The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Respondent has been charged in a one-count administrative complaint with violation of the following statutory provisions: Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(o)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John Joseph Devins, is currently licensed in the State of Florida as a life insurance agent, as a life and health insurance agent, as a general lines insurance agent, and as a health insurance agent. The Respondent is currently, and was at all times relevant and material to this proceeding, a stockholder and officer of Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc., of Stuart, Florida. Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc., is an insurance agency incorporated under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. The complaining consumer in this case, Ms. Louise Shellhammer, had carried homeowner's insurance with American Professional Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "American Professional") from 1986 until 1990. The agency of record for Ms. Shellhammer's American Professional homeowner's policy was the Devins-Varady Agency, Inc. Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's insurance policy was scheduled to lapse on or about November 25, 1990. In September of 1990, the Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Shellhammer informing her that her homeowner's insurance policy was up for renewal and that the Respondent had a new carrier that he thought Ms. Shellhammer should switch to. The letter requested that Ms. Shellhammer come into the Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc., and fill out a replacement application for her new insurance policy. Ms. Shellhammer failed to respond to the Respondent's letter because at the time she received the letter, she intended to change her homeowner's insurance to State Farm. Ms. Shellhammer did not follow through on her intentions in that regard and did not obtain replacement homeowner's insurance from State Farm in 1990. On or about November 15, 1990, the escrow department of Harbor Federal Savings and Loan (hereinafter referred to as "Harbor Federal"), the loss payee and holder of the mortgage on Ms.Shellhammer's home, sent a request to the Respondent for a bill for the renewal of Ms. Shellhammer's policy with American Professional. The premium for this policy was to be paid from escrowed funds held by Harbor Federal. The Respondent thereafter sent Ms. Shellhammer's renewal bill for her American Professional homeowner's policy to Harbor Federal. At the time of sending the bill to Harbor Federal, the Respondent did not attempt to bind renewal coverage with American Professional for Ms. Shellhammer. On or about November 28, 1990, the escrow department of Harbor Federal mailed a premium payment check to the Respondent in the amount of $263.00. That amount represented the renewal premium for Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's policy with American Professional. The check was mailed three days after the lapse of the insurance policy it was intended to renew. The Respondent received that check a few days later. Upon receipt of the check, the Respondent deposited the proceeds of the check into the premium trust account of the Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc. The Respondent failed to forward the renewal premium to American Professional or to any other insurer. The Respondent also failed to take any other action to obtain a renewal insurance policy for Ms. Shellhammer. These failures occurred primarily because of an oversight at the time the check from Harbor Federal was deposited for collection. At the time of depositing the check, there was an apparent failure to make a notation that follow-up action was necessary to procure an insurance policy for Ms. Shellhammer, and the follow-up action was simply overlooked. The Respondent did not become aware of the fact that he had failed to obtain insurance for Ms. Shellhammer until on or about June 12, 1991, when Ms. Shellhammer contacted him to report a burglary loss. When the Respondent pulled Ms. Shellhammer's file to process the loss claim he first discovered that she did not have insurance. Upon looking into the matter and discovering what had happened, the Respondent admitted to Ms. Shellhammer that he had made a mistake and that it was his fault that she did not have insurance. The Respondent told Ms. Shellhammer to make a list of her losses and told her that he would reimburse her for her losses. The Respondent and Ms. Shellhammer have since had some differences of opinion about the extent of Ms. Shellhammer's losses. Early in July of 1991, the Respondent repaid Harbor Federal the $263.00 that he had received from them for Ms. Shellhammer's insurance premium. The repayment was received by Harbor Federal on or about July 12, 1991. Ms. Shellhammer did not make any inquiry of the Respondent as to the status of her homeowner's insurance policy at any time between the date of the Respondent's letter in September of 1990 and the date she reported the burglary loss in June of 1991. Harbor Federal did not make any inquiry of the Respondent as to the status of Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's insurance policy between November 28, 1990, the date it mailed a premium check, and the date of the burglary loss report in June of 1991. American Professional did not make any inquiry of the Respondent as to the status of Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's insurance policy between November 25, 1990, the date the policy lapsed without being renewed, and the date of the burglary loss report in June of 1991. American Professional has done business with the Respondent and with the Respondent's agency for a number of years. With the exception of the incident that forms the basis for this proceeding, American Professional has never had any problems in its business relations with the Respondent or with the Respondent's agency.