The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent, an insurance agent, has complied with applicable continuing education requirements.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed life insurance and variable annuity insurance agent, holding license number A104253, and has held the license at all times material to this case. The Respondent is required to meet applicable continuing education requirements set forth by statute. Based on the type of license held by the Respondent, he must complete 28 hours of continuing education instruction during each reporting period. The instruction must be related to the type of insurance the Respondent is authorized to sell. During the reporting period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1997, the Respondent completed 28 hours of continuing education instruction; however, only 21 hours of the instruction are creditable to life and variable annuity insurance agents for purposes of complying with the continuing education requirement. Because seven of the Respondent’s 28 hours are not related to his licensure status, they are not applicable to his continuing education requirement; accordingly, the Respondent had a deficit of seven hours for the relevant reporting period. One of the courses completed by the Respondent was "LTC Strategies and Laws" (Course ID 30180) on November 25, 1997. Credit for this three-hour course is available only to licensed health insurance agents. The Respondent is not a licensed health insurance agent, and is not entitled to credit for this course. Another of the courses completed by the Respondent was "Senior Citizen Insurance" (Course ID 4301) on November 25, 1997. The credit for this eight-hour course is divided; four hours of credit is applicable to life insurance agents and four hours is applicable to health insurance agents. The Respondent is entitled only to the four hours of credit available to life insurance agents. By Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance dated June 15, 1999, the Respondent received notice that, according to the Department’s review of the records, he had not completed the continuing education requirement. The Notice included a number of resolution alternatives, ranging from the licensee’s correction of the records by providing additional information, to resolving the matter by payment of a fine and completion of the hours, to a licensee-initiated license termination. The Department sent the Preliminary Notice to all addresses of record on file for the Respondent. The Respondent did not respond to the June 15 Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance. On August 17, 1997, the Department issued a Final Notice of Non-Compliance, again advising that the continuing education requirement was unmet, again including options for resolving the deficiency, and advising of the right to request a formal administrative hearing. The Department sent the Final Notice by certified mail to the licensee’s permanent address of record. In response to the Final Notice, the Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing. The Respondent also sent additional information to the Department apparently unaware that some of the completed course hours were inapplicable to his licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order suspending the licensure of Lannie J. Gregory for not less than one month or until Lannie J. Gregory completes seven additional continuing education hours appropriate to his licensure, whichever is later, and imposing a fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lannie J. Gregory 2680 West Lake Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684-3120 Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed insurance agent, violated the Florida Insurance Code as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the formal hearing and at all other times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida by Petitioner as a life and health insurance agent and a general lines insurance agent. Shirley Maroon, Alexis Ehrenhaft, and Sonya Rouviere are sisters who, at the times pertinent hereto, owned a commercial building located at 1501 Southwest 8th Street, Miami (the subject property). Prior to August 1991, the subject property was insured for casualty loss through Granada Insurance Company. The Granada insurance policy had been obtained through Hartnett, Inc., a general lines insurance agency. Fred B. Hartnett was, at the times pertinent hereto, the sole stockholder, director, and officer of Hartnett, Inc. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fred B. Hartnett, was the individual with Hartnett, Inc., who had been appointed as the agent of Granada Insurance Company. In 1991, Fred B. Hartnett was approximately 90 years of age, but he remained active in his business. In 1991, Respondent was not an officer, director, or shareholder of Hartnett, Inc. In August 1991, the co-owners of the subject property received a premium renewal notice for the Granada policy that was to be paid to the Hartnett Agency. The amount of the renewal premium was $4,485. Granada initially informed Hartnett, Inc. that the renewal premium for the subject property would be in the amount of $5,008. Following that initial determination, the Respondent asked Richard Friedburg, one of Granada's underwriters, to determine whether the premium for the subject property could be reduced. As a result of that discussion, a revised quote of $4,485 for the renewal premium was made by Granada. The billing to the co-owners for the renewal premium was from Hartnett, Inc. The transmittal letter, dated August 6, 1991, was on a Hartnett, Inc. form and was signed