broken into five account numbers, including number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party," which is described as "[c]osts of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or a non-profit service corporation."3 Petitioners' cost report stated the following expenses under account number 730810: Facility Amount Palm Garden of Clearwater $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Gainesville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Jacksonville $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Largo $171,188.00 Palm Garden of North Miami $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Ocala $217,712.00 Palm Garden of Orlando $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Pinellas $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Sun City $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Tampa $145,042.00 Palm Garden of Vero Beach $217,712.00 Palm Garden of West Palm Beach $231,151.00 Palm Garden of Winter Haven $145,042.00 AHCA requires that the cost reports of first-year providers undergo an audit. AHCA's contract auditing firm, Smiley & Smiley, conducted an examination4 of the cost reports of the 14 Palm Gardens nursing homes to determine whether the included costs were allowable. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") has promulgated a series of "attestation standards" to provide guidance and establish a framework for the attestation services provided by the accounting profession in various contexts. Attestation Standards 101 and 601 set out the standard an accountant relies upon in examining for governmental compliance. Smiley & Smiley examined the Palm Gardens cost reports pursuant to these standards. During the course of the audit, Smiley & Smiley made numerous requests for documentation and other information pursuant to the Medicaid provider agreement and the Plan. Petitioners provided the auditors with their general ledger, invoices, audited financial statements, bank statements, and other documentation in support of their cost reports. The examinations were finalized during the period between September 28, 2006, and October 4, 2006. The audit report issued by AHCA contained more than 2,000 individual adjustments to Petitioners' costs, which the parties to these consolidated proceedings have negotiated and narrowed to two adjustments per Palm Gardens facility.5 As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the first adjustment at issue is AHCA's disallowance of Palm Gardens' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of GL/PL insurance, where Palm Gardens could not document that it had purchased GL/PL insurance. The second adjustment at issue is ACHA's disallowance of a portion of the premium paid by Palm Gardens for the Mature Care Policies. The total amount of the adjustment at issue for each facility is set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Of that total for each facility, $18,849.00 constituted the disallowance for the Mature Care Policies. The remainder constituted the disallowance for the accrual of GL/PL related contingent liabilities. Janette Smiley, senior partner at Smiley & Smiley and expert in Medicaid auditing, testified that Petitioners provided no documentation other than the Mature Care Policies to support the GL/PL entry in the cost reports. Ms. Smiley testified that, during much of the examination process, she understood Petitioners to be self-insured. Ms. Smiley's understanding was based in part on statements contained in Petitioners' audited financial statements. In the audited financial statement covering the period from June 28, 2002, through December 31, 2002, Note six explains Petitioners' operating leases and states as follows, in relevant part: The lease agreement requires that the Company maintain general and professional liability in specified minimum amounts. As an alternative to maintaining these levels of insurance, the lease agreement allows the Company to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount. The Company chose to self-insure, and has recorded litigation reserves of approximately $1,735,000 that are included in other accrued expenses (see Note 9). As of December 31, 2002, these reserves have not been funded by the Company. . . . The referenced Note nine, titled "Commitments and Contingencies," provides as follows in relevant part: Due to the current legal environment, providers of long-term care services are experiencing significant increases in liability insurance premiums or cancellations of liability insurance coverage. Most, if not all, insurance carriers in Florida have ceased offering liability coverage altogether. The Company's Florida facilities have minimal levels of insurance coverage and are essentially self-insured. The Company has established reserves (see Note 6) that estimate its exposure to uninsured claims. Management is not currently aware of any claims that could exceed these reserves. However, the ultimate outcome of these uninsured claims cannot be determined with certainty, and could therefore have a material adverse impact on the financial position of the Company. The relevant notes in Petitioner's audited financial statement for the year ending December 31, 2003, are identical to those quoted above, except that the recorded litigation reserves were increased to $4 million. The notes provide that, as of December 31, 2003, these reserves had not been funded by Petitioners. Ms. Smiley observed that the quoted notes, while referencing "self-insurance" and the recording of litigation reserves, stated that the litigation reserves had not been funded. By e-mail dated April 21, 2005, Ms. Smiley corresponded with Stanley Swindling, the shareholder in the accounting firm Moore Stephens Lovelace, P.A., who had primary responsibility for preparing Petitioners' cost reports. Ms. Smiley noted that Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the company "chose to self-insure" and "recorded litigation reserves," then wrote (verbatim): By definition from PRM CMS Pub 15-1 Sections 2162.5 and 2162.7 the Company does in fact have self-insurance as there is no shifting of risk. You will have to support your positioning a letter addressing the regs for self-insurance. As clearly the financial statement auditors believe this is self- insurance and have disclosed such to the financial statement users. If you cannot support the funding as required by the regs, the provider will have to support expense as "pay as you go" in accordance with [2162.6] for PL/GL. * * * Please review 2161 and 2162 and provide support based on the required compliance. If support is not complete within the regulations, amounts for IBNR [incurred but not reported] will be disallowed and we will need to have the claims paid reports from the TPA [third party administrator] (assuming there is a TPA handling the claims processing), in order to allow any expense. Section 2160 of the Manual establishes the basic insurance requirement: A. General.-- A provider participating in the Medicare program is expected to follow sound and prudent management practices, including the maintenance of an adequate insurance program to protect itself against likely losses, particularly losses so great that the provider's financial stability would be threatened. Where a provider chooses not to maintain adequate insurance protection against such losses, through the purchase of insurance, the maintenance of a self-insurance program described in §2161B, or other alternative programs described in §2162, it cannot expect the Medicare program to indemnify it for its failure to do so. . . . . . . If a provider is unable to obtain malpractice coverage, it must select one of the self-insurance alternatives in §2162 to protect itself against such risks. If one of these alternatives is not selected and the provider incurs losses, the cost of such losses and related expenses are not allowable. Section 2161.A of the Manual sets forth the general rule as to the reimbursement of insurance costs. It provides that the reasonable costs of insurance purchased from a commercial carrier or nonprofit service corporation are allowable to the extent they are "consistent with sound management practice." Reimbursement for insurance premiums is limited to the "amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Section 2162 of the Manual provides as follows, in relevant part: PROVIDER COSTS FOR MALPRACTICE AND COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY PROTECTION, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE General.-- Where provider costs incurred for protection against malpractice and comprehensive general liability . . . do not meet the requirements of §2161.A, costs incurred for that protection under other arrangements will be allowable under the conditions stated below. . . . * * * The following illustrates alternatives to full insurance coverage from commercial sources which providers, acting individually or as part of a group or a pool, can adopt to obtain malpractice, and comprehensive general liability, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and employee health care insurance protection: Insurance purchased from a commercial insurance company which provides coverage after a deductible or coinsurance provision has been met; Insurance purchased from a limited purpose insurance company (captive); Total self-insurance; or A combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. . . . part: Section 2162.3 of the Manual provides: Self-Insurance.-- You may believe that it is more prudent to maintain a total self- insurance program (i.e., the assumption by you of the risk of loss) independently or as part of a group or pool rather than to obtain protection through purchased insurance coverage. If such a program meets the conditions specified in §2162.7, payments into such funds are allowable costs. Section 2162.7 of the Manual provides, in relevant Conditions Applicable to Self-Insurance.-- Definition of Self-Insurance.-- Self- insurance is a means whereby a provider(s), whether proprietary or nonproprietary, undertakes the risk to protect itself against anticipated liabilities by providing funds in an amount equivalent to liquidate those liabilities. . . . * * * Self-Insurance Fund.-- The provider or pool establishes a fund with a recognized independent fiduciary such as a bank, a trust company, or a private benefit administrator. In the case of a State or local governmental provider or pool, the State in which the provider or pool is located may act as a fiduciary. The provider or pool and fiduciary must enter into a written agreement which includes all of the following elements: General Legal Responsibility.-- The fiduciary agreement must include the appropriate legal responsibilities and obligations required by State laws. Control of Fund.-- The fiduciary must have legal title to the fund and be responsible for proper administration and control. The fiduciary cannot be related to the provider either through ownership or control as defined in Chapter 10, except where a State acts as a fiduciary for a State or local governmental provider or pool. Thus, the home office of a chain organization or a religious order of which the provider is an affiliate cannot be the fiduciary. In addition, investments which may be made by the fiduciary from the fund are limited to those approved under State law governing the use of such fund; notwithstanding this, loans by the fiduciary from the fund to the provider or persons related to the provider are not permitted. Where the State acts as fiduciary for itself or local governments, the fund cannot make loans to the State or local governments. . . . The quoted Manual provisions clarify that Ms. Smiley's message to Mr. Swindling was that Petitioners had yet to submit documentation to bring their "self-insurance" expenses within the reimbursable ambit of Sections 2161 and 2162 of the Manual. There was no indication that Petitioners had established a fund in an amount sufficient to liquidate its anticipated liabilities, or that any such funds had been placed under the control of a fiduciary. Petitioners had simply booked the reserved expenses without setting aside any cash to cover the expenses. AHCA provided extensive testimony regarding the correspondence that continued among Ms. Smiley, Mr. Swindling, and AHCA employees regarding this "self-insurance" issue. It is not necessary to set forth detailed findings as to these matters, because Petitioners ultimately conceded to Ms. Smiley that, aside from the Mutual Care policies, they did not purchase commercial insurance as described in Section 2161.A, nor did they avail themselves of the alternatives to commercial insurance described in Section 2162.A. Petitioners did not purchase commercial insurance with a deductible, did not self- insure, did not purchase insurance from a limited purpose or "captive" insurance company, or employ a combination of purchased insurance and self-insurance. Ms. Smiley eventually concluded that Petitioners had no coverage for general and professional liability losses in excess of the $25,000 value of the Mutual Care Policies. Under the cited provisions of the Manual, Petitioners' unfunded self- insurance expense was not considered allowable under the principles of reimbursement. Petitioners were uninsured, which led Ms. Smiley to further conclude that Section 2162.13 of the Manual would apply: Absence of Coverage.-- Where a provider, other than a governmental (Federal, State, or local) provider, has no insurance protection against malpractice or comprehensive general liability in conjunction with malpractice, either in the form of a limited purpose or commercial insurance policy or a self-insurance fund as described in §2162.7, any losses and related expenses incurred are not allowable. In response to this disallowance pursuant to the strict terms of the Manual, Petitioners contend that AHCA should not have limited its examination of the claimed costs to the availability of documentation that would support those costs as allowable under the Manual. Under the unique circumstances presented by their situation, Petitioners assert that AHCA should have examined the state of the nursing home industry in Florida, particularly the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, and further examined whether Petitioners had the ability to meet the insurance requirements set forth in the Manual. Petitioners assert that, in light of such an examination, AHCA should have concluded that generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") may properly be invoked to render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Keith Parnell is an expert in insurance for the long- term care industry. He is a licensed insurance broker working for Hamilton Insurance Agency, which provides insurance and risk management services to about 40 percent of the Florida nursing home market. Mr. Parnell testified that during the audit period, it was impossible for nursing homes to obtain insurance in Florida. In his opinion, Petitioners could not have purchased commercial insurance during the audit period. To support this testimony, Petitioners offered a study conducted by the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") in 2000 that attempted to determine the status of the Florida long-term care liability insurance market for nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and continuing care retirement communities. Of the 79 companies that responded to DOI's data call, 23 reported that they had provided GL/PL coverage during the previous three years but were no longer writing policies, and only 17 reported that they were currently writing GL/PL policies. Six of the 17 reported writing no policies in 2000, and five of the 17 reported writing only one policy. The responding insurers reported writing a total of 43 policies for the year 2000, though there were approximately 677 skilled nursing facilities in Florida. On March 1, 2004, the Florida Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Nursing Homes issued a report on its study of "issues regarding the continuing liability insurance and lawsuit crisis facing Florida's long-term care facilities and to assess the impact of the reforms contained in CS/CS/CS/SB 1202 (2001)."6 The study employed data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Among the Joint Select Committee's findings was the following: In order to find out about current availability of long-term care liability insurance in Florida, the Committee solicited information from [the Office of Insurance Regulation, or] OIR within the Department of Financial Services, which is responsible for regulating insurance in Florida. At the Committee's request, OIR re-evaluated the liability insurance market and reported that there has been no appreciable change in the availability of private liability insurance over the past year. Twenty-one admitted insurance entities that once offered, or now offer, professional liability coverage for nursing homes were surveyed by OIR. Six of those entities currently offer coverage. Nine surplus lines carriers have provided 54 professional liability policies in the past year. Representatives of insurance carriers that stopped providing coverage in Florida told OIR that they are waiting until there are more reliable indicators of risk nationwide to re-enter the market. Among the Joint Select Committee's conclusions was the following: In the testimony the Committee received, there was general agreement that the quality of care in Florida nursing homes is improving, in large part due to the minimum staffing standards the Legislature adopted in SB 1202 during the 2001 Session. There was not, however, general agreement about whether or not lawsuits are abating due to the tort system changes contained in SB 1202. There was general agreement that the long-term care liability insurance market has not yet improved. After hearing the testimony, there is general agreement among the members of the Joint Select Committee that: * * * General and professional liability insurance, with actual transfer-of-risk, is virtually unavailable in Florida. "Bare- bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory insurance requirement are available; however, the cost often exceeds the face value of the coverage offered in the policy. This situation is a crisis which threatens the continued existence of long-term care facilities in Florida. To further support Mr. Parnell's testimony, Petitioners offered actuarial analyses of general and professional liability in long-term care performed by AON Risk Consultants, Inc. (AON) on behalf of the American Health Care Association. The AON studies analyzed nationwide trends in GL/PL for long-term care, and also examined state-specific issues for eight states identified as leading the trends in claim activity, including Florida. They provided an historical perspective of GL/PL claims in Florida during the audit period. The 2002 AON study for Florida was based on participation by entities representing 52 percent of all Florida nursing home beds. The study provided a "Loss Cost per Occupied Bed" showing GL/PL liability claims losses on a per bed basis. The 2002 study placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $10,800 per bed for the year 2001. The 2003 AON study, based on participation by entities representing 54 percent of Florida nursing home beds, placed the loss cost for nursing homes in Florida at $11,810 per bed for the year 2002. The studies showed that the cost per bed of GL/PL losses is materially higher in Florida than the rest of the United States. The nationwide loss per bed was $2,360 for the year 2001 and $2,880 for the year 2002. The GL/PL loss costs for Texas were the second-highest in the country, yet were far lower than the per bed loss for Florida ($5,460 for the year 2001 and $6,310 for the year 2002). Finally, Petitioners point to the Mature Care Policies as evidence of the crisis in GL/PL insurance availability. The aforementioned SB 1202 instituted a requirement that nursing homes maintain liability insurance coverage as a condition of licensure. See Section 22, Chapter 2001-45, Laws of Florida, codified at Subsection 400.141(20), Florida Statutes. To satisfy this requirement, Petitioners entered the commercial insurance market and purchased insurance policies for each of the 14 Palm Gardens facilities from a carrier named Mature Care Insurance Company. The policies carried a $25,000 policy limit, with a policy premium of $34,000. These were the kind of "bare bones" policies referenced by the Joint Select Committee's 2004 report. The fact that the policies cost more than they could ever pay out led Mr. Swindling, Petitioners' health care accounting and Medicaid reimbursement expert, to opine that a prudent nursing home operator in Florida at that time would not have purchased insurance, but for the statutory requirement.7 The Mature Care Policies were "bare bones" policies designed to provide minimal compliance with the statutory liability insurance coverage requirement. The policies cost Petitioners more than $37,000 in premium payments, taxes, and fees, in exchange for policy limits of $25,000. In its examination, AHCA disallowed the difference between the cost of the policy and the policy limits, then prorated the allowable costs because the audit period was nine months long and the premium paid for the Mature Care Policies was for 12 months. AHCA based its disallowance on Section 2161.A of the Manual, particularly the language which states: "Insurance premiums reimbursement is limited to the amount of aggregate coverage offered in the insurance policy." Petitioners responded that they did not enter the market and voluntarily pay a premium in excess of the policy limits. They were statutorily required to purchase this minimal amount of insurance; they were required to purchase a 12-month policy; they paid the market price8; and they should not be penalized for complying with the statute. Petitioners contend they should be reimbursed the full amount of the premiums for the Mature Care Policies, as their cost of statutory compliance. Returning to the issue of the contingent liabilities, Petitioners contend that, in light of the state of the market for GL/PL liability insurance during the audit period, AHCA should have gone beyond the strictures of the Manual to conclude that GAAP principles render the accrued contingent liabilities an allowable expense. Under GAAP, a contingent loss is a loss that is probable and can be reasonably estimated. An estimated loss from a loss contingency may be accrued by a charge to income. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 ("FAS No. 5"), Accounting for Contingencies, provides several examples of loss contingencies, including "pending or threatened litigation" and "actual or possible claims and assessments." Petitioners assert that the contingent losses reported in their cost reports were actual costs incurred by Petitioners. The AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, provides: The ultimate costs of malpractice claims, which include costs associated with litigating or settling claims, are accrued when the incidents that give rise to the claims occur. Estimated losses from asserted and unasserted claims are accrued either individually or on a group basis, based on the best estimates of the ultimate costs of the claims and the relationship of past reported incidents to eventual claims payments. All relevant information, including industry experience, the entity's own historical experience, the entity's existing asserted claims, and reported incidents, is used in estimating the expected amount of claims. The accrual includes an estimate of the losses that will result from unreported incidents, which are probable of having occurred before the end of the reporting period. Section 8.10 of AICPA Guide provides: Accrued unpaid claims and expenses that are expected to be paid during the normal operating cycle (generally within one year of the date of the financial statements) are classified as current liabilities. All other accrued unpaid claims and expenses are classified as non-current liabilities. As noted above, Petitioners' audited financial statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2002, and December 31, 2003, showed that the accrual was incurred and recorded by Petitioners during the audit period. Mr. Swindling prepared Petitioners' cost reports, based on information provided by Petitioners, including trial balances reflecting their costs, statistics on patient days, cost data related to square footage, and revenue information. Mr. Swindling advised Petitioners to include the accrued losses. He believed that the loss contingency was probable and could be reasonably estimated. The losses were probable because it was "a given in the state of Florida at that time period that nursing homes are going to get sued." Mr. Swindling testified that the accrual reflected a per bed loss amount of $1,750, which he believed to be a reasonable estimate of the contingent liabilities faced by Petitioners during the audit period. This amount was much less than the per bed loss indicated by the AON studies for Florida. Mr. Swindling used the criteria set forth in Section 8.05 of the AICPA Guide to establish the estimate. He determined that the lesser amount was adequate based on his discussions with Petitioners' management, who indicated that they had a substantial risk management program. Management also disclosed to Mr. Swindling that Petitioners' leases required $1,750 per bed in liability coverage. See Finding of Fact 22, supra. Mr. Swindling believed that the estimated loss per bed was reasonable based on the AON studies and his knowledge and experience of the state of the industry in Florida during the audit period, as further reflected in the DOI and Joint Committee on Nursing Homes materials discussed above. Mr. Swindling's opinion was that the provisions of the Manual relating to GL/PL insurance costs do not apply under these circumstances. The costs at issue in this proceeding are not general and professional liability insurance costs subject to CMS Pub. 15-1; rather, they are loss contingencies related to general and professional liability, including defense costs, litigation costs, and settlement costs. Mr. Swindling placed the loss contingency under number 730810, "General and Professional Liability -- Third Party" because, in the finite chart of accounts provided by Medicaid, that was the most appropriate place to record the cost.9 Despite the initial confusion it caused the agency's auditors, the placement of the loss contingency under number 730810 was not intended to deceive the auditors. Mr. Swindling opined that, under these circumstances, Sections 2160 through 2162 are in conflict with other provisions in the Manual relating to the "prudent buyer" concept, and further conflict with the Plan to the extent that the cited regulations "relate to a retrospective system as opposed to prospective target rate-based system." Mr. Swindling agreed that the application of Sections 2160 through 2162 to the situation presented by Petitioners would result in the disallowance of the loss contingencies. Mr. Swindling observed, however, that Sections 2160 through 2162 are Medicare regulations. Mr. Swindling testified that Medicare reimbursements are made on a retrospective basis.10 Were this situation to occur in Medicare -- in which the provider did not obtain commercial insurance, self-insurance, or establish a captive insurer -- the provider would be deemed to be operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. Though its costs might be disallowed in the current period, the provider would receive reimbursements in subsequent periods when it could prove actual payment for its losses. Mr. Swindling found a conflict in attempting to apply these Medicare rules to the prospective payment system employed by Florida Medicaid, at least under the circumstances presented by Petitioners' case. Under the prospective system, once the contingent loss is disallowed for the base period, there is no way for Petitioners ever to recover that loss in a subsequent period, even when the contingency is liquidated. During his cross-examination, Mr. Swindling explained his position as follows: . . . Medicare allows for that payment in a subsequent period. Medicaid rules would not allow that payment in the subsequent period; therefore you have conflict in the rules. When you have conflict in the rules, you revert to generally accepted accounting principles. Generally accepted accounting principles are what we did. Q. Where did you find that if there's a conflict in the rules, which I disagree with, but if there is a conflict in the rules, that you follow GAAP? Where did you get that from? I mean, we've talked about it and it's clear on the record that if there is no provision that GAAP applies, but where did you get that if there's a conflict? Just point it out, that would be the easiest way to do it. A. The hierarchy, if you will, requires providers to file costs on the accrual basis of accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If there's no rules, in absence of rules -- and I forget what the other terms were, we read it into the record before, against public policy, those kind of things -- or in my professional opinion, if there is a conflict within the rules where the provider can't follow two separate rules at the same time, they're in conflict, then [GAAP] rules what should be recorded and what should be reimbursed. * * * Q. [T]he company accrued a liability of $2 million for the cost reporting period of 2002-2003, is that correct? A. Yes. * * * Q. Do you have any documentation supporting claims paid, actually paid, in 2002-2003 beyond the mature care policy for which that $2 million reserve was set up? A. No. Q. So what did Medicaid pay for? A. Medicaid paid the cost of contingent liabilities that were incurred by the providers and were estimated at $1,750 per bed. Generally accepted accounting principles will adjust that going forward every cost reporting period. If that liability in total goes up or down, the differential under [GAAP] goes through the income statement, and expenses either go up or they go down. It's self-correcting, which is similar to what Medicare is doing, only they're doing it on a cash basis. Mr. Swindling explained the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. The highest governing law is the Federal statutory law, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Subsection. 1396-1396v. Below the statute come the federal regulations for implementing Title XIX, 42 C.F.R. parts 400-426. Then follow in order Florida statutory law, the relevant Florida Administrative Code provisions, the Plan, the Manual, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, GAAP. Mr. Swindling testified that in reality, a cost report is not prepared from the top of the hierarchy down; rather, GAAP is the starting point for the preparation of any cost report. The statutes, rules, the Plan and the Manual are then consulted to exclude specific cost items otherwise allowable under GAAP. In the absence of an applicable rule, or in a situation in which there is a conflict between rules in the hierarchy such that the provider is unable to comply with both rules, the provider should fall back on GAAP principles as to recording of costs and reimbursement. John A. Owens, currently a consultant in health care finance specializing in Medicaid, worked for AHCA for several years up to 2002, in positions including administrator of the audit services section and bureau chief of the Office of Medicaid Program Analysis. Mr. Owens is a CPA and expert in health care accounting and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that AHCA's disallowance of the accrued costs for GL/PL liability was improper. Mr. Owens noted that Section 2160 of the Manual requires providers to purchase commercial insurance. If commercial insurance is unavailable, then the Manual gives the provider two choices: self-insure, or establish a captive program. Mr. Owens testified that insurers were fleeing the state during the period in question, and providers were operating without insurance coverage. Based on the state of the market, Petitioners' only options would have been to self-insure or establish a captive. As to self-insurance, Petitioners' problem was that they had taken over the leases on their facilities from a bankrupt predecessor, Integrated Health Services ("IHS"). Petitioners were not in privity with their predecessor. Petitioners had no access to the facilities' loss histories, without which they could not perform an actuarial study or engage a fiduciary to set up a self-insurance plan.11 Similarly, setting up a captive would require finding an administrator and understanding the risk exposure. Mr. Owens testified that a provider would not be allowed to set up a captive without determining actuarial soundness, which was not possible at the time Petitioners took over the 14 IHS facilities. Thus, Petitioners were simply unable to meet the standards established by the Manual. The options provided by the Manual did not contemplate the unique market situation existing in Florida during the audit period, and certainly did not contemplate that situation compounded by the problems faced by a new provider taking over 14 nursing homes from a bankrupt predecessor. Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Swindling that, under these circumstances, where the requirements of the Manual could not be met, Petitioners were entitled to seek relief under GAAP, FAS No. 5 in particular. In situations where a loss is probable and can be measured, then an accounting entry may be performed to accrue and report that cost. Mr. Owens concluded that Petitioners' accrual was an allowable cost for Medicaid purposes, and explained his rationale as follows: My opinion is, in essence, that since they could not meet -- technically, they just could not meet those requirements laid out by [the Manual], they had to look somewhere to determine some rational basis for developing a cost to put into the cost report, because if they had chosen to do nothing and just moved forward, those rates would be set and there would be nothing in their base year which then establishes their target moving forward. So by at least looking at a rational methodology to accrue the cost, they were able to build something into their base year and have it worked into their target system as they move forward. Steve Diaczyk, an audit evaluation and review analyst for AHCA, testified for the agency as an expert in accounting, auditing, and Medicaid policy. Mr. Diaczyk was the AHCA auditor who reviewed the work of Smiley & Smiley for compliance with Medicaid rules and regulations, and to verify the accuracy of the independent CPA's determinations. Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Mr. Swindling's description of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Mr. Diaczyk affirmed that Petitioners employed GAAP rather than Medicaid regulations in preparing their cost reports. Mr. Diaczyk testified regarding the Notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements, set forth at Findings of Fact 22-24, supra, which left AHCA's auditors with the understanding that Petitioners were self-insuring. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that Section 2162.7 of the Manual requires a self- insurer to contract with an independent fiduciary to maintain a self-insurance fund, and that the fund must contain monies sufficient to cover anticipated losses. The fiduciary takes title to the funds, the amount of which is determined actuarially. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, in reimbursing a provider for self-insurance, Medicaid wants to make sure that the provider has actually put money into the fund, and has not just set up a fund on its books and called it "self-insurance" for reimbursement purposes. AHCA's position is that it would be a windfall for a provider to obtain reimbursement for an accrued liability when it has not actually set the money aside and funded the risk. Medicaid wants the risk transferred off of the provider's books and on to the self-insurance fund. Mr. Diaczyk testified as to the differing objectives of Medicaid and GAAP. Medicaid is concerned with reimbursing costs, and is therefore especially sensitive regarding the overstatement of costs. Medicaid wants to reimburse a provider for only those costs that have actually been paid. GAAP, on the other hand, is about report presentation for a business entity and is concerned chiefly with avoiding the understatement of expenses and overstatement of revenue. Under GAAP, an entity may accrue a cost and not pay it for years. In the case of a contingent liability, the entity may book the cost and never actually pay it. Mr. Diaczyk described the self-insurance and liquidation provisions of 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100, "Special treatment of certain accrued costs." The federal rule essentially allows accrued costs to be claimed for reimbursement, but only if they are "liquidated timely." Subsection (c)(2)(viii) of the rule provides that accrued liability related to contributions to a self-insurance program must be liquidated within 75 days after the close of the cost reporting period. To obtain reimbursement, Petitioners would have had to liquidate their accrued liability for GL/PL insurance within 75 days of the end of the audit period. Mr. Diaczyk also noted that, even if the 75-day requirement were not applicable, the general requirement of Section 2305.2 of the Manual would apply. Section 2305.2 requires that all short-term liabilities must be liquidated within one year after the end of the cost reporting period in which the liability is incurred, with some exceptions not applicable in this case. Petitioners' accrued liability for general and professional liability insurance was not funded or liquidated for more than one year after the cost reporting period. It was a contingent liability that might never be paid. Therefore, Mr. Diaczyk stated, reimbursement was not in keeping with Medicaid's goal to reimburse providers for actual paid costs, not for potential costs that may never be paid. Petitioners responded that their accrued liabilities constituted non-current liabilities, items that under normal circumstances will not be liquidated within one year. Mr. Parnell testified that there is great variation in how long it takes for a general and professional liability claim against a nursing home to mature to the point of payment to the claimant. He testified that a "short" timeline would be from two to four years, and that some claims may take from eight to eleven years to mature. From these facts, Petitioners urge that 42 C.F.R. Section 413.100 and Section 2305.2 of the Manual are inapplicable to their situation. As to Section 2305.2 in particular, Petitioners point to Section 2305.A, the general liquidation of liabilities provision to which Section 2305.2 provides the exceptions discussed above. The last sentence of Section 2305.A provides that, where the liability is not liquidated within one year, or does not qualify under the exceptions set forth in Sections 2305.1 and 2305.2, then "the cost incurred for the related goods and services is not allowable in the cost reporting period when the liability is incurred, but is allowable in the cost reporting period when the liquidation of the liability occurs." (Emphasis added.) Petitioners argue that the underscored language supports the Medicare/Medicaid distinction urged by Mr. Swindling. In its usual Medicare retroactive reimbursement context, Section 2305.2 would operate merely to postpone reimbursement until the cost period in which the liability is liquidated. Applied to this Medicaid prospective reimbursement situation, Section 2305.2 would unfairly deny Petitioners any reimbursement at all by excluding the liability from the base rate. Mr. Diaczyk explained that, where the Medicaid rules address a category of costs, the allowable costs in a provider's cost report are limited to those defined as allowable by the applicable rules. He stated that if there is a policy in the Manual that addresses an item of cost, the provider must use the Manual provision; the provider cannot use GAAP to determine that cost item. In this case, Mr. Diaczyk agreed with Ms. Smiley as to the applicable rules and the disallowance of Petitioners' contingent liability costs. According to Mr. Diaczyk, GAAP may be used only if no provisions farther up the chain of the "hierarchy" are applicable. In this case, the Medicaid rules specifically addressed the categories of cost in question, meaning that GAAP did not apply. Under cross-examination, Mr. Diaczyk testified that the accrual made by Petitioners in their cost reports would be considered actual costs under GAAP, "[a]ssuming that they had an actuarial study done to come up with the $1.7 million that they accrued." Mr. Diaczyk acknowledged that AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide for Health Care Organizations, Section 8.05, does not limit the provider to an actuarial study in estimating losses from asserted and unasserted claims. See Finding of Fact 49, supra, for text of Section 8.05. Mr. Diaczyk pointed out that the problem in this case was that Petitioners gave AHCA no documentation to support their estimate of the accrual, despite the auditor's request that Petitioners provide documentation to support their costs. Mr. Diaczyk's testimony raised a parallel issue to Mr. Swindling's concern that Medicaid's prospective targeting system permanently excludes any item of cost not included in the base rate. Mr. Swindling solved the apparent contradiction in employing Medicare rules in the Medicaid scenario by applying GAAP principles. Responding to the criticism that GAAP could provide a windfall to Petitioners by reimbursing them for accrued costs that might never actually result in payment, Mr. Swindling responded that GAAP principles would adjust the cost for contingent liabilities going forward, "truing up" the financial statements in subsequent reporting periods. This truing up process would have the added advantage of obviating the agency's requirement for firm documentation of the initial accrual. Mr. Swindling's "truing up" scenario under GAAP would undoubtedly correct Petitioners' financial statements. However, Mr. Swindling did not explain how the truing up of the financial statements would translate into a correction of Petitioners' reimbursement rate.12 If costs excluded from the base rate cannot be added to future rate adjustments, then costs incorrectly included in the base rate would also presumably remain in the facility's rate going forward.13 Thus, Mr. Swindling's point regarding the self-correcting nature of the GAAP reporting procedures did not really respond to AHCA's concerns about Petitioners' receiving a windfall in their base rate by including the accrual for contingent liabilities. On April 19, 2005, Petitioners entered into a captive insurance program. Petitioners' captive is a claims-made GL/PL policy with limits of $1 million per occurrence and $3 million in the aggregate. Under the terms of the policy, "claims-made" refers to a claim made by Petitioners to the insurance company, not a claim made by a nursing home resident alleging damages. The effective date of the policy is from April 21, 2005, through April 21, 2006, with a retroactive feature that covers any claims for incidents back to June 29, 2002, a date that corresponds to Petitioners' first day of operation and participation in the Medicaid program. The Petitioners' paid $3,376,906 for this policy on April 22, 2005. Mr. Parnell testified that April 2005 was the earliest time that the 14 Palm Gardens facilities could have established this form of insurance program. In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the contingent liabilities established that Petitioners took over the 14 Palm Gardens facilities after the bankruptcy of the previous owner. Petitioners were faced with the virtual certainty of substantial GL/PL expenses in operating the facilities, and also faced with a Florida nursing home environment market in which commercial professional liability insurance was virtually unavailable. Lacking loss history information from their bankrupt predecessor, Petitioners were unable to self-insure or establish a captive program until 2005. Petitioners understood that if they did not include their GL/PL expenses in their initial cost report, those expenses would be excluded from the base rate and could never be recovered. Petitioners' leases for the facilities required them to fund a self-insurance reserve at a per bed minimum amount of $1,750. Based on the AON studies and the general state of the industry at the time, Petitioners' accountant concluded that, under GAAP principles, $1,750 per bed was a reasonable, conservative estimate of Petitioners' GL/PL loss contingency exposure for the audit period.14 Based on all the evidence, it is found that Petitioners' cost estimate was reasonable and should be accepted by the agency. Petitioners included their GL/PL loss contingency expenses in their initial Medicaid cost report, placing those expenses under a heading indicating the purchase of insurance from a third party. The notes to Petitioners' audited financial statements stated that the facilities were "essentially self- insured." These factors led AHCA to request documentation of Petitioners' self-insurance. Petitioners conceded that they were not self-insured and carried no liability insurance aside from the Mature Care policies. The parties had little dispute as to the facts summarized above. The parties also agreed as to the applicability of the "hierarchy" by which allowable costs are determined. Their disagreement rests solely on the manner in which the principles of the hierarchy should be applied to the unique situation presented by Petitioners in these cases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order that allows Petitioners' accrual of expenses for contingent liability under the category of general and professional liability ("GL/PL") insurance, and that disallows the Mature Care policy premium amounts in excess of the policy limits, prorated for a nine- month period. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 24th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association should have assessed unit owners, in proportionate shares, to pay for the replacement of hurricane-damaged balcony screens, in accordance with Petitioner's policy that repair costs which do not exceed an insurance deductible are "costs of insurance" that must be paid as "common expenses" regardless of what the declaration of condominium provides concerning reconstruction or repair after a casualty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fountains South Condominium No. 3C Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the Fountains South Condominium No. 3C ("Condominium"). As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Condominium was created——and continues to be governed by——a Declaration of Fountains South Condominium No. 3C ("Declaration"), which instrument was recorded, in 1987, in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. On October 24, 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck Palm Beach County, causing damage to elements of the Condominium. The damaged property included some portions of the "Common Elements." Also damaged were some parts of the "Limited Common Elements." (The terms "Common Elements" and "Limited Common Elements" are defined in the Declaration, the relevant provisions of which will be set forth verbatim below. Generally speaking, though, the Common Elements comprise all of the property of which the Condominium is composed except for that included within the residential units. The Limited Common Elements, which are a subset of the Common Elements, consist of properties or structures whose use is reserved to a particular unit or units to the exclusion of other units.) Fulfilling a statutory obligation (that will be discussed in detail below), the Association had purchased property insurance to protect the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. Issued by Nutmeg Insurance Company ("Nutmeg"), Policy No. SW 0000071 (the "Policy") provided coverage to the Association for loss or damage to property from multiple risks, including hurricanes. The premium for the Policy——the effective dates of which were from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005——was $395,000. The Policy provided for various deductibles depending on the cause of the covered loss. For loss or damage caused by a hurricane, the deductible was 5 percent of the value of the insured property. It is undisputed that, at the time of Hurricane Wilma, this deductible was approximately a quarter of a million dollars. Under the relevant provisions of the Policy, therefore, Nutmeg would not be obligated to indemnify the Association for any loss or damage caused by Hurricane Wilma unless and until the total losses from that particular occurrence exceeded (roughly) $250,000. The Association paid about $5,000 to repair the damage that Hurricane Wilma caused to the Common Elements, using funds on hand that had been saved for such contingencies. Because this expense was far below the applicable deductible, the Association did not submit a claim to Nutmeg. The Association's position regarding the damage to the Limited Common Elements, consistent with its longstanding view of such matters, was that the costs of repairing or replacing such properties should be borne by the respective unit owners to whose exclusive use the damaged elements were reserved. The Association based its position on a provision of the Declaration (which will be quoted below) that assigns the general responsibility for maintenance and repair of the units, together with the Limited Common Elements appurtenant thereto, to the respective unit owners. At the time of Hurricane Wilma, Haskell and Flora Ginns (the "Ginns") owned Unit No. 201 in the Condominium. (As of the final hearing, the Ginns were still the owners of this unit.) The hurricane caused damage both to their unit and to the screens surrounding the balcony outside their unit. It is undisputed that the balcony and screens appurtenant to the Ginns' unit are part of the Limited Common Elements. The Ginns submitted a claim for these losses to their insurer, Allstate Floridian Insurance Company ("Allstate"). By letter dated January 7, 2006, Allstate denied the portion of the Ginns' claim relating to the damaged screens, asserting that the screens were not covered property under the Ginns' policy because they were within the "insuring responsibility" of the Association. The Ginns did not protest Allstate's decision in this regard. (Allstate paid the full policy limit of nearly $30,000 on the Ginns' claim anyway; thus, its denial of coverage for the damaged screens actually had no effect on the reimbursement that the Ginns received from Allstate.) The Ginns then wrote a letter to the Association's president, Milton Kutzin, requesting that the Association pay to replace the damaged screens. Dated January 16, 2006,i the letter reads as follows: Dear Milton: As you may be aware, the screens on the deck of our condo were severely damaged because of Hurricane Wilma. According to the attached memo, the condo is responsible for replacing them. For your information, my insurance company, Allstate Floridian, has refused payment and has advised us that our condo association is responsible (by law) to replace them. We do have an estimate to replace the screens. I shall be happy to discuss this matter with you at any time. Please let me know approximately when this matter will be settled. (The "attached memo" to which the Ginns referred purports to be an undated letter from the Director of Maintenance of Versailles Court (evidently a residential community) to the homeowners of that project, clarifying the responsibilities of the homeowners, on the one hand, and their homeowners' association, on the other, vis-à-vis maintenance obligations. As far as the undersigned can tell, this Versailles Court memorandum has no bearing whatsoever on the issues at hand.) If the Association responded in writing to the Ginns' letter of January 16, 2006, the document is not in evidence. In any event, the Association refused to repair the screens surrounding the Ginns' balcony because (a) it believed that the Ginns were responsible, under the Declaration, for the cost of such repair and (b) the total losses to the Common Elements and Limited Common Elements (including the screens in question) did not come near the deductible under the Nutmeg Policy, meaning that there were no insurance proceeds to distribute to unit owners for repairs to Limited Common Elements. On January 18, 2006, the Ginns paid a company called Rainguard, Inc. either $1,100 or $1,200 to replace the damaged screens around "their" balcony.ii Meantime, on January 13, 2006, the Division rendered a Declaratory Statement in In Re Petition for Declaratory Statement of Plaza East Association, Inc., Docket No. 2005059934, Final Order No. BPR-2006-00239 (DBPR Jan. 13, 2006)(the "Plaza East Declaration"). In the Plaza East Declaration, the Division made a number of statements concerning the meaning and effect of certain provisions of the Florida Condominium Act ("Act") pertaining to the duties of condominium associations as they relate to property insurance. These statements will be examined in greater detail below. For now, it suffices to quote several sentences that form the core of the Division's policy regarding the scope of an association's "insuring responsibilities": As association is not required to insure 100% of the replacement cost of the condominium property, but must have adequate insurance to replace the property destroyed by a hurricane. The board may include reasonable deductibles in replacement value insurance policies. § 718.111(11)(a), Fla. Stat. A deductible amount is part of the cost of insurance and is a common expense for which reserves might be set aside. § 718.111(11), 718.115, Fla. Stat. As such, an association may not shift the cost of an insurance common expense to an individual unit owner as common expenses must be assessed in the proportions or percentages required under sections 718.104(4)(f), 718.116(9), Florida Statutes. [An association therefore] may not shift the cost of the deductible, a common expense, to only those unit owners whose windows were damaged by the insurable event such as a hurricane. Plaza East Declaration at 16 (emphasis added). The Plaza East Declaration reflected——and continues to be authoritative regarding——the Division's firmly fixed policy, which is that the deductible under a property insurance policy is a "cost" that an association must incur, using common funds collected through proportionate-share assessments. The Division's expert witness made this clear, giving the following testimony (which the undersigned accepts as credible) in deposition: Q. Doesn't [the] Plaza East [Declaration] declare that a deductible is a common expense? A. Well, it makes the deductible a common expense because insurance is a common expense and the deductible is just a part of the insurance purchase decision. * * * Q. Let me ask you this: Is there anything in [the Act] that clearly states that a casualty loss insurance deductible is a common expense? A. No, sir, there's nothing [in the statutes] that specifically says that. Q. But [the] Plaza East [Declaration] says that, doesn't it? A. Plaza East says that, yes, sir. Q. So that's a policy of the Department? A. Yes, sir, that is. Q. And it's a general policy, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it's a general policy that would apply to any condominium in South Florida regardless of what the declaration of condominium said? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that's being applied in this case, isn't it? A. Yes, sir. Deposition of James T. Harrison, Jr. (10/29/07) at 20-21. At some point after the issuance of the Plaza East Declaration, the Ginns sought the Division's help in persuading the Association to reimburse them for the new screens. The Division informed the Ginns of the Plaza East Declaration. Armed with this information, the Ginns again pressed the Association to reimburse them for replacing the screens. The Association, again, declined. By letter dated May 3, 2006, the Ginns made a formal complaint to the Division regarding the Association's refusal to pay for the replacement of the screens. The Division acted promptly, completing its investigation into the matter on or before May 10, 2006. Siding with the Ginns, the Division demanded, in a letter dated May 22, 2006, that the Association either reimburse the Ginns or (possibly) be fined. Yet, the Association resisted. On July 28, 2006, the Division entered a Notice to Show Cause against the Association, charging as follows: Count 1: Respondent [Association], in violation of section 718.115(2), Florida Statutes, failed to asses unit owners in their proportionate shares for the common expense insurance deductible to repair damage to condominium property caused by a hazard to be insured by Respondent under section 718.111(11), Florida Statutes. The Respondent refused to treat the hurricane damage to the wrap-a-round deck and screens in unit #201 as a common expense covered by the association's policy under sections 718.111(11) and 718.115(1), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent failed to reimburse Haskell Ginns and Flora Ginns for damage sustained by Hurricane Wilma to their wrap-a-round screens. Since the May 22, 2006, warning letter, the complainants have replaced their wrap-a- round deck screens at a cost of $1,200.00 and have requested reimbursement from Respondent. The Association demanded a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Notice to Show Cause and exonerating the Association of the charge of failing to assess unit owners, in proportionate shares, to pay the cost of repairing or replacing Limited Common Elements damaged during Hurricane Wilma. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 10th day of January, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 15, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agents in Florida and with regulating their conduct. Section 624.307 and Chapter 626, Part I, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Ingrid Machado was Florida-licensed insurance agent. In March 1999, Teresita Baldor was interested in purchasing health insurance. Ms. Baldor had previously owned a private school and had been insured through the school's group health insurance policy. After she sold the school and began teaching mathematics at Miami-Dade Community College and Saint Thomas University, she no longer had health insurance coverage. On or about March 10, 1999, Ms. Machado met with Ms. Baldor at Ms. Baldor's home. Ms. Baldor knew Ms. Machado only as an insurance agent and did not know whether Ms. Machado was affiliated with an insurance agency. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor during the March 10, 1999, visit that she would try to place Ms. Baldor in a group for health insurance purposes but that she did not know at that time the group Ms. Baldor would be placed in or the name of the insurance company that would provide the health insurance coverage. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor during the visit that she would let Ms. Baldor know the name of the company providing her coverage and that she would send Ms. Baldor the coverage information. During her March 10, 1999, visit to Ms. Baldor's home, Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor for general identification information, such as her name and social security number, and for other information, such as her weight. Ms. Baldor did not sign any document during this visit and cannot recall if Ms. Machado completed any form during their conversation. Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor to make out two checks, one in the amount of $175.00 and one in the amount of $100.00, but Ms. Baldor does not remember Ms. Machado's telling her the reason she needed two separate checks. Ms. Machado asked Ms. Baldor to leave the line for the name of the payee blank, again telling Ms. Baldor that she did not yet know which insurance company would ultimately provide health insurance coverage to Ms. Baldor. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that the name of the company would be filled in on the checks at a later time. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that she would have health insurance coverage effective March 15, 1999. On or about March 20, 1999, Ms. Baldor telephoned Ms. Machado because Ms. Baldor had not received any information regarding health insurance coverage. Ms. Machado told Ms. Baldor that she was having complications with her pregnancy and could no longer handle Ms. Baldor's insurance matters. Ms. Machado gave Ms. Baldor the telephone number of the "Durey Agency," told her that this agency would work with her to obtain health insurance coverage, and gave her Ray Gonzalez's name. Ms. Machado had no further contact with Ms. Baldor after the telephone conversation on or about March 20, 1999, during the times material to this proceeding. At some point, Ms. Baldor called the telephone number Ms. Machado had given her to find out why she had not received any information regarding her health insurance coverage. Ms. Baldor told the person who answered the phone, a woman named Maria, that she wanted her checks back if she could not give her any information "right then." Later the same day, Maria called Ms. Baldor and told her that she had been placed in a group for health insurance purposes. A Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form was submitted to the Neighborhood Health Partnership on behalf of Ms. Baldor. On the form, Ms. Baldor was identified as an employee of "International Marketing." A signature appeared on the bottom of the form purporting to be that of Ms. Baldor, and the date next to the signature was "5/10/99." Ms. Baldor never saw the Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form. A few weeks after Maria told Ms. Baldor that she had been placed in a group for health insurance purposes, Ms. Baldor received a package from the Neighborhood Health Partnership that contained an identification card indicating that she was enrolled in the "International Marketing Group" and indicating that her insurance coverage with the Neighborhood Health Partnership was effective as of June 15, 1999. During Ms. Baldor's conversations with Ms. Machado, Ms. Machado never mentioned the Neighborhood Health Partnership or International Marketing Group. The checks Ms. Baldor provided to Ms. Machado were made payable to the Durey Insurance Group and were processed by the bank on or about May 17, 1999. In addition, Ms. Baldor wrote checks to the Durey Insurance Group dated July 10, 1999, and August 9, 1999, as payment for her health insurance premiums. Ms. Baldor's insurance coverage with the Neighborhood Health Partnership was eventually cancelled. It was Ms. Baldor's understanding that it was cancelled because the Durey Insurance Group did not remit her premium to the Neighborhood Health Partnership and because the "International Marketing Group" in which she was placed by the Durey Insurance Group did not exist. Summary The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado's actions with respect to her dealings with Ms. Baldor demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness or demonstrated that Ms. Machado lacked reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transaction of insurance. The Department presented no evidence to establish any standards of skill, ability, knowledge, or competence by which Ms. Machado's acts or omissions can be judged to determine if she committed any of the violations with which Ms. Machado is charged. It is not possible to determine from the evidence presented if Ms. Machado's actions deviated from a standard of fitness or trustworthiness which a reasonably prudent insurance agent would be expected to exhibit under the circumstances or if Ms. Machado's conduct fell below a standard establishing the degree of knowledge and technical competence which a reasonably prudent insurance agent would be expected to exhibit under the circumstances. 2/ The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado engaged in any unfair method of competition or deceptive practices or knowingly made any misrepresentations to Ms. Baldor regarding health insurance coverage. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Ms. Machado took some minimal information from Ms. Baldor and told her she would place her in a group for health insurance coverage. The uncontroverted evidence further establishes that Ms. Machado did not represent to Ms. Baldor that she would place Ms. Baldor in any specific group, that she would place Ms. Baldor with any particular insurance company, 3/ or that Ms. Baldor would be provided with any specific coverage or benefits. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado knowingly collected from Ms. Baldor any sums in excess of premium because, at the time Ms. Machado collected the two checks from Ms. Baldor, Ms. Machado did not know which insurance company would write health insurance coverage for Ms. Baldor and, therefore, did not know what the premium would be. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado knowingly collected from Ms. Baldor any premium for insurance that was not, in due course, provided. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Ms. Machado initially agreed to procure health insurance coverage for Ms. Baldor; however, because of her pregnancy, Ms. Machado referred Ms. Baldor to the Durey Insurance Group approximately ten days after Ms. Machado's only meeting with Ms. Baldor and advised Ms. Baldor that the Durey Insurance Group would assist Ms. Baldor in obtaining health insurance. There is no persuasive evidence establishing that Ms. Machado knew or should have known that Durey Insurance Group would not, in due course, provide legitimate health insurance coverage to Ms. Baldor. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Ms. Machado had any involvement, directly or indirectly, in the transaction in which the Durey Insurance Group identified Ms. Baldor as an employee of "International Marketing" and obtained health insurance for Ms. Baldor with the Neighborhood Health Partnership as a member of the "International Marketing Group." 