The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Margaret Louise Herget, committed the offenses alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on December 9, 2005, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals licensed to conduct insurance business in Florida. Ch. 626, Fla. Stat.1 Respondent Margaret Louise Herget was, at the times relevant, licensed in Florida as a general lines (property and casualty) insurance agent. Ms. Herget's license number is A117083. At the times relevant to this matter, the Department has had jurisdiction over Ms. Herget's insurance licenses and appointments. At the times relevant to this matter, Ms. Herget was the president and a director of A & M Insurance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "A&M"). A&M was incorporated in 1991 and has been operating as an insurance agency in Broward County, Florida. At the times relevant to this matter, A&M had a business bank account with Bank Atlantic of Ft. Lauderdale. Ms. Herget has been an authorized signatory on the account since 1998. At the times relevant to this matter, Ms. Herget maintained a contractual relationship with Citizens Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Citizens"), an insurer. Pursuant to this contractual relationship, all applications and premiums for Citizens's products received by Ms. Herget were to be submitted to Citizens within five business days. Albert Herget. Albert Herget,2 Ms. Herget's husband until their marriage was dissolved in September 2003, also maintained a contractual relationship with Citizens. Mr. Herget, who was licensed as a general lines agent by the Department, was appointed by Citizens to write Citizens' property and casualty insurance. Mr. and Ms. Herget were both authorized signatories on A&M's bank account from 1998 until June 2003. Ms. Herget continued as the sole authorized signatory on the account after June 2003. Mr. Herget was also an officer of A&M until October 6, 2003, when he resigned. A&M was named after "Albert" & "Margaret" Herget. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Herget was under the direct supervision and control of Ms. Herget. The evidence also failed to prove that Ms. Herget knew or should have known of any act by Mr. Herget in violation of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Count I: The Camp Transaction. In June 2002 Michael Camp and Rosemary Mackay-Camp went to A&M to purchase hazard, windstorm, and flood insurance. The Camps met with and discussed their needs with Mr. Herget. On or about June 11, 2002, the Camps paid $2,273.97 by check number 365 made out to "A & M Insurance" for "Flood, Wind & Home Insurance." The premium for the windstorm insurance amounted to $1,026.00. The check was given to Mr. Herget and was deposited in A&M's bank account on or about June 12, 2002. On or about June 11, 2002, the Camps were given a document titled "Evidence of Property Insurance," which indicated that they had purchased insurance on their home for the period June 14, 2002, through June 14, 2003. The windstorm insurance was to be issued by Citizens. Initials purporting to be those of Ms. Herget and a stamp of Ms. Herget's name and insurance license number appear in a box on the Evidence of Property Insurance form titled "Authorized Representative." Ms. Herget testified credibly that the initials were not placed there by her.3 There is also a notation, "Paid in Full Ck # 365" and "Albert," written in Mr. Herget's handwriting on the Evidence of Property of Insurance form. Mr. Herget also gave the Camps the note evidencing the receipt of their payment. The Camps, merchant marines, left the country after paying for the insurance they desired on their home and did not return until sometime in 2003. Upon their return they inquired about why their windstorm insurance had not been renewed and discovered that they had never been issued the windstorm insurance coverage they had paid A&M for in 2002. The Camps attempted several times to contact Ms. Herget by telephone. Their attempts were unsuccessful. They wrote a letter of inquiry to Ms. Herget on October 29, 2003. Ms. Herget did not respond to their inquiry. Having received no response to their inquiry of October 29, 2003, Mr. Camp wrote to Ms. Herget on or about December 5, 2003, and demanded that she either provide proof of the windstorm policy the Camps had paid for or refund the premium paid therefor. By letter dated December 11, 2003, Ms. Herget informed Mr. Camp of the following: We have determined that your policy was submitted to Citizen's (Formerly FWUA) and was never issued due to a request for additional information which was not received. Ultimately the application and funds were returned to our agency. Enclosed please find our agency check for 1026.00 representing total refund of premium paid. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. Enclosed with the letter was a full refund of the premium which the Camps had paid for the windstorm insurance they never received. The Camps accepted the refund. While the hazard and flood insurance purchased by the Camps had been placed by A&M, the windstorm insurance had not been placed, as acknowledged by Ms. Herget in her letter of December 11, 2003. A&M's bank records indicate that a check for the windstorm insurance in the amount of $1,026.00 was written to Citizens on or about June 14, 2002, but that the check had never been cashed. Although this explanation appears contrary to the explanation given by Ms. Herget to the Camps in her letter of December 11, 2003, neither explanation was refuted by the Department. More importantly, regardless of why the windstorm insurance purchased by the Camps was not obtained by A&M, the weight of the evidence suggests that the fault lies not with Ms. Herget, but with Mr. Herget, who actually dealt with the Camps. The evidence also proved that it was not until sometime in late 2003 that Ms. Herget learned of the error and, upon investigating the matter, ultimately refunded in-full the amount paid by the Camps. The evidence failed to prove that any demand was made by Citizens for the premium for windstorm paid by the Camps or that she willfully withheld their premium. Count II: The Cipully Transaction. Carol Cipully began purchasing homeowner's insurance from A&M in 1999. In July 2003 Ms. Cipully refinanced her home. She believed that her homeowner's insurance would continue after the refinancing with her current insurance carrier, Citizens, through A&M. First American Title Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "First American") handled the closing of the refinancing. First American was responsible for issuing a check to A&M after closing in payment for the homeowner's insurance policy. Closing took place July 23, 2003. By check dated July 30, 2003, First American paid $1,658.00 to A&M for Ms. Cipully's insurance coverage.4 Of this amount, $1,435.00 was for hazard insurance with Citizens and $223.00 was for flood insurance from Omaha Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Omaha Insurance"). The check was received and deposited in the bank account of A&M on August 4, 2003. An Evidence of Property Insurance form was issued by A&M for Ms. Cipully's insurance on or about July 25, 2003. The form was initialed by Ms. Herget. A month or so after the closing, a water leak, which had caused property damage, was discovered in Ms. Cipully's home. When she attempted to contact her homeowner's insurer she ultimately discovered that the premium payment made by First American had not been remitted to Citizens or Omaha Insurance by A&M and, therefore, she had no homeowner's insurance. Ms. Cipully contacted Ms. Herget by telephone and was assured by Ms. Herget that she had insurance.5 Ms. Cipully's daughter, Tina Cipully, attempted to resolve the problem with Ms. Herget on behalf of her mother. In response to Tina Cipully's inquiries, Ms. Herget, rather than look into the matter herself, informed Tina Cipully that proof need to be provided to her by or on behalf of Ms. Cipully that would prove that a premium check had been sent to A&M from First American. Tina Cipully attempted to comply with Ms. Herget's request, contacting First American. An employee of First American faxed a copy of the cancelled check for $1,658.00 to Tina Cipully.6 A copy of the Evidence of Property Insurance dated July 25, 2003, from A&M was also faxed by First American to Tina Cipully. Tina Cipully sent a copy of the check she received from First American to Ms. Herget. She also sent a copy of a HUD-1 statement. When she later spoke to Ms. Herget, however, Ms. Herget told her she could not read the documents. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Herget received a legible copy of the check. The copy of the HUD-1 form, while not totally legible, did evidence that $1,658.00 was to be withheld for payment of insurance premiums. Despite the fact that the check in the amount shown on the HUD-1 statement had been deposited in A&M's bank account, Ms. Herget continued to insist that Ms. Cipully prove her entitlement to redress. Had she made any effort, Ms. Herget should have discovered that a check in the amount of $1,658.00 had been deposited in A&M's bank account on August 4, 2003. Three and a-half months after having received the First American check, Citizens, after verifying that First American had paid for hazard insurance on behalf of Ms. Cipully, contacted Ms. Herget and requested payment of Ms. Cipully's insurance premium. Six months after being notified by Citizens, Ms. Herget paid Citizens the $1,435.00 insurance premium A&M had received in August 2003. The payment was made by check dated May 28, 2004. Ms. Herget did not explain why it took six months after being notified that Ms. Cipully had indeed paid her insurance premium to pay Citizens. Omaha Insurance had not been paid the $223.00 premium received by A&M in August 2003 at the time of the final hearing of this matter. Ms. Herget failed to explain why. Count IV: The Parker Transaction. On March 20, 2004, Elric Parker, who previously purchased homeowner's insurance from Citizens through A&M, went to A&M to renew his policy. He gave Ms. Herget a check dated March 20, 2004, for $1,064.00 in payment of six months of coverage.7 Ms. Herget gave Mr. Parker a receipt dated March 20, 2004, for the payment. The check was endorsed by Ms. Herget and deposited into the banking account of A&M on or about March 22, 2004. After waiting approximately three months for the arrival of a renewal policy which Ms. Herget told Mr. Parker he would receive, Mr. Parker became concerned and decided to contact A&M. He was repeatedly assured, at least on one occasion by Ms. Herget, that the renewal policy would be received. Mr. Parker subsequently contacted representatives of Citizens directly and was informed by letter dated January 8, 2005, that his insurance with Citizens had been cancelled in April 2004 for non-payment of the $1,064.00 premium Mr. Parker had paid to A&M. Rather than attempt to resolve the problem with Ms. Herget and A&M, Mr. Parker continued to deal directly with Citizens. After providing proof to Citizens of his payment of the premium to A&M, Citizens offered to issue a new policy effective April 2004 upon payment by Mr. Parker of the second six-month premium or, in the alternative, to apply his payment in March 2004 to a new policy for 2005. Mr. Parker opted to have his payment applied toward the issuance of a new policy providing coverage in 2005. This meant that he had no coverage for most of 2004 and part of 2005. Citizens notified Ms. Herget that the payment she had received from Mr. Parker should be remitted to Citizens. Ms. Herget investigated the matter and, when she confirmed that she had received his payment, paid Citizens $1,064.00 on or about February 10, 2005. Ms. Herget and A&M failed to remit Mr. Parker's insurance premium payment received in March 2004 until payment was made to Citizens in February 2005. That payment was made only after inquires from Mr. Parker and, ultimately, Citizens. While Ms. Herget speculated that Mr. Parker's file was misfiled and not properly processed, the failure to remit Mr. Parker's premium payment for almost a year was not explained by either party. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Ms. Herget failed to remit the premium to Citizens willfully or that she failed to remit the premium once it was determined that A&M had failed to so and demand was made by Citizens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Margaret L. Herget violated the provision of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2003), described, supra, and suspending her license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 29th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact In October 1981, Respondent Edward Willison Carroll, III, purchased the Friendly Auto Insurance Agency from Richard Paul Jackson. On or about February 5, 1982, Bobby L. Hancock and Janice Fels Hancock went to the Friendly Auto Insurance Agency to purchase liability coverage and comprehensive coverage on one of their vehicles. An employee of Respondent, Judy Conrad, completed one application for liability and another for comprehensive insurance, listing the drivers as Bobby Hancock, Janice Hancock, and Michael Fels, who was Mrs. Hancock's 16-year-old son. About two weeks later the Hancocks were notified that Michael Fels' driver license number was needed and that there was an error regarding Mr. Hancock's birth date which needed to be corrected. Very shortly after being notified, Mr. Hancock and Michael Fels returned to the Friendly Auto Insurance Agency to provide the requested information. The underwriting information referred to in paragraph 4, supra, was not supplied to Protective Casualty Insurance Company, which provided the liability insurance on the Hancocks' vehicle through the negligence of the Respondent or his agents. Protective Casualty mailed several requests for the missing underwriting information to the Friendly Auto Insurance Agency and finally, on April 1, 1982, mailed to Friendly Auto a notice of cancellation effective May 16, 1982. Neither Respondent nor any of his employees at the Friendly Auto Insurance Agency notified the Hancocks of the cancellation of the liability coverage by Protective Casualty. In July 1982, the Hancocks separated. Janice Hancock retained the vehicle which the Hancocks had insured through Respondent's agency, and she and her son continued to drive it. On or about July 1, 1982, Respondent instructed his employee, Laurie Starr, to complete a second application for liability insurance for the Hancocks. Accordingly, Ms. Starr completed an application and signed Respondent's name to it. Bobby Hancock's signature was placed upon the application to Allied by someone other than Bobby Hancock and without his knowledge or consent. Said application differed from the original application of Bobby and Janice Hancock by omitting coverage on Michael Fels, Mrs. Hancock's son. These were willful acts. In October 1982, Janice Hancock received a partial refund from Perry, her insurance financing company. This check reflects a different policy number than the insurance policy issued by Protective Casualty Insurance Company, the policy which was cancelled. It was only after the Hancocks received the refund checks that they became aware that their liability insurance had been cancelled and that the Allied policy had been obtained for their benefit by Respondent's agency.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his suspended insurance license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to regulate the business of insurance, including the licensing of insurance agents, and to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is, and at all material times was, licensed in Florida as an insurance agent and subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Petitioner's license was suspended on or about July 16, 2004. Petitioner's license suspension arises from a September 11, 2003, Final Order in Department case number 65103- 03-AG (Final Order) issued against the Petitioner. The Final Order determined that the Petitioner was guilty of violating Sections 626.651(1), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes, and suspended his license and eligibility for licensure for a period of nine months. Petitioner exercised his right to judicial review of the Final Order. In due course, the Final Order was affirmed, per curiam, by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. The suspension of Petitioner's license pursuant to the Final Order became effective with the issuance of an Order Terminating a Stay of Final Order entered on July 27, 2004 (the Order Terminating Stay). The Order Terminating Stay provided that Petitioner's license and eligibility for licensure would be placed on suspension for a period of nine months, commencing July 16, 2004. The Order Terminating Stay of Final Order also stated that: Pursuant to Section 626.641(4), Florida Statutes, during the period of suspension the Respondent shall not engage in or attempt or profess to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or appointment is required under the Insurance Code or directly or indirectly, own, control, or be employed in any manner by any insurance agent or agency or adjuster or adjusting firm. Pursuant to Section 626.641(1), Florida Statutes, Respondent's licensure shall not be reinstated except upon request for such reinstatement, and the Respondent shall not engage in the transaction of insurance until his license is reinstated. The Department shall not grant such reinstatement if it finds that the circumstance or circumstances for which the license(s) was suspended still exist or are likely to recur. Petitioner properly requested reinstatement of his license effective April 16, 2005. The Request for Reinstatement of Suspended License/New ID License Request form requires acknowledgment by the individual seeking reinstatement that: the circumstances which led to the suspension of my license(s) no longer exist and are not likely to recur . . . I understand that my request for reinstatement in no way guarantees that my license(s) will be reinstated. At all times material to this case, Petitioner was employed by American Professional Insurance, also known as Ampro (Ampro). More specifically, at all times relevant to the allegations made by the Department in its Notice of Denial, Petitioner was an employee, director, and shareholder of Ampro. Feehan, as previously noted, is the owner and operator of JTS, a cabinetry business. Feehan had been an insurance client of Ampro from 1999-2004 and had experienced no problems in the relationship. The business relationship between Feehan and Petitioner ended following a fire at JTS on July 29, 2004, when Feehan learned that there was no insurance coverage for the fire. Feehan filed a complaint with the Department, which complaint was investigated and thereafter formed the primary basis for the Notice of Denial. On or about May 4, 2004, Feehan executed a form provided by Petitioner for the purpose of renewing coverage for JTS for general liability as well as for the building that JTS occupied at 75 Northwest 18th Avenue (JTS building). Feehan paid for this insurance by check in the amount of $3,850.00. The check was made out to Ampro and was deposited into the payroll account of Ampro. At all times material to this case, Petitioner has exclusive signature authority for this account. Feehan knew the check he had issued had been negotiated and believed he had insurance for JTS through Ampro. Feehan never received a copy of any insurance policy for JTS, nor was Feehan provided any type of identification of the policy number. Feehan was instead provided by Petitioner with certificates of liability insurance which identified the Nautilus Insurance Company (Nautilus) as the insurer. Petitioner partially completed the certificates, omitting any specific policy number. Petitioner signed the incomplete certificates and provided them to Feehan. Feehan required the certificates to show its contractors that JTS had general liability insurance. On July 29, 2004, a fire occurred at JTS' building. Feehan attempted to make a claim. By this time, Petitioner's suspension had taken effect. Feehan made several unavailing efforts to contact Petitioner. Feehan eventually accepted the services of a freelance adjuster who was on the scene at the fire (the freelance adjuster). The freelance adjuster informed Feehan that JTS did not have any insurance coverage in place. Nevertheless, on his own initiative, Feehan then tried to contact the Continental Insurance Company (Continental) directly and file a claim. Feehan decided to contact Continental because Feehan had seen Continental's name on several of the documents provided to JTS from Ampro. Continental also informed Feehan that JTS had no insurance. As of October 19, 2005, Feehan had yet to receive a full or partial refund of the $3,850.00 Feehan had paid to Ampro for insurance coverage for JTS. Steve Finver (Finver) is the President of Continental Agency of Florida (CAF), a business which acts as an insurance wholesaler and assists retail agents in placing insurance coverage. Finver oversees the entire operations of CAF, which include Continental. Finver is an authorized representative of Continental and has access to the records kept in the ordinary course of business. Nautilus is among the insurance carriers that Finver works with. Finver had enjoyed a business relationship with the Petitioner and Ampro which dated back a generation. The relationship soured in the fall of 2003 over bad checks for policies of insureds that Ampro wrote to Continental. In response, Finver imposed upon Petitioner a requirement that Ampro must henceforth pay by cashier's check or by finance draft. The relationship between Continental and Petitioner and Ampro ended when Finver learned that Petitioner had been arrested for fraud sometime in May of 2004, although Continental would continue to honor any quotes already rendered to Ampro clients. Continental quoted an insurance policy for JTS for Ampro in May of 2004. The quote was $3,226.76. A request to bind was made by Ampro, but Continental never received payment for the quoted JTS policy, so a policy was never issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his suspended insurance license. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 December 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James Curran, Esquire 633 Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Michael T. Ruff, 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged by the Department of Financial Services in the Administrative Complaint dated May 27, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services ("Petitioner" or "the Department") has regulatory responsibility for Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2009), the insurance licensing procedures law. Respondent, Eileen P. Suarez ("Respondent" or "Suarez"), is a licensed general lines agent transacting in property and casualty insurance, under license number E129078. She operated and was the agent in charge of the Suarez Insurance Agency, Inc. ("Agency"), in Hialeah, Florida. The Agency held a valid state license from 7/21/2006 to 7/27/2009. The Department filed a three-count Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging that she violated various provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. COUNT I John Vila is the president of Vila Home Group, Inc., a trucking company that is in the business of hauling sand, soil, and gravel. In April 2005, he purchased a dump truck and, at the suggestion of the dealer, contacted Suarez for insurance. Suarez sold Vila two insurance policies, for the period April 29, 2005 to April 29, 2006, one with AequiCap Insurance Company ("AequiCap") and the other with the Underwriters at Lloyds, London ("Lloyds"). The AequiCap Policy was a commercial liability insurance policy. The Lloyds Policy was a commercial automobile physical damage insurance policy. In March 2006, Vila gave Suarez a check in the amount of $10,876.41, made payable to the Agency to renew the AequiCap and Lloyds policies, for the period April 29, 2006 to April 29, 2007. The AequiCap policy quote was approximately $5,350.00. The Lloyds policy quote was approximately $5,500.00. The check was deposited in the Agency's trust account, but the Lloyds policy was allowed to expire on April 29, 2006, and was not renewed until October 26, 2006, creating a six-month gap in commercial automobile physical damage insurance coverage for Vila. When it was renewed, the Lloyds Policy cost $5,712.03. Vila's AequiCap policy expired on April 29, 2006, and was not renewed because Suarez failed to pay MAI Risk Management, AequiCap's managing general agent. The funds were not returned to Vila. While the March 2006 quotes were pending, the registered driver of the truck, Andres Vila, was involved in an accident and was at fault for hitting a wire. Rather than risk an increase in the pending insurance quotes, Vila paid Bellsouth $2,390.36 in damages. COUNT II On or about October 26, 2006, Suarez provided Vila a Certificate of Liability showing that the truck was insured with AequiCap, under policy number TC012695, and with Lloyds, under policy number R641440/0251, for the period April 29, 2006 to April 29, 2007. Vila was not insured under AequiCap policy number TC012695 from April 29, 2006 to April 29, 2007. The Certificate of Liability was a false document that Suarez created on her computer, printed, and gave to Vila. COUNT III Shelly, Middlebrooks & O'Leary, Inc. ("Shelly Middlebrooks") is a licensed insurance agency, located in Jacksonville, that acts as a general agent for multiple insurance companies. Suarez collected insufficient funds to include the premiums that were intended to be forwarded to Shelley Middlebrooks for policies to insure the following trucking companies: All Nations Logistics, LLC (Policy Number 486865); Jose Veiga, d/b/a JJ Freightways (Policy Number 486885); Gary Castle/Diamond Mine (Policy Number 74APN338354); and Nics Oil, Inc. (Policy Number 74APN401617). For each of the four companies, she requested and received binders for insurance from Shelly Middlebrooks, followed by invoices for the premiums that were to have been paid within ten days of the date the invoices were received. In each instance, Suarez did not pay Shelly Middlebrooks, which cancelled the policies for non-payment of the premium. It also obtained a default judgment in the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Florida, that requires Suarez to pay it the outstanding balances due for the four policies and a $25 insufficient funds check fee, for a total of $8,335.60, which she has been unable to pay. Instead of paying for insurance, Suarez used most of the funds she collected to pay for various other corporate expenses for the same trucking companies, including state and federal government filings for intrastate or interstate travel that were prerequisites to their becoming insurable. Suarez expected to collect the additional funds needed for insurance later, but the clients, the owners of the trucking companies, did not pay her. Suarez admits that she failed her clients in 2006, after her father's death in February 2006. She realized the Vila errors and tried to correct them in October. The Agency is now closed. Suarez's husband has been unemployed for over a year, and their home is in foreclosure. She is receiving social security disability payments and has insufficient funds to file for bankruptcy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Financial Services: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 626.611(7), (8) and (10); Subsection 626.561(1); and Subsections 626.621(2) and (6), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 626.611(7) and (8); Subsection 626.621(6); and Subsection 626.9541 (1)(e)1., Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 626.611(7), (8) and (10); Subsection 626.561(1); and Subsections 626.621(2) and (6), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count III of the Amended Complaint; Revoking Respondent's licenses and appointments issued or granted under or pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code; Ordering Respondent to make restitution to John Vila in the amount of $5,164.38; and Ordering Respondent to make restitution to Shelly Middlebrooks & O'Leary in the amount of $8,335.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Charles Lee Armstrong, a/k/a Jack Armstrong, (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner or Armstrong) is licensed by the Florida Insurance Department as a general lines agent to represent Foremost Insurance Company and Fortune Insurance Company (Exhibit 1). Prior to 1976 Armstrong was an Aetna agent. From February 10, 1968 through February 10, 1977 Luigi Sesti carried homeowners policy with Aetna with Armstrong Agency. Armstrong's designation as an Aetna agent was terminated by Aetna termination notice (Exhibit 8) dated August 21, 1975 for low volume of business. The company practice is to terminate the agency relationship ninety days after notice of termination. Thereafter Respondent continued as a limited company agent for one year, during which he was authorized to renew Aetna policies. (Exhibit 7). After that one year extension, Respondent had no agency relationship with Aetna and, to renew an Aetna policy, he would have to have an Aetna agent process the renewal. Luigi Sesti had dealt with Armstrong as Sesti's Insurance agent since 1968 and had maintained an Aetna home-owner's policy which had last been renewed through Armstrong for the year ending February 10, 1977. Upon receipt of notice from Armstrong that his policy would expire February 10, 1977, Sesti sent Armstrong his check in the amount of $165 (Exhibit 3) for renewal of his policy. Although Armstrong was no longer authorized to renew Aetna policies, he deposited Sesti's check but thereafter failed to provide Sesti with insurance coverage on his house or contents. Armstrong advised Aetna that Sesti's policy had been replaced with an Eastern insurance policy, and Aetna failed to notify Sesti that the Aetna policy was not renewed. In August 1977 Sesti's home was burglarized. He lost a television set, radio, watch, spotlight and a ring, and Sesti contacted Armstrong to report the loss. Armstrong visited the home and suggested Sesti submit no formal claim because to do so would make it difficult for Sesti to renew his insurance. In his own explanation, Armstrong testified that he intended to pay Sesti for his loss but Sesti could never establish the value of the ring or establish a price for which he would settle. Armstrong offered Sesti $250 to settle the claim. During the discussions between Armstrong and Mrs. Sesti, Armstrong said he had authority to settle claims for Aetna up to $500 and that he was an attorney. Neither of these statements was true. When Armstrong was unable to agree on the amount of the claim, Mrs. Sesti contacted Aetna and learned that the policy on her her had expired 10 February 1977 and had not been renewed. Because no valid policy had been issued to Sesti, Aetna initially denied liability. When advised by Sesti that Aetna would not pay their claim, Armstrong returned the premium he had received from Sesti for the policy not renewed in one check for $155 dated 9/7/77 and in another check for $10 dated 11/23/77 (Exhibit 5) which Sesti received with a letter from the Insurance Commissioner's office dated November 29, 1978 (Exhibit 14). After further investigation by Aetna revealed the facts as noted above, Aetna issued a policy (Exhibit 15) which effectively renewed Sesti's homeowners policy for one year from February 10, 1977. They deducted the premium and the $100 deductible from the amount they paid Sesti for the loss sustained. Aetna's Regional Manager testified that Aetna paid for the loss because Sesti had been insured by them for several years and they felt a moral obligation for their former agent's failure to provide coverage and for their failure to notify Sesti he was no longer insured by Aetna. Aetna allowed Sesti approximately $450 for the loss of the ring and approximately $350 for the other things stolen. Roseland S. Wood had insured her mobile home with Foremost Insurance Company since 1953, and with Jack Armstrong as Agent since 1964. Policy No. 101-8498757 covered the period 11/3/74 to 11/3/75 (Exhibit 13). By check dated November 5, 1975 made payable to Armstrong (Exhibit 9) Wood forwarded the premium for renewal of this policy. Unbeknownst to Wood the policy was not renewed until July 28, 1976 by policy No. 8498643 (Exhibit 12). This is the policy that Armstrong forwarded to Foremost. Armstrong was in Europe on vacation when this policy was issued by the woman he had hired to keep his office open during his vacation and he professed no knowledge of why the policy was issued at this particular time. In October 1976 Wood wanted additional coverage and Armstrong came out to assist in providing the additional coverage. After discussing increasing personal property coverage, plus garage and contents and boats, Respondent advised Wood that the additional coverage would cost $326. Wood gave Respondent a check that day (Exhibit 10). Thereafter Armstrong issued policy No. 8498518 (Exhibit 11) for the period 10/28/76 to 10/28/77 but the personal property coverage was less than Wood had asked for and the garage and contents were not included. Neither Exhibit 11 nor the premium for this coverage was ever received by Foremost from Armstrong. They became aware of Exhibit 11 after Wood suffered a burglary in July 1977 and came to the Foremost office to file a claim. The costs of coverage on Exhibit 11 are not correct and had this policy been received by Foremost it would have been rejected by the computer due to inaccurate premium charges, the inclusion of boats on this policy and incorrect comprehensive liability coverage. By failing to renew Wood's coverage in November 1975, Respondent left Wood without coverage until Exhibit 12 was issued providing coverage from 7/28/76. This renewal was written by Armstrong Agency, who had authority from Foremost to write this renewal. As noted above, this policy was written while Armstrong was on vacation. The $145 premium paid by Wood for the renewal of the policy was not remitted to Foremost until after July 28, 1976. At the time of Wood's loss in July 1977 she was covered by this policy. When the existence of the above facts regarding the two policies and dates they were issued to Wood were uncovered, Armstrong refunded to Wood $181 of the $326 premium he collected, Foremost refunded the additional $145 of this premium to Wood, and Wood's claim was settled by Foremost to Wood's satisfaction. Foremost has a claim against Armstrong for this $145 Foremost refunded to Wood. Respondent acknowledged writing Exhibit 11 and assumed that it was mailed to Foremost. He does not remit payment to the company until he is billed. Foremost sends a monthly statement to each agent showing policy numbers received. The agent can readily check this list against the policies he has issued to ascertain if a policy was not received by the company. The company also maintains a policy register where policy numbers are recorded. A copy of this is sent to their agents to check against policies the agents have issued. Failure of the agencies to submit policies in sequential numbers will be picked up on the computer, but only after quite a few numbers have been skipped. There was insufficient volume from Armstrong's agency to trigger this information from the computer. With respect to Charge III, failure to keep office open and accessible to the public during office hours, an insurance investigator visited the office on some six occasions in December 1977 and February and March 1978. At these visits the office was open but neither Armstrong nor a secretary was present. A lady working in an office down the hall from Respondent's office came to the office when the inspector arrived and offered to contact Armstrong. Several telephone calls made to Armstrong's office during March 1978 resulted in the phone being answered by an answering service. Respondent has operated a one-man office for many years and has an answering service cover all calls while he is out of the office. He wears a radio pager and claims his answering service can always contact him. The lady who covers office visits for Respondent during his absence from the office has had several years experience working in a general insurance agency. She fills out applications for clients coming into the office, gives receipts for payments, signs Armstrong's name to applications and other documents; and has done so for 4 or 5 years. She is not on any type of regular salary or otherwise employed by Armstrong. Respondent has been a licensed insurance agent since 1961 and Respondent's testimony was unrebutted. This is the first complaint filed against him in his capacity as a licensed insurance agent.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the alleged multiple violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
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 these proceedings, the Respondent was licensed as a General Lines Agent, Ordinary Life, including Health Agent, Ordinary Health Agent, and a Legal Expense Insurance sales representative. Respondent Collier conducted business through A. Collier Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter Collier Agency), in Fort Myers, Bonita Springs, and Naples, Florida. Collier Agency was a general lines insurance agency which sold automobile insurance through a licensed agent and unlicensed sales personnel. The unlicensed sales personnel acted through the supervision and control of the Respondent, the licensed general lines agent of record at Collier Agency. The Respondent is also the President and director of the insurance agency. All of Collier Agency's personnel who accepted the insurance applications and premiums addressed in this proceeding acted under the supervision and control of Respondent. One of the ways in which the Respondent supervised and controlled unlicensed sales personnel who sold automobile insurance, was to personally review each application for insurance and to issue each agency check required by the selected insurance company. The Respondent conducted business in this manner at all three office locations along Florida's southwest coast on a daily basis. Between August 15, 1986, and January 12, 1987, the Respondent failed to promptly submit nine applications for automobile insurance to insurance companies on behalf of potential insureds, in spite of the insurance agency's receipt of completed applications and premium payments from the nine customers seeking automobile insurance. As a result of the Respondent's failure to timely submit the applications and premiums, these customers were not insured during the time period requested, contrary to representations that the insurances would be in effect during the agreed upon time periods. Between October 2, 1987, and January 30, 1987, the Respondent personally accepted four applications and initial premiums from four customers seeking automobile insurance. The applications were not timely processed and sent to the respective insurance companies to assure that the customers would receive insurance coverage during the time periods requested by the customers and agreed upon by Respondent on behalf of the insurance companies. As a result, the customers were not insured during the time periods requested. In mitigation of the violations, it should be noted that the Respondent's failure to timely process applications occurred as a result of negligence. There was no scheme to intentionally deprive the customers of funds or to disregard the Respondent's fiduciary responsibilities to the potential insureds. The Respondent misjudged his own ability to handle the supervisory work of three busy and fast-paced insurance offices. It should also be noted that this is the first disciplinary action taken against the Respondent in over twenty years as a practicing, licensed insurance agent. In five of the cases, the applications were processed at a later date by Respondent, without any prejudice to the potential insureds in the interim period of time in which they were not insured. In two cases, the Respondent paid claims made by the customers out of his own pocket as if the insurance policies had been in effect, as represented during the acceptance of these applications within Collier Agency. One case was settled, and a release was obtained by Respondent from the potential insured.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of the thirteen violations of Sections 626.611(7) and (10), Florida Statutes, and the thirteen violations of Section 626.561(1), Florida Statutes. That Respondent's licenses as General Lines Agent, Ordinary Life, including Health Agent, Ordinary Health Agent, and a Legal Expense Insurance sales representative be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 28th of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA D. D0NNELLY 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 August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4431 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2-3. Accepted. See HO #3. 4-7. Accepted. See HO #4. 8-20. Accepted. See HO #5 - #6. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Improper conclusion of law. However, see HO #7. Rejected. See HO #8. Accepted, except for the thirteen counts in the complaint. See HO #5 - #6. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Office of Legal Services Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire GATLIN, WOODS, CARLSON & COWDERY 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, Stephen Paul Platt, was licensed by respondent, Office of the Treasurer, Department of Insurance (Department), as a general lines insurance agent and surplus lines insurance agent. On or about March 15, 1994, the Department mailed to the respondent the necessary forms for filing the First Quarter 1994 surplus lines report and instructions to remit the taxes due pursuant to that report. Under existent law, such report was to be filed with the Department on or before April 30, 1994. Respondent did not file his quarterly report with the Department until June 3, 1994; however, respondent had incurred no tax liability for that quarter, and no taxes were due. At hearing, respondent acknowledged his obligation to file the quarterly reports in a timely fashion, but requested relief here based on the complicated pregnancy his wife experienced while carrying their fourth child, as well as the complications that occurred during and post delivery. According to respondent, whose testimony is credited, his fourth child was born April 21, 1994, and in the two weeks preceding the child's delivery, as well as the two or so weeks after the delivery, he was not in the office but, rather, was attendant to his wife and child during this difficult delivery. Given such circumstances, the nominal delay that occurred in filing the First Quarter 1994 surplus lines report, especially since no tax was due, should, except for a nominal fine, be excused.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which finds respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 626.931(1), Florida Statutes, which imposes a fine of $50.00 against respondent for such violation, and which dismiss all other charges. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 February 1995. APPENDIX The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. 3 & 4. Adopted in paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esquire Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Stephen Paul Platt 10640 NW 27th Street, #101 Miami, Florida 33172 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether the Respondent's license as an insurance agent should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Shirley Ann Cramer, was licensed as a life, health and general lines insurance agent in Florida, and was the sole owner and operator of Consolidated Insurance Associates, Inc., an incorporated general lines life and health insurance agency in Clearwater, Florida. The Department of Insurance was and is the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of insurance professionals in this state. In February, 1987, Mercedes Wescott went to the Respondent's agency in Clearwater where she spoke with whom she assumed to be an employee, an individual named Jack. "Jack" is Jack Jarr, Respondent's former husband and a licensed insurance professional who works in a different agency from Respondent, but who was licensed with Respondent's agency at the time in question as well. Ms. Wescott wanted a policy of life insurance, and after talking with Jack, wrote and delivered a check for $167.00, payable to Consolidated Insurance Associates, Inc., as initial down payment therefor. About a week later, she took the required insurance physical but never received the policy she had bought. She called the agency several times about the matter and was repeatedly told the policy was coming. Finally, in June, 1987, she received a letter from American Health and Life Insurance Company, the company with whom, apparently, she was to be insured, advising her that her application for insurance was being cancel led because certain required information was not received. When she called the agency, (Jack), to get her money back, he promised to send it but never did. As a result, she finally called Respondent who, in November, 1987, mailed her a check on the account of Consolidated Insurance Associates, Inc., dated November 24, 1987, in the amount of $117.00, $50.00 less than the initial payment. Ms. Wescott admittedly did not deposit that check immediately. For one thing, it was not for the correct amount, and in addition, she overlooked it. When she finally did deposit it for collection, it was dishonored and returned because of insufficient funds, and she was charged a $12.00 service charge. On January 9, 1988, Ms. Wescott wrote to Respondent outlining what had happened and requested a replacement check in the amount of $179.00, ($167.00 plus $12.00). In this letter, which was mailed to Respondent's home address since the agency had, in the interim, been sold, Ms. Wescott recited the lack of Respondent's response to prior calls and threatened to report the matter to the Insurance Commissioner. Even with this, she received no response from Respondent. Ms. Wescott determined that Respondent was working at a real estate office and when called there, too, failed to return calls. Ms. Wescott ultimately received a check for the entire amount from, she believes, the Department of Insurance. Though she is not sure from whom the check was received, she is certain it was not Respondent or Respondent's agency. When she contacted the new owner of the agency, her request for reimbursement was denied and the new owner suggested she contact the Department. Admittedly, Ms. Wescott dealt only with Mr. Jarr up until the time the cancellation letter was received. Only at that point did she talk with Respondent, and the check, purportedly in reimbursement for the premium paid, which was dishonored, was signed by Respondent. Respondent claims that she was only the subagent for the company with whom Mr. Jarr placed Ms. Wescott but paid Ms. Wescott back herself with a check she claims was good when written. However, since the check in question is dated November 24, and even though held by Ms. Wescott for a while, it had been deposited and dishonored by January 9, 1988 when Ms. Wescott's letter to Respondent was written. This accounts for a total time of 46 days from date of check to date of letter, and with mail times and bank processing times deducted, the time the check was held before deposit cannot be considered unreasonable. Ms. Cramer sold the agency in December, 1987 to an individual who was to assume all the agency liabilities. At the time she sent Ms. Wescott the check for $117.00, she was, she claims, unsure of the amount owed since she no longer had the books in her possession. Considering the probabilities of her testimony and it's corroboration or lack thereof by other evidence of record, it is considered unworthy of belief. On April 4, 1988, Thomas J. Secondo, who was, at the time, having a personal relationship with the Respondent, went to her to get insurance on his two automobiles. He wrote a check that day for $1,641.00 for what he believed was the total premium for the coverage sold and gave it to Respondent personally. He never received a policy of insurance for his money but on June 9, 1988, was notified that his coverage would be cancelled on June 18, 1988 for "underwriting reasons." Somewhat before that time, he also received a book of payment coupons, the reason for which he could not fathom, since it was his understanding he had paid for his policy in full by the check he had given Respondent. Documents introduced into evidence by the parties reflect that on May 18, 1988, Mr. Secondo's policy, purportedly with American United Insurance Company, was to be financed through Express Premium Finance, Inc. in Hollywood, Florida. Mr. Secondo denies having signed the premium finance agreement which bears what is purported to be his signature, and examination of that document clearly reveals that the signature thereon is not his. Just as all this was happening, Respondent contacted Mr. Secondo in writing on June 15, 1988 and requested he come to the office to sign a new application for the requested coverage. Enclosed with that request was a copy of an insurance binder for auto coverage with Bankers Insurance Company, to be effective on June 18, 1988. Again, Mr. Secondo was sent a premium finance notice by Bankers representing a total premium of $1,358.00. This notice, dated August 29, 1988, reflected the first premium of $14.30, due on August 12, 1989, the second in the amount of $193.34, and the remainder, also at $193.34, due on the 28th of each month thereafter. By memo of August 19, 1988, Bankers Insurance Company notified Mr. Secondo that his policy was being cancelled for nonpayment of the initial $14.30 premium. However, by notice of September 1, 1988, the company reinstated the coverage and included a new billing schedule reflecting a slightly higher monthly premium of $197.54. On August 16, 1988, Respondent wrote to Mr. Secondo informing him of a change in policies and noting that the new policy was somewhat less expensive than the former. Notwithstanding this, by letter dated September 25, 1988, she advised him of the need for him to pay an additional $171.31. Mr. Secondo did not understand the reason for this additional charge in light of the fact that the second policy, that issued, was less costly than the first which was never issued. This discrepancy was not successfully explained at hearing nor has it yet been clearly explained. Notwithstanding his confusion, on the advice of a representative from the Department's St. Petersburg office, Mr. Secondo paid the additional sum requested. Ms. Cramer claims that all she asked from Mr. Secondo at the time she sold him the insurance was the down payment on the policy. However, he insisted on giving her more money to impress her with how much money he had. She further claims she put the balance over the down payment in the account of ASAP Insurance, (not further identified). On examination, she claimed this was a unique situation and she never does business this way. Ms. Cramer has been licensed as an insurance agent in Florida for almost 20 years and claims never to have had a problem with the Department before now. There is no evidence of any prior complaints against her or of prior disciplinary action. She had known Mr. Secondo for about 3 months before he came to her for insurance on his vehicles. She admits to having received his check for $1,641.00 for the premium for that coverage. Because of some difficulty with his driver's license, which she discussed with him at the time, she processed the application, sending in only the required 30% down payment so that if the application was rejected, he would not have to wait to get back the full amount of his premium. She claims to have advised him at the time there might be a problem and that the policy, when issued, might carry a higher or lower premium. When she sent the deposit for the auto insurance to the broker with whom she was dealing, he required a premium finance agreement which she filled out and sent in without, she claims, affixing Mr. Secondo's signature thereto. She claims to have no knowledge as to who signed it, but this is unworthy of belief. The automobile insurance was not issued by the first company because of some underwriting problem. Respondent claims she told Mr. Secondo this but by then he had received a payment schedule and was upset about that. Ms. Cramer claims that Mr. Secondo had been fully advised that only a part of the $1,641.00 he had paid originally was to go to payment of premium, but she does not explain where the balance went, other than into the account of ASAP. She also claims to have procured insurance for him from Bankers Insurance Company without financing any part of the premium, but it is clear from the documents introduced that this coverage was financed as well. Her exculpatory comments are confusing and far less than convincing, and are not believed. Respondent asserts she made the premium payments for Mr. Secondo, (presumably from the sums deposited to ASAP), until she got an accounting from the company. She then wrote to Mr. Secondo, (their personal relationship having dissolved by then), and claimed the amount she felt was due her, (the $171.31). She admits that in the interim, while she was awaiting the refund from the first policy deposit, she neglected to make the initial $14.30 premium payment on the second policy, causing it to be cancelled. At that point, she made the payment to have the policy reinstated. The reinstatement notice, however, does not show the policy paid in full, but calls for continuing installments. Ms. Cramer now claims that the $1,641.00 figure she gave Mr. Secondo was tentative and subject to change and that he knew it. She claims the discrepancy involving his policy was a bookkeeping error, and at no time did she intend to take his money and not get him insurance. The evidence, however, shows otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Insurance Commissioner issue a Final Order in this case suspending Shirley Ann Cramer's license and eligibility for license as an insurance agent of any kind in Florida for one year. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of August, 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 6th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Elias, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 John L. Waller, Esquire 100 2nd Avenue, North Suite 210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel Office of the Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