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 26th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 Mr. John Joseph Devins, pro se 5573 Southeast Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34997 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level II Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's license or eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined because of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, and whether Respondent should be denied a resident license to represent various insurance companies in this state because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Michael Eugene Best was either licensed or eligible for licensure as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a health insurance agent in the State of Florida, and was engaged in the sale and brokerage of insurance, doing business as M. E. Best Investments. The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for the monitoring and regulation of the insurance business in this state. Ms. Dorothy Clark, a 73 year old woman, has known and done business with Mr. Best in the insurance area for approximately ten years. In August, 1988, she met with him to discuss her possible purchase of some kind of insurance. She cannot recall what kind of insurance it was. She gave him some money to pay for the insurance in question, which was to be procured from some insurance company, the name of which she could not initially remember, but subsequently recalled to be American Sun Life Insurance Company. The premium payment which she gave to Mr. Best was in the amount of $1,200.00, but she cannot recall whether he was obliged to use that money for the purchase of insurance from that particular company, or whether he had the option to place the insurance with another company. To the best of her limited recollection, Mr. Best did get a policy for her from American Sun Life Insurance Company, but she cannot recall if she kept that policy or if it was changed to another company. She does not recall requesting him to change companies, however, but does recall that she ultimately received a policy issued by United American Life Insurance Company and that Mr. Best was the agent who procured it for her. At hearing she denied ever attempting to cancel the United American policy though she claims she did not want it. She claims that she never received a refund check from United American, however, a check payable to her in the amount of $799.90 was issued to her by that company with address shown as her home of record. The check bears what purports to be her endorsement on the back thereof, followed by the endorsement of Mr. Best's company, but at first she claimed she did not place it there. When shown the check at the hearing, however, she admitted the signature on the endorsement was hers and that she most likely signed it. This check was issued as a result of her unremembered direction to Mr. Best to cancel the policy. She claims she did not authorize Mr. Best to take the money it represented and use it for his purposes. She claims that the check was subsequently deposited by her to her account and that Mr. Best never got possession of it or the money. This is patently wrong, however, inasmuch as Mr. Best admits that he did have the check and placed his company's endorsement on it. He subsequently used the check, with her agreement, to apply toward a policy with another company, and to his recollection, she voluntarily endorsed the check to him. Ms. Clark also purchased a $30,000.00 annuity policy through Mr. Best with another company, the name of which she cannot recall, at about the same time as the first policy mentioned herein. To get this policy she issued a check to Mr. Best in the amount of $30,000.00. When the policy was issued, she requested that it be cancel led because by the time she received it, she had reconsidered and determined that she did not want it. She notified Mr. Best of her desires that the policy be cancelled, but claims she never communicated directly with the company. The company has a letter reputedly from her, however, which complains of Respondent's purported trickery and deceit. It is found that this latter letter was prepared for her signature by someone else. When Ms. Clark told Mr. Best she did not want the policy, and requested him to cancel it, he asked her to wait awhile, for some reason which was unclear to her. Instead, she indicated to him then that she did not want to do so but wanted her money back. Some time after this discussion, but before the policy was cancelled, Mr. Best came to see her and though she cannot recall if he got her to sign anything, she identified her signature on a letter to the company which had issued the annuity policy in question , which indicated that she was satisfied with the policy and withdrawing her request to cancel. She recalls Mr. Best requesting that she sign the letter, but cannot recall what he said at the time. As she remembers, he appeared normal when he came to see her, and she voluntarily signed the letter of her own free will. It is obvious, however, that Ms. Clark did not understand what was being said to her or what she was signing because, she claims, she still wanted the policy cancelled. Her recollection of the incident is shaky - and unsure. She cannot recall if Mr. Best made her sign the letter, and she cannot recall where she signed it. It may have been at her home or at some other location, but she does not know for certain. In addition, she cannot recall if the letter was typed when she signed it, or if the paper was blank. Though she contends Mr. Best tried to keep her from cancelling this annuity policy, at this time she cannot recall what he told her; what reasons he gave her; or why he wanted her to wait. Whenever she dealt with Mr. Best, he was not rude to her. She did not feel she was being forced by him to take out any insurance from him or to do any of the things or sign any of the documentation that she did. Ms. Clark filed the complaint against Mr. Best because she was told by someone that he had forged her name on a check. At the time she signed the complaint, and at the time of the hearing, she did not know whether he did it or not, nor does she know which check he is supposed to have forged. In fact, Ms. Clark finds it difficult to recall much of what had happened and is not sure of any of the facts to which she testified. She does know, and it is found, that all the money she paid to Mr. Best was reimbursed to her and she has lost nothing as a result of her dealing with him. Ms. Clark recalls that about this time, upon the advice of her attorney, Mr. Kanetsky, she engaged in dealings with another insurance agent who advised her to cancel the annuity policy and, in fact, wrote the letter of cancellation to the insurance company for her. Mr. Kanetsky, an attorney practicing in Venice, Florida, has worked with Ms. Clark for approximately ten years, primarily in the area of estate planning for her and her sister. Over the years, he has discussed with Ms. Clark various insurance policies and other financial products, and is aware of the insurance dealings involved in this case which he learned about from his discussions with his client. He claims that in August or September, 1988, Ms. Clark called his office and solicited advice from him as to how she could get rid of an insurance policy she did not want. He advised her to come in with all her papers to discuss it and at their first meeting, found that she had purchased the $30,000.00 annuity on the life of a niece, and also a health policy, from Respondent. The annuity policy was a single premium annuity, and the health policy had a $1,200.00 premium, for both of which, she had written checks. During this discussion Ms. Clark was quite sure that she did not want to keep the annuity policy. She was somewhat confused about the health policy, but was also satisfied that she didn't want it, though she could not elaborate why. Due to Ms. Clark's conditions, both financial and otherwise, Mr. Kanetsky felt she would be better off in a liquid position rather than having such a large annuity outstanding, and since she apparently wanted to cancel both policies, he agreed to help her. To do so, he first contacted an individual in the insurance business who was aware of Mr. Best and his operation. Upon advice of this individual, Mr. Kanetsky then contacted the insurance company on which the annuity policy had been written and requested that it be cancelled. Mr. Kanetsky also referred Ms. Clark to another insurance agent to get the health policy cancelled and a new policy issued. He also contacted Mr. Best to have him refund the $400.20 difference between the $1,200.00 which Ms. Clark had paid in as a premium on the health policy, and the $799.80 which had been refunded to her by the company when the first policy was cancelled. There is some misunderstanding as to how that first $799.80 check was handled. On its face, the check reflects it was sent to Ms. Clark who, in turn, endorsed it over to Mr. Best to be applied toward another policy. Mr. Kanetsky, on the other hand, indicates the check, though addressed to Ms. Clark, was actually sent to Mr. Best, who had Ms. Clark endorse it and who applied it to another policy. In any event, since Ms. Clark wanted that policy cancel led and apparently intended to do no further business with Mr. Best, Mr. Kanetsky requested that Best refund all monies paid. Mr. Best immediately issued his check for $400.20. The insurance company, apparently concluding it had sent the first check to Mr. Best by mistake, issued another check to Ms. Clark in the amount of $799.80, which represents the actual premium cost, with the balance being the agent's legitimate commission. Since Mr. Best had already forwarded his check for $799.80, when the second insurance company check was received it was immediately refunded to Mr. Best. The $30,000.00 paid in for the annuity policy was refunded to Ms. Clark directly by the insurance company. Mr. Kanetsky contends that notwithstanding he had written to Mr. Best to advise him to stay away from Ms. Clark, there is some indication that Best thereafter came to Ms. Clark's residence to discuss the annuity policy with her. Mr. Best does not deny having gone to Ms. Clark's home on several occasions; once to talk to her about the health and accident policy, and another time, to talk about the annuity. In both cases, however, this is a standard practice in the insurance industry, suggested by the company, to attempt to "conserve" the business by making a follow-up call in an effort to dissuade a policy holder from cancelling. It is found that no improper pressure was applied by Mr. Best in his efforts to conserve his sales. Over his years of experience with Ms. Clark, Mr. Kanetsky has found that she confuses easily, and though she is competent, she is extremely limited in business experience and understanding. She does not have a guardian of her property, but is clearly not equipped emotionally to handle many of her financial affairs. It is found that her recollection of the incidents in question here is so poor as to render her testimony almost irrelevant and without merit, and though she is quite sure she did not want the insurance she bought, and attempted to cancel it, she is totally unsure of the circumstances surrounding her relationship with Respondent and the details of any conversations and transactions she may have had with him. Consequently, her testimony, the only direct testimony regarding the issue of what transpired between her and Mr. Best, is, for all purposes here, worthless. Mr. Best denies threatening Ms. Clark or attempting to coerce her into purchasing insurance from him. When he saw her in August, 1988, it was the first time he had seen her for a while and had, in fact, forgotten about her until she came into his office to file a claim. At that point, he made an appointment with her for a review of her policy status. At that time Ms. Clark had no Medicare coverage, (she does now), and he offered to attempt to get her medical coverage, to which she agreed. She wrote a check for a policy to be issued by American Sun Life Insurance Company which, subsequently, rejected her. When the rejection came through, Mr. Best immediately notified her of that fact and told her then he would convert to another company, to which she agreed. Mr. Best is satisfied Ms. Clark understood he would apply the refund check he received from American Sun to the second policy issued by United American Life, and he did this. She thereafter cancelled that policy. After Mr. Best received notice of the cancellation, he went to her home to explain everything to her. At no time, however, did he threaten her, a fact to which she agrees. He claims she had received the initial refund from united American for $799.80, which she agreed he could apply toward a policy with another company, and she voluntarily endorsed the check over to him. She also cancelled this second policy. With regard to the annuity policy, when she notified the company that she was cancelling it, he received notice of this from the home office which suggested he do what he could to conserve the business. When he went to see her about it, she agreed, he claims, that she would keep the policy. At that time he wrote out, by hand, a note to be signed by her indicating her satisfaction with the policy and her desire it be maintained. When the company thereafter indicated it preferred a typed statement to that effect, he went to her with a typed notice which said the same thing, and which Ms. Clark signed. No threats were made, and Ms. Clark agrees to this. Mr. Best also sold an insurance policy to an Ann Ward, which she cancelled for a reason totally unrelated to the Respondent. When Mr. Best found out she had cancelled the policy, he went to see her to inquire as to her reasons. At that time, as in all her dealings with him over a period of time, he was not, and she has never found him to be, overbearing, unprofessional, or coercive. In all their transactions together, he has always fully explained his product, and on the basis of their relationship, she would be happy to deal with him again. When Ms. Ward cancelled her policy, the company wrote to Mr. Best and advised him of this fact and that he must refund a portion of the premium which it had paid to him as a commission. When he received this letter, he called the company and authorized it to withhold from the amount owed to him for renewal commissions, any amount the company claimed as reimbursement. He claims to have believed this procedure, a standard action within the industry, satisfied his obligation to the company. He was, therefore, quite surprised when the company complained and he immediately wrote a check to the company to cover the balance due it which is now paid in full. However, the evidence of record shows he was sent several notices of delinquency, even several for the balance after he authorized the company to take his earned commissions, without his taking any action and the company ultimately, on December 22, 1988, terminated his agency. His failure to pay over is found to be more negligent than willful, however. Mr. Best has been in the insurance business since 1979 and claims he has had no prior administrative complaints filed against him since that time. The Department showed none.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint relating to the Respondent, Michael Eugene Best, be dismissed; and that as to Count III, he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Best's applications to represent World Insurance Company, Travellers Life Insurance Company, and American Integrity Insurance Company be denied, such denial to be without prejudice to re-filing of the applications at a later time to be set by the Department. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, as to all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted in this case. FOR THE PETITIONER; 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. -10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15.&16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted and incorporated herein, with the understanding that the failure to deal with American Sun Life was not due to any misconduct of Respondent but because of the Company's rejection of Ms. Clark. 18.-20. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 21.-24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25.-27. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 28.-31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32.&34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Christopher Anderson, III, Esquire Office of Legal Services Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Michael E. Sweeting, Esquire Pflaum, Dannheisser and Sweeting, P. A. 100 Wallace Avenue, Suite 210 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be licensed as a title agent by the Department of Financial Services?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ms. Shirley Auxais, the Petitioner, was born on November 20, 1971, in Brooklyn, New York. She is presently a resident of Coral Springs, Florida. Formerly married, Ms. Auxais' married name was Shirley A. Seraphin. The Department of Financial Services, the Respondent, was created by the Florida Legislature in the 2002 Session. Section 20.121, Florida Statutes. It is responsible for taking action on the license application submitted by Ms. Auxais and has been substituted as the Respondent in this proceeding for the Department of Insurance, the agency that issued the notice of denial. See B., 1Note to Section 120.121, Florida Statutes (2002), p. 400. Unemployment Compensation Fraud On February 17, 1998, the State Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit filed an information against Ms. Auxais for unemployment compensation fraud, a felony. See Section 443.071(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the filing, Ms. Auxais' name was Shirley A. Seraphin. The information charged the following: Shirley A. Seraphin from on or about the 13th day of August, A.D., 1995 up to and including the 16th day of September A.D., 1995, . . ., did . . . make a false statement or representation on her Pay Order Card(s), Florida Department of Labor Form UCB60 and/or UCB61, knowing said statement or representation to be false, or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact to obtain or increase benefits or other payments for her or any other person, in that the said Shirley A. Seraphin did knowingly state on her pay order cards that she was unemployed and not earning wages during the aforesaid period, when in fact and truth she was employed . . ., and earning wages which she willfully failed to report, and the said false statement was made or material fact not disclosed with the intent to obtain or increase benefits pursuant to the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law Respondent's Exhibit 3. Ms. Auxais, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County (the "Court") entered a plea of "No Contest" to the charges. On June 18, 1998, Ms. Auxais upon the motion of the State, was ordered by the Court to pay restitution to the Division of Unemployment Compensation "in the total sum of Eight hundred twenty-five and 00/100 ($825)." Respondent's Exhibit 5. On June 18, 1998, an Order of Probation was rendered by the Court in Ms. Auxais' case pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere to Unemployment Compensation Fraud as reflected on the face of the order. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Ms. Auxais was placed on "18 months mail in probation." Respondent's Exhibit 6. Slightly more than four months later, an order was entered by the Court that terminated Ms. Seraphin's probation. Application for Licensure as a Title Agent On May 13, 2002, Ms. Auxais submitted an application for a new license as a title agent to the Department of Insurance's Bureau of Agent and Agency Licensing. The license applied for, according to the application is "04-10-Resident Title Agent." Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 7. The application poses a number of screening questions. Two are immediately adjacent to each other in the order that follows: In the past 12 months, have you been arrested, indicted, or had an information filed against you or been otherwise charged with a crime by any law enforcement authority anywhere in the United States or its possessions or any other country. Have you ever been charged, convicted, found guilty or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered. Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 8. The answer shown on the application to both questions is "N" which stands for "no." Six months later, on November 14, 2002, the Notice of Denial was issued. The factual basis for the denial consists of two interrelated facts. First, Ms. Auxais responded "no" to the question of whether she had ever pled no contest to a crime. Second, Ms. Auxais had pled no contest to Unemployment Compensation Fraud, a felony, in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County. Explanations In the interim between the submission of the application and the denial, Ms. Auxais, in a letter to a Regulatory Consultant at the Department of Insurance, offered "explanations . . . in regard to the cases filed against [her] . . .". Respondent's Exhibit 9, page 25. The first explanation concerns a criminal charge of "larceny by credit card." The charge is not related to the Department's basis for denial. Nonetheless, the explanation sheds light on Ms. Auxais' credibility. It has value to this case, moreover, because Ms. Auxais chose in her testimony at hearing to explain further her written explanation. She did so as she attempted, at the same time, to explain away the false answer on her application with regard to the nolo contendere plea for Unemployment Compensation Fraud, the second explanation in her letter in November of 2002 to the Department of Insurance. The explanation to the unrelated charge (the first explanation offered in the letter to the Department of Insurance) follows: Arrest Date: 3/13/95. Charge: Larceny Credit Card I went shopping with an ex-associate. I was not aware of the fact that she had obtained a credit card and attempted to use it unlawfully. When security began to question the nature of the card she fled the scene and I was held, arrested and charged for Larceny Credit Card. I explained the nature of the incident to the defense attorney appointed to me who suggested I plead no-contest. The courts ruled adjudication withheld. (Respondent's Exhibit 9). With regard to a question about whether her ex-associate had ever been charged with some type of theft crime for the incident, Ms. Auxais testified, "No she was never found. I can't find her to this day." (Tr. 44, 45). The second explanation relates to the felony of Unemployment Compensation Fraud: Arrest Date: 4/29/98 Charge: Fraud/Unemployment I worked for a group of physicians one of whom split from the group. At that time the other physicians felt threatened since I worked directly for the physician who decided to leave and I got fired. During this time I filed for unemployment. While I was on unemployment and receiving benefits the physician gave me a gift (so I thought) in the sum of $400.00. I was not aware that her accountant documented the $400.00 as employment. Some months later after she re-opened her new practice and I resumed working for her I among other employees received a letter from the unemployment office notifying us of unemployment fraud and they demanded repayment of the monies I received in the amount of $800.00. When I explained the situation to the physician she agreed to repay unemployment. I set up a payment plan with unemployment however the physician's accountant did not keep up with the payment which caused me to get arrested for unemployment fraud. (Id.) At hearing, in the midst of elaborating on these two explanations, Ms. Auxais offered an explanation for how it happened that her application had been submitted with the false answer of "no" to the screening question of whether she had ever pled "no contest" to a crime when, in fact, she had pled nolo contendere or no contest to crimes twice. Her explanation in this regard was: I personally did not fill out the application for the title insurance thing on line. My supervisor did it for me[.] [A]t the time that the application was filled out for me on line[,] I was in title insurance training in Tampa . . . But you just don't go around telling everybody that yes I was charged with unemployment compensation fraud after you thought everything was done. I guess the person who filled out the application for me was not aware that I was charged with a felony, so when the question was asked, had I ever been charged with a felony, they checked no. When it came back, I had already signed the last page of that prior to leaving, because you can actually print out the application. The application was sent out with that. (Tr. 30). Before transmitting it to the Department of Insurance, Ms. Auxais did not read the filled-out application. She testified she did not have the opportunity to so "[b]ecause [she] was in the midst of trying to go out of town and [she] was in the midst of trying to get [the] application out for a deadline . . .". (Tr. 64). There are at least two problems with this explanation. Both relate to the declaration that appears above the signature line in the application: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for licensure and that the facts stated in it are true. Respondent's Exhibit 2, p. 000011 of Respondent's Exhibits. If Ms. Auxais is to be believed, she had not, in fact, read the application with answers before signing it so that her attestation by way of her signature was false. The other problem occurs with her reading of the application after it had been signed, filled out, sent in and discovered by the Department of Insurance to be false. On this point, Ms. Auxais had yet another explanation. This explanation has as its basis Ms. Auxais' reading of the two screening questions quoted in paragraph 10, above. The first of the two has a time frame with regard to the question it asks about criminal arrests or charges. "In the past 12 months," is the predicate to the question. The second question, has no such time limitation. It asks whether the applicant has "ever" pled nolo contendere or no contest to a crime. When confronted by a Department of Insurance employee, "a Mr. Thomas" with the false answer to the second question, Ms. Auxais testified, "I . . . explained to him that even after going back and re-reading everything I would have still said no because the prior question asked within the past 12 months." (Tr. 60, 61). In other words, Ms. Auxais construed the second question to be limited by the time frame of the first so that contrary to its plain inquiry as to whether she had "ever" pled nolo contendere or no contest to a crime, it really asked whether she had so pled within the previous 12 months. Ms. Auxais is a college graduate. She plans to continue her education post-graduate by attending law school and regards employment as a licensed title insurance agent as a stepping stone to a career in law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a title insurance agent. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Auxais 9022 West Atlantic Boulevard, No. 227 Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact First Fidelity Savings and Loan Association (First Fidelity) is a state chartered savings and loan association founded in Winter Park, Florida, in late 1980. In November, 1982, First Fidelity acquired American Pioneer Corporation. On December 31, 1982, First Fidelity also acquired by merger First Federal of Martin County. As of January 1, 1983, the organization consisted of First Fidelity with one retail office in Winter Park and eight retail offices in Martin County, and the American Pioneer Corporation, with its wholly-owned subsidiaries American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, American Pioneer Casualty Insurance Company, American Pioneer Title Insurance Company, American Pioneer Properties, and American Pioneer Land. Since that time, First Fidelity has acquired seven retail offices of Flagship Bank of Orlando. Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association (Pioneer Federal) is a federally chartered savings and loan association formed by a merger between Clearwater Federal Savings and Loan Association and Park Federal Savings and Loan Association on February 1, 1982. Currently, Pioneer Federal has a total of 50 branch offices in Florida, including Gadsden, Leon, Santa Rosa, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Sarasota, Lee, Collier, Orange, Seminole, and Lake Counties. American Savings and Loan Association of Florida (American Savings) is a state chartered savings and loan association with headquarters in Miami. American Savings has a total of 54 branch offices, 48 of which are in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Although all three institutions have expansion plans, First Fidelity now competes with American Savings only in Lee County and with Pioneer Federal in Orange, Seminole, Hillsborough, and Lee Counties. The purpose for Petitioner's name change is to establish a unified corporate image, whereby the public would associate the various companies and their services. The proposed name change would result in advertising cost savings and is expected to increase the opportunities for profits from cross- selling of insurance and financial services. There is no evidence of actual name confusion since the proposed name change has not been approved. The evidence offered by the parties on the issue of confusion is therefore based on experience in analogous situations and survey responses. The experience of American Pioneer Title Insurance Company, after use of that name was authorized by the Department of Insurance, was submitted by Petitioner as evidence of whether con fusion would exist if the name change proposed herein is approved. As here, Petitioner previously sought the name American Pioneer Title Insurance Company to identify the relationship of its title insurance business with other American Pioneer services. There has been no known confusion between American Pioneer Title Insurance Company and either American Title Insurance Company or Pioneer National Title Insurance Company (the companies objecting to the change) since this name change was approved. Petitioner's evidence established that no mail has been misdelivered to American Pioneer Title, nor has anyone walked into its offices mistaking them for American Title or Pioneer National. Financial institutions frequently adopt names which imply solidarity or strength and instill confidence. Because of the limited number of such words, names of individual financial institutions are often similar. For example, every savings and loan association based in Brevard County was at one tame named First Federal (First Federal of Titusville, First Federal of Cocoa, First Federal of Brevard County). Although some institutions have changed their names to avoid geographical limitations, there are still a significant number of institutions in Florida doing business as First Federal. Other names of Florida financial institutions which are similar include Sun Bank and Sun Federal, American Savings and Amerifirst, The America's Bank and American Bank of Merritt Island, First Federal of Orlando and First Federal of Seminole, First National Bank and The First Bankers. The word "America" or "American" is commonly used in the names of financial and insurance institutions. According to the Directory of American Savings and Loan Association and Polk's World Bank Directory, there are 73 different main offices and 1,027 branch offices of savings and loan associations and 415 banks that use the word "America" or "American" in their name. The word "Pioneer" is also commonly used in the names of financial and insurance institutions. According to the Best's Insurance Reports, there are 14 insurance companies using the word "Pioneer" in their names. In addition, a Dun and Bradstreet report revealed there are at least 690 companies in the United States that used the word "Pioneer" in their names. Thus, the public is necessarily accustomed to distinguishing companies which have similar or somewhat similar names. Petitioner and Pioneer Federal each retained experts to prepare studies on potential name confusion. Petitioner's study was prepared by Datafax, a consumer research company located in Winter Park. Surveys were conducted in Tampa, Orlando, Clearwater, Miami Beach and Stuart with 50 people interviewed in each city. The Datafax survey indicated that 96 percent of the 250 people surveyed were not confused between the names American Pioneer Savings and Loan and American Savings and Loan of Florida. Similarly, 95.6 percent of the 250 people surveyed were not confused between the names Pioneer Federal and American Pioneer Savings and Loan. The survey further indicated greater confusion between Sun Federal and Sun Bank (17.6 percent) and Amerifirst and American Savings (16.4 percent) than between Petitioner's proposed name and those of either of the Respondent institutions. Further, there was greater confusion indicated between Petitioner's existing name of First Fidelity Savings and Loan and that of First National Bank of Winter Park, than between Petitioner's proposed name and those of either of the Respondent institutions. The results of the Datafax inquiry relating to logotypes, indicates that the public would differentiate between American Pioneer and Pioneer Federal and American Savings with little difficulty. 99.2 percent of the people surveyed were not confused between the names and logotypes of American Pioneer Savings and Loan and American Savings and Loan of Florida. 95.6 percent of the 250 people surveyed were not confused between the names and logotypes of Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan and American Pioneer Savings and Loan. A second purpose of the Datafax study concerned the reasons customers give for selection of their financial institutions. The survey revealed that services, location, convenience and personnel rather than institutional names are the primary considerations. Pioneer Federal's study was prepared by Dr. Joel B. Cohen, of the University of Florida, in association with National Analysts, represented by Dr. Marshall G. Greenberg. The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not customers would he confused by pairs of savings and loan names having word similarities. Three hundred people were surveyed by telephone in Winter Park. Petitioner's study prepared by Datafax relied on answers to questions where the subjects were asked whether or not they were confused. Results of the Pioneer Federal study are more difficult to quantify since the subjects were not asked directly whether or not they were confused by pairs of names. Rather, a series of questions was asked to test name recognition and recall of hypothetical interest rates offered by various institutions. The results of the Pioneer Federal Study indicated that 70 percent of the sample would experience some confusion between the names Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan and American Pioneer Savings and Loan. The disparity in results between the two studies can be attributed in part to the difference in interview approach (direct questions as opposed to testing of recall). Further, the Datafax study included face to face contact and the opportunity for subjects to read and visually examine written names and/or logotypes. These sources of stimulation were absent in the Pioneer Federal telephone survey. The Datafax survey results may not be reliably projected due to the absence of several scientifically necessary survey procedures. Convenience sampling rather than probability sampling procedures were followed in that interviewers were at liberty to select their subjects (within given zones). There were no "call-back" procedures used and no quality control checks performed on the interviewers. Finally, the five cities utilized were not selected on a random basis. Although the Pioneer Federal survey more closely adhered to accepted survey standards, results cannot be reliably projected beyond the Winter Park community. There was no showing that Winter Park, the city intentionally selected for the survey, is representative of any larger community. However, both studies present credible evidence on the issue of name confusion and their data must be considered in reaching a factual conclusion on this issue. Overall, the public will experience at least some confusion if the proposed name change is granted Such confusion is most likely to occur where the contact with the institution is brief or casual. It is unlikely that a prudent person seeking to utilize the services of any of the three savings and loan associations which are parties to this proceeding would experience any significant confusion if the requested name change is approved. FILED this 30th day of July, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 30th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher K. Kay, Esquire Thomas F. Lang, Esquire SWANN and HADDOCK Post Office Box 640 Orlando, Florida 32802-0640 Carl B. Morstadt, Esquire Office of the Comptroller Post Office Box 10544 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce D. Fischman, Esquire BROAD and CASSEL 1108 Kane Concourse Bay Harbor Island, Florida 33154 Dennis P. Thompson, Esquire 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