4/ Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Machado's actions made her a source of injury to Ms. Baldor or anyone else. As noted above, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that, soon after Ms. Machado's visit with Ms. Baldor on March 10, 1999, Ms. Machado advised Ms. Baldor that she could not act as Ms. Baldor's agent in placing her with a health insurance company, that she had sent Ms. Baldor's information and checks to the Durey Insurance Group, and that Ms. Baldor should contact the Durey Insurance Group for further assistance. Ms. Baldor's contacts subsequent to the latter part of March 1999 with respect to her health insurance coverage were exclusively with personnel who purported to be affiliated with the Durey Insurance Group. A representative of the Durey Insurance Group notified Ms. Baldor that her health insurance would be provided by the Neighborhood Health Partnership, and Ms. Baldor's premium checks were made payable to the Durey Insurance Group. Finally, the Neighborhood Health Partnership Enrollment Form identifying Ms. Baldor as an employee of International Marketing is dated approximately two months after Ms. Machado's last contact with Ms. Baldor, and the Department failed to present any evidence tending to establish that Ms. Machado had any involvement in the preparation of this form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Ingrid Machado. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 15th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent. The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida. The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency. After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts. The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal. In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before. With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately $150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500 to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900. At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage. As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all. Judy Nelson (Count V). Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated. Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage. Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her. On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990. Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security. Fred J. Miller (Count VI). On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage. A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt. It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account. Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card. On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed. Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990. Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy. Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV). Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.) On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security. Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III). Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security. In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly. On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing. One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle. At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/ Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs. John Stuiso (Count I). On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250. It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied. In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing. In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate. When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund. The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250. Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check. The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa. After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.). Wanda Mae Riley (Count II). In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business. Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did. Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing. In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, 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 28th day of May, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing insurance agents of all types, regulating licensure status, and enforcing the practice standards of licensed agents within the powers granted by the Legislature in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the disciplinary action, Respondent Mahle was licensed as an insurance agent in the following areas: Life and Health Insurance and Health Insurance. During the last quarter of the year 1988, New Concept Insurance, Inc. mailed brochures to residents of Naples, Florida, which stated that representatives of the company were willing to provide information about long- term care insurance, including nursing facility benefits, to interested parties. Those who wanted to learn more about the insurance were asked to return their name, address and telephone number to the company on an enclosed card. Eleanor Drown responded to the advertisement, and an appointment was arranged for Thomas DiBello and Respondent Mahle to meet with her regarding the insurance program. On November 10, 1988, Thomas DiBello and Respondent Mahle met with Ms. Drown and discussed the benefits of a long-term care policy with a nursing facility daily benefit of one hundred dollars ($100.00). After the discussion, Ms. Drown completed an application for the insurance and gave it to Respondent Mahle, along with a check for five thousand one hundred and eighty-three dollars and forty-nine cents ($5,183.49). During the insurance transaction on November 10, 1988, Ms. Drown was given a receipt which states: This receipt is given and accepted with the express understanding that the insurance you applied for will not be in force until the policy is issued and the first premium is paid in full. If your application cannot be approved, we will promptly refund your money. Application is made to the company checked (/) on this receipt. On another area of the receipt, it is clearly written, as follows: If Acknowledgement of Application does not reach you within 20 days, write to: Mutual Protective Insurance Company, 151 South 75th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124. The Respondent Mahle did not forward the application and the check completed by Ms. Drown to Mutual Protective Insurance Company. The check issued by Ms. Drown to Mutual Protective Insurance Company was deposited into the account of New Concept Insurance, Inc. A cashier's check for the same amount of money was issued by New Concept Insurance, Inc. to Ms. Drown on March 7, 1989. The letter from New Concept that was mailed with the check represented that the check was the refund of the money paid to Mutual Protective Insurance Company by Ms. Drown. Mitigation An application for long-term care insurance from a different insurance company was sent to Ms. Drown by Respondent Mahle on March 2, 1989. Although this course of conduct was not directly responsive to the duties owed by the Respondent to Mutual Protective Insurance Company or his customer, Ms. Drown, it does demonstrate a concern about the insurance needs requested by the customer. This conduct also reveals that there was no intention to convert the funds received to the Respondent's own use, and it explains some of the delay in the return of the premium funds to the customer. The Respondent has been an insurance agent for twenty years. This was the only complaint against the Respondent the Hearing Officer was made aware of during the proceedings. The allegations in the Complaint involve a single insurance transaction.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of one violation of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes, and one violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, during a single insurance transaction. That the Respondent pay an administrative penalty of $500.00 for the two violations of the Insurance Code within thirty days of the imposition of the penalty. That the Respondent be placed upon six month's probation. During this probation period, he should file a report with the Department demonstrating the manner in which he intends to keep accurate business records which assure him, the insurance company, and the customer that he is continuously accounting for premium funds and promptly carrying out his fiduciary responsibilities. That the Respondent's requests for licensure dated October 10, 1989 and May 18, 1990, be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 12th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-6040 The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Rejected. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accept that Ms. Drown's funds remained in the insurance agency's financial accounts for four months. Reject that the interest bearing ability of these funds is relevant in any manner to this case. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Rejected. This testimony was rejected by the hearing officer as self serving. It was not found to be credible. Rejected for the same reasons given immediately above. Accepted, but not particularly probative. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer. Accept that an application for Penn Treaty Insurance was sent to Ms. Drown on this date. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to the testimony of Ms. Drown which was believed by the hearing officer. Rejected. Self serving. Not believed or found to be credible by the hearing officer. Accepted. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Christopher Anderson III, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark P. Smith, Esquire GOLDBERG, GOLDSTEIN & BUCKLEY, P.A. 1515 Broadway Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2366 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent is guilty of violating provisions of the Florida Insurance Code as charged in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency with the statutory authority and duty to license and regulate insurance agents. Respondent holds License No. A003228 as a General Lines (Property & Casualty 2-20) insurance agent in Florida. He first received the license in 1998. Respondent's license has not previously been the subject of disciplinary action by Petitioner. Since receiving his license, Respondent has continuously worked as an insurance agent and as a salaried employee of Insurance Depot of Charlotte County (Insurance Depot), which is located in Port Charlotte, Florida. Insurance Depot is solely owned and operated by Respondent's father, Jack Alexander, Sr. Respondent is not a co-owner, officer, or director of Insurance Depot. Among the types of insurance sold by Respondent at Insurance Depot is homeowners insurance. The normal procedure followed by Respondent when selling homeowners insurance is to first obtain some basic information from the customer about his or her home, either over the telephone or in person; determine what insurance company or companies represented by Insurance Depot were likely to have the lowest rates for the particular type of home; check the rate schedules of the selected companies; and give the customer a rate quote. If the quoted rate is acceptable to the customer, an application form is either filled out by hand or, for some insurance companies that provided software application forms, the application form is word-processed on a computer and then printed out. The application form is then signed by Respondent and the customer. The insurance companies represented by Insurance Depot require a premium payment, as well as certain additional documentation, in order to issue a homeowners' insurance policy. The insurance companies involved in this case require photographs of the home to be insured. The agents at Insurance Depot ask customers to provide the photographs, and Insurance Depot has two or three Polaroid cameras to lend to customers who do not have cameras. Petitioner elicited testimony from two insurance company representatives that they prefer the photographs to be taken by the agents, rather than by the homeowners. Despite this preference, the insurance companies routinely accept photographs taken by homeowners. Respondent testified that he always tells the prospective customers when he is preparing the insurance application form that photographs are needed. That testimony was disputed by three witnesses who said they were not asked to provide photographs when they met with Respondent at Insurance Depot to apply for insurance. Respondent's testimony is more persuasive, because it is unlikely that he would fail to ask for photographs when they are always needed. Respondent testified that if a customer applied for insurance and paid a premium, it was his usual practice to turn the customer's file over to the clerks in the office for further processing, which would include sending the signed application form, other documentation, and the premium payment to the insurance company. In the case of customers who had not yet provided photographs or other required information, the application was sometimes held until the information was submitted by the customer so that the application was complete when it was sent to the insurance company. The clerks would follow up with the customers to make sure the photographs or other information was submitted. Respondent is not the supervisor of the clerks. How soon coverage is "bound" depends on the requirements or policies of the various insurance companies. In some cases, coverage is bound immediately, but will be cancelled by the insurance company if it does not receive all of the information it requires within a specified time period, such as 30 days. When the insurance is cancelled because the application is incomplete, it is sometimes "flat cancelled," which means the insurance company does not recognize coverage to ever have been bound. Annette and Anthony Wiley2 The Wileys live in Arcadia. They went to Insurance Depot on February 6, 2004, to obtain automobile insurance. While they were there, they inquired about insuring their mobile home and were directed to Respondent for assistance. The Wileys asked Respondent for a rate quote to insure their mobile home for $42,000. The Wileys were satisfied with the rate Respondent quoted for American Reliable Insurance Company (American Reliable). The Wileys gave Respondent $189 as a down payment on the annual premium of $533, and Respondent and Anthony Wiley signed a contract to finance the balance with Duval Premium Budget, Inc. Insurance Depot acts as agent for the financing company. Counsel for Respondent points out that no insurance application form for the Wileys was offered into evidence, but Respondent testified that there "absolutely" was an application prepared for the Wileys, and they did not dispute that there was an application. When the contract with the financing company was signed, Respondent created a document which contained a check ("draft") in the amount of $533 made out to American Reliable and Irvin B. Green & Associates (I.B. Green). I.B. Green is the managing agent for a number of insurance companies, including American Reliable. The document indicates that the policy number is "Pending." The document is perforated so that it can be divided into three parts: the check and two identical receipts, one for Insurance Depot and the other for the Wileys, showing the draft number, down payment, and policy premium balance. The document was never divided. The draft was never sent to American Reliable or I.B. Green. Respondent told the Wileys he needed photographs of their home to send to the insurance company. Respondent testified that when the Wileys left his office, he put their file "in the pending status on my dad's desk" to await the photographs. There is a "Producer Agreement" between I.B. Green and Insurance Depot, which includes a statement that Insurance Depot will "transmit promptly to [I.B. Green] complete applications and binders for all insurance made along with all premiums, taxes, and applicable expenses or fees required." Petitioner alleged in its Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent did not forward the Wileys' application and premium to I.B. Green in accordance with the Producer Agreement. However, Petitioner's witness, Howard Johnston, Jr., the executive vice president of I.B. Green, was not asked whether he believed Insurance Depot had violated the requirement in the Producer Agreement for prompt transmission of the complete application in the matter of the Wileys. Mr. Johnston might have considered it to be acceptable under the Producer Agreement for the agents at Insurance Depot to wait until applications were complete before transmitting them to I.B. Green. Mr. Johnston testified that I.B. Green never received the insurance application or other paperwork for the Wileys. The Wileys thought their mobile home was insured when they left Insurance Depot on February 6, 2004. They continued to believe they were insured, even though months went by without their ever receiving an insurance policy in the mail or a coupon book to make monthly payments to the financing company. They never made another premium payment after their down payment. Mr. Wiley testified that the Wileys did not make another premium payment because "they said not to make a payment right now."3 Mr. Wiley hand-delivered his car insurance payments to Insurance Depot each month, but when doing so, he never inquired about the status of his home insurance policy. Mr. Wiley testified that some time in July 2004, five months after the Wileys applied for homeowner insurance, a woman called to ask for photographs of the Wileys' home. A reasonable inference from the record evidence is that the person who called was one of the clerks at Insurance Depot.4 The Wileys testified that they took photographs of their home soon after the telephone call, and they took the photographs to Insurance Depot. Mrs. Riley said Respondent was not in, and she gave the photographs to Robert Schmidt, another insurance agent employed by Insurance Depot, who placed the photographs on Respondent's desk. Mr. Schmidt does not remember seeing Ms. Riley or accepting photographs from anyone to give to Respondent. Hurricane Charley hit Florida on August 13, 2004. It destroyed the Wileys' mobile home. Mr. Wiley testified that they still owed about $45,000 on the mobile home that was destroyed. After the hurricane, the Wileys' went to Insurance Depot to make a claim for the loss of their mobile home. They were informed by Jack Alexander, Sr., that they had no insurance coverage. They did not speak to Respondent. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) representative advised the Wileys to get a written statement from Insurance Depot about their lack of insurance coverage, which FEMA would use to determine whether the Wileys qualified for federal disaster assistance. Mr. Wiley received a written statement from Jack Alexander, Sr., that states in part: Due to a mix up or miss communication [sic] due to the insurance company never receiving pictures of her home the policy was never bound by the company. The Wileys received a FEMA grant of $19,000, which they used as a down payment to purchase a new mobile home. Jack Alexander, Sr., repaid the Wileys the $189 premium down payment they had given Respondent in February 2004. Cecilia Hembree Cecilia Hembree resides in Port Charlotte and owns her single-family residence. Ms. Hembree testified that she visited Insurance Depot in December 2003, and Respondent assisted her in applying for homeowners insurance. Before she left Insurance Depot that day, she paid the annual premium in full with a check in the amount of $728. Ms. Hembree testified that sometime in January 2004, she became concerned when she had not received an insurance policy for her home. She testified that she spoke to Respondent, and he informed her that the policy had been mailed to her, but he would mail it again. She never got a copy of the policy in the mail. Respondent was not questioned about the alleged January 2004 conversation with Ms. Hembree. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Hembree was asked to explain how a Federated National Insurance Company (Federated) application form signed by Respondent and Ms. Hembree on February 10, 2004 (Petitioner' Exhibit 23), came into existence. No earlier application was presented. Without an explanation in the record, it is found that Ms. Hembree was mistaken about the date she applied for insurance. She did not apply in December 2003, but on February 10, 2004. Similarly, it is found that Ms. Hembree was mistaken about calling Respondent in January 2004 to inquire about her policy. If she made such an inquiry, it must have been after February 10, 2004. Ms. Hembree testified that Respondent did not ask for photographs of her home on the day she applied for insurance, but she got a call from Respondent "a couple of days later" in which he told her that he needed photographs "by the end of the week." Respondent testified that it is his regular practice to ask customers for photographs when he first meets with them, because photographs are always required by the insurance companies and that he asked Ms. Hembree for photographs on the first day he met with her. To the extent that it is material, it is found that Respondent asked for photographs at their first meeting. Ms. Hembree testified that she went to Insurance Depot the same day she was asked for the photographs and gave the photographs to Respondent after waiting for him to finish with another customer. Respondent testified that he remembered Ms. Hembree coming into Insurance Depot, waiting for a while, and then leaving without seeing him. He claims she never gave him photographs. Respondent's testimony on this point is problematic because he saw and recognized Ms. Hembree and should have understood that she was there to give him the photographs he had requested. Yet, he did not describe any effort on his part to get the photographs from Ms. Hembree before she left. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that Ms. Hembree made a trip to Insurance Depot to give Respondent the photographs, but left without giving the photographs to Respondent or asking someone in the office to give them to Respondent or ever returning thereafter with the photographs. Finally, Respondent did not mention the issue of missing photographs in his subsequent discussions with Ms. Hembree that are discussed below. Therefore, it is found that Ms. Hembree provided photographs to Respondent, probably in February 2004. Unlike American Reliable, Federated had an internet website that its authorized agents could use to prepare applications and generate a declaration page showing the basic terms of coverage. Insurance coverage was bound for Ms. Hembree on February 10, 2004, subject to later cancellation by Federated. Federated never received the signed application form or Ms. Hembree's check for $728. Ms. Hembree did not reconcile her bank statements during this period and did not notice that the check had never come to her bank for payment, and the amount was not deducted from her checking account. Vicki Ruggiano, an underwriting supervisor at Federated, testified that when the webpage interface with Federated is used by an agent to generate an application and declaration page, the software system automatically triggers a cancellation notice in 30 days if all required documentation has not been received by Federated. Federated issued a Notice of Cancellation of Ms. Hembree's policy on March 9, 2004. The notice indicated "No application/premium received." Respondent testified that he was never informed about Federated's cancellation of Ms. Hembree's policy. Ms. Hembree testified that on or about March 23, 2004, she noticed that her bank had made a large withdrawal from her checking account to purchase insurance coverage. Ms. Hembree inquired about the withdrawal, and she was told that the bank purchased insurance for her home because they had no evidence that she had obtained insurance coverage.5 Ms. Hembree then called Respondent to tell him what the bank told her, and Respondent said he had mailed the bank proof of coverage, but he would do it again. Ms. Hembree told Respondent she had never received an insurance policy and asked Respondent to "fax" proof of insurance to her and to the bank. Respondent sent her the declaration page for Ms. Hembree's Federated policy that he downloaded from the Federated website. On the same date, Respondent told Ms. Hembree she would have to sign a "no loss statement." Respondent provided Ms. Hembree with a no loss statement form on Insurance Depot letterhead, which contained a Federated policy number, and the following statement: I, [space provided for insured's name], as a condition precedent to the reinstatement of my policy, state that no losses have occurred for which coverage might be claimed under my policy between the date of [space provided for a date] and the date and time indicated above. The no loss statement signed by Ms. Hembree was dated March 23, 2004. However, there was no beginning date filled in on the form. Without a beginning date, the no loss statement would seem to be meaningless, unless the absence of a date would be deemed by Federated to cover all possible dates. When asked why he requested that Ms. Hembree sign a no loss statement, Respondent testified that Federated would reinstate a policy if the customer stated that no losses had occurred in the interim. That testimony contradicts Respondent's testimony that on March 23, 2004, he thought Ms. Hembree's policy was still "pending" for lack of photographs. He did not explain why a pending policy would need to be reinstated or why the need for reinstatement was not an indication that the policy had been cancelled. He did not describe any effort he made to inform Ms. Hembree about the continued need for photographs or to solve that alleged problem. After Hurricane Charley hit on August 13, 2004, Ms. Hembree went to Insurance Depot to ask for an insurance adjuster to view the damage to her home. Ms. Hembree said she talked to a female employee who, after looking at Ms. Hembree's file, told Ms. Hembree her insurance company was Federated and gave Ms. Hembree Federated's telephone number. When Ms. Hembree called Federated, she was told she had no insurance coverage. In August or September 2004, Ms. Hembree called Insurance Depot and spoke to Jack Alexander, Sr. On September 24, 2004, Mr. Alexander prepared an application for Ms. Hembree for coverage by Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Universal). The application indicates that the annual premium was $1,149. Mr. Alexander paid the premium, although it was about $400 more than the premium Ms. Hembree had paid for the Federated policy.6 Neither Mr. Alexander nor Ms. Hembree said whether Ms. Hembree had to provide new photographs of her home to send to Universal. Mr. Alexander testified that when he was confronted by Ms. Hembree about her Federated insurance, he discussed it with Respondent, who told Mr. Alexander that "it was taken care of and should have been in force." Respondent testified that he was unaware of his father's conversations with Ms. Hembree and that his father had purchased a Universal policy for her. Ms. Hembree presented invoices showing that she paid $9,576 to repair damage to her home she claimed was caused by Hurricane Charley. The Palmers William and Terese Palmer went to Insurance Depot on February 23, 2004, to purchase homeowner insurance for their residence in Port Charlotte. They were assisted at Insurance Depot by Respondent. Most insurance companies charge a higher premium for insurance on a seasonal residence, because the risk of loss is greater. Mr. Palmer testified that the Port Charlotte residence is now his primary residence, but when he applied for insurance in 2004, he was living in McHenry, Illinois, and he told Respondent that the Port Charlotte property was for seasonal use. Respondent denies that he was told that the Port Charlotte residence was only used seasonally by the Palmers. The Federated application form prepared by Respondent and signed by Terese Palmer and Respondent indicates that the insurance was for a primary residence. One of the documents provided to Respondent at the time the Palmers were applying for insurance was a settlement statement used in conjunction with the Palmer's loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to purchase the Port Charlotte residence. It shows the address of Mr. Palmer, the "borrower," as McHenry, Illinois. Petitioner argues that this is proof that Respondent knew that the Palmers' primary residence was in Illinois and the Port Charlotte residence had to be seasonal. However, the address on the loan form was also consistent with Respondent's belief that the Palmers had purchased the Port Charlotte residence to make it their primary residence. There was no motive for Respondent to falsify the application form by indicating the Palmers' residence was primary, rather than seasonal. The application form was signed by Mrs. Palmer, attesting to the accuracy of the information on the form. It is found that Respondent either was not told by the Palmers or did not hear them say that the Port Charlotte residence was seasonal. On the same day they met with Respondent, February 23, 2004, the Palmers paid the premium of $1,014 by credit card. Admitted into evidence was an Insurance Depot check to Federated, signed by Respondent and dated February 24, 2004, in the amount of $1,014. The Palmers' next credit card statement showed the premium was paid. On March 29, 2004, Federated issued a notice of cancellation of the Palmers' insurance policy. The notice showed the reason for cancellation as "No application/premium received." Mr. Palmer said he received Federated's notice of cancellation in the mail. He called and informed Respondent, who told Mr. Palmer that "it occasionally happens" and Respondent would "reapply" and the problem would be corrected. The record evidence shows that Federated received a check for the Palmers' insurance premium from Insurance Depot by mail on April 5, 2004, but Federated did not accept the payment because the policy had been cancelled. The Palmers were not informed that Federated had not reinstated their insurance policy. Subsequently, Mr. Palmer visited Insurance Depot to inquire about occupational insurance and asked about the deductible provision on his homeowner policy while he was there. The woman he spoke to informed him that she could not find a file on him. Mr. Palmer then complained to Petitioner about the handling of his insurance by Respondent. Following his complaint, Mr. Palmer got a postcard from Insurance Depot requesting that he come in to discuss the problem. When Mr. Palmer went in, Respondent gave him a check to reimburse him for the unused premium payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 22nd day of June, 2007.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent's disapproval of Petitioners' terrorism rates for workers' compensation insurance (workers' comp) under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, Public Law 101-297, 116 U.S.C. Section 2322 (TRIA) is based on an invalid agency statement of general applicability, which has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (2003); (b) whether Petitioners, as members or subscribers of the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) were required to comply with Section 627.211, Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-189.004; and (c) whether Petitioners' terrorism rate filing for the workers' comp line of business results in rates that are excessive or unfairly discriminatory.
Findings Of Fact AIG's member companies are property and casualty insurance companies that are licensed to write workers' comp in the State of Florida. OIR is the agency that is responsible for regulating the business of insurance in the State of Florida. Following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, reinsurance capacity in the United States contracted severely and other market disruptions occurred. In response to these events, Congress enacted TRIA, which became effective on November 26, 2002. The purpose of TRIA is to establish a temporary federal program that provides for a system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism, in order to accomplish the following: (a) to protect consumers by addressing market disruptions and ensure the continued widespread availability and affordability of property and casualty insurance for terrorism risk; and (b) to allow for a transitional period for the private markets to stabilize, resume pricing of such insurance, and build capacity to absorb any future losses, while preserving state insurance regulation and consumer protections. TRIA provides a federal reinsurance backstop for three years (2003, 2004, and 2005) and gives the federal government authority to recoup federal payments made through policyholder surcharges up to a maximum annual limit in the event of a "certified loss." The premium charged for insured losses covered by TRIA and the federal share of compensation for insured losses under TRIA must be readily identifiable. The government reinsurance is provided at no cost to the insurer and replaces reinsurance that was no longer available after September 11, 2001. TRIA required insurers to immediately notify all commercial insurance policyholders that pre-existing terrorism risk exclusions were void. Pursuant to TRIA, insurers must price terrorism coverage separately from non-terrorism coverage. For most commercial policies, separate pricing gives the customer an opportunity to accept or decline the terrorism coverage. However, workers' comp insurers are not allowed to write exclusions for terrorism coverage. TRIA requires each insurer participant or retention group (insurers who are part of the same insurer group) to pay, without federal reimbursement, losses from terrorism events up to an attachment point or retention level/deductible. That retention is computed based upon the entire direct earned premiums of the insurer group in all commercial lines of insurance covered by TRIA, including workers' comp. TRIA does not affect any state's jurisdiction or regulatory authority over the business of insurance except as specifically provided therein. As to terrorism rate filings made in 2003, TRIA suspended state laws requiring prior approval of insurance rates for the risk of terrorism. TRIA does not affect the ability of a state to invalidate a rate filing that is determined to be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. There is no limit on workers' comp losses that an insurer must pay except for the schedule of benefits adopted into law in each state. The amount of workers' comp loss arising from a terrorist event is affected in large part by the schedule of benefits and the distribution of the various types of injuries that workers may sustain from a terrorist event. AIG had to make terrorism rate filings for all lines of insurance covered by TRIA in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Instead of focusing on each state's schedule of benefits, AIG made its initial rate filings in a fairly uniform manner, allegedly to accommodate TRIA's mandate for immediate implementation. NCCI is a workers' comp rating organization that gathers data from its members or subscribers, compiles the data, and makes rate filings on behalf of its members or subscribers. NCCI makes such filings in 36 states, including Florida. Every insurer writing workers' comp in Florida, including AIG, is either a member or subscriber to NCCI. In Florida, Section 627.211, Florida Statutes (2003), requires NCCI's members or subscribers to adhere to NCCI's rates, unless the insurer makes a deviation filing, seeking a uniform percentage decrease from or increase to NCCI's approved rates. On December 19, 2002, NCCI submitted its Item B 1383 terrorism rate filing for workers' comp coverage. The rate filing included rate provisions for both terrorism and non- terrorism coverage. James Watford, OIR's workers' comp actuary, reviewed NCCI's filing. Mr. Watford has spent the last 19 years reviewing workers' comp rate filings. He is the only who reviews workers' comp rate filings for OIR. Mr. Watford holds the designations of Associate in the Casualty Actuarial Society (ACAS) and Member of the American Academy of Actuaries (MAAA). Mr. Watford's review of NCCI's rate filing was unaided by any other actuary or actuarial analyst. Mr. Watford's office is a part of OIR's Bureau of Property and Casualty Rates and Forms. That bureau is organized to function according to type of insurance business, including but not limited to personal lines, automobile, marine, commercial (property and casualty), medical malpractice, business interruption, and workers' comp. Although workers' comp is a type of commercial insurance sold to employers, Mr. Watford has not participated in meetings involving terrorism rates for other types of commercial insurance. Additionally, Mr. Watford has not been involved in setting any policy for OIR. NCCI's December 19, 2002, terrorism filing applied only to insurance coverage known in the industry as "guaranteed cost plans." It did not apply to "retrospective rating plans," "large risk plans," or "large deductible plans" (referred to collectively as loss sensitive plans). Insurers are free to make their own arrangements with their insureds with respect to loss sensitive plans, provided those arrangements comport with the insurer's previous filings. A "guaranteed cost" workers' comp plan is a policy with a known rate at the inception of the policy period. At the end of the policy period, the insurer audits the employer's actual payroll during the policy period and determines the final premium. The cost is guaranteed because an employer knows its ultimate workers' comp responsibility throughout the policy period. A "retrospective rating plan" is a policy based on actual losses that the employer incurs during a policy period. Typically, the insurer issues the policy with parameters, explaining how the insurer will rate the policy. The ultimate price for a "retrospective rating plan," with preset minimum and maximum amounts, will depend on actual losses. A "large risk plan" and a "large deductible plan" are policies that require the employer to reimburse the carrier for a substantial part of each loss. These plans must comply with an administrative rule that provides for a minimum standard premium and a minimum deductible. The rationale for minimums in these types of policies is that they provide flexibility for very large employers, with unique risks, who assume a substantial portion of the losses. NCCI's terrorism rate filing sought to charge Florida insureds three cents ($.03) per $100 of payroll. The percentage impact of TRIA's terrorism provisions in Florida was eight- tenths of one percent (0.8%) of total premium. The rate filing relied in substantial part on catastrophe modeling conducted by EQECAT. The EQECAT modeling is based on simulated terrorism events in modeled states, including Florida. NCCI's December 19, 2002, terrorism filing states as follows in part:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That OIR enter a final order dismissing the Consolidated Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 21st day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4206 Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Kelly A. Cruz-Brown, Esquire Robert W. Pass, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4206 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