on behalf of Hartnett, Inc. by Maria Rienoso. The letter referenced the Granada policy and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Enclosed please find a bill and applications which we ask that you review and sign where indicated by a check mark so we may process renewal of the above captioned policy . . . If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. We ask that you forward signed applications and renewal premium to our office no later than 9/3/91 to insure there is no lapse in coverage. On August 21, 1991, a check representing the renewal premium for the Granada policy in the amount of $4,485 was made out and signed by two of the co- owners, Ms. Maroon and Ms. Ehrenhaft. Ms. Rouviere, the only one of the three co-owners who testified at the formal hearing, was not present when the renewal check was prepared or executed. Ms. Rouviere did not have firsthand knowledge as to how the renewal check was delivered to the Hartnett Agency. There was no evidence that any of the three co-owners had any direct conversations or direct contact with Respondent pertaining to the renewal of the policy. On or about August 22, 1991, the Respondent received check #646 executed by Ms. Maroon and Ms. Ehrenhaft in the amount of $4,485 that was to be in payment of the Granada renewal premium. The check was deposited into a bank account of Hartnett, Inc. There was no evidence that Respondent had any control over this account. Hartnett, Inc. had handled the insurance on the subject property for several years. The only agent with whom Ms. Rouviere dealt at the Hartnett agency was the Respondent. There was no evidence as to whether the other two co-owners dealt with other agents at Hartnett, Inc. In August 1992, the subject property was damaged by Hurricane Andrew. In October 1992, the claim filed with Granada by the co-owners of the subject property was denied on the grounds that Granada had never received the renewal premium and had, consequently, cancelled the policy prior to the date of loss. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Hartnett, Inc. was on an "account current" basis with Granada Insurance Company, which meant that Granada billed Hartnett, Inc., for Granada policies that had been bound by Hartnett, Inc. Granada Insurance Company did not bill Hartnett, Inc., for the renewal policy for the subject property because it did not know that Hartnett, Inc., had bound the renewal coverage. On August 3, 1990, an Amended Final Order was filed in a disciplinary proceeding that had been instituted against Respondent by the Petitioner. The style of that proceeding was "In the Matter of William John Hartnett" and Petitioner's case number was 86-L-595RET. The Amended Final Order placed the Respondent on probation pursuant to Section 626.691, Florida Statues, for a period of two years from August 3, 1990. Among the special conditions of probation was subsection (d), which provided in pertinent part, as follows: (d) During the period of probation, Respondent shall take special care to ensure that his accounts with insurers and/or managing general agents are kept current and that insurance premiums are properly remitted to insurers and/or managing general agents in the applicable regular course of business. . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order which dismisses the administrative complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7153 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unsubstantiated by the evidence or are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 9 are unnecessary as findings of fact, but are incorporate as a conclusion of law. The proposed findings of fact in the last sentence of paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The following rulings are made as to the findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being conclusions which are unnecessary as findings of fact and which are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William L. Rogers, Esquire 2750 International Place 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 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, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 90-3698: Whether Howell Vinson Peavy's insurance licenses should be disciplined for violations of Sections 626.611(7) and (14) and 626.621(8) F.S., and As to DOAH Case No. 90-6615: Whether Howell Vinson Peavy should be licensed to represent Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company as a general lines insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Peavy is currently licensed and eligible for licensure and appointment in Florida as a life and health and general lines agent. Mr. Peavy began work at the Citizens (formerly Ellis) Bank of Bunnell, Florida in 1952. A director of that bank owned an insurance agency in town. In 1964, the owner of the bank, Mr. Creal; his mother; the bank attorney; and Mr. Peavy bought the insurance agency. Mr. Peavy continued to work at the Citizens Bank in the mornings and at the insurance agency in the afternoons and evenings. Mr. Peavy has been licensed by the Department of Insurance since purchasing the agency in 1964 and has had no previous disciplinary complaints against his insurance license(s) in the ensuing 26 years. Approximately ten years ago, in 1980, during a stressful and transitional period of the Citizens Bank operation, a customer came into Mr. Peavy's office at the bank and sought to pay in excess of $10,000 in cash in connection with a land transaction. Mr. Peavy received the money and turned it over to a bank secretary to make the deposit. The secretary subsequently put the money in the bank's loan department cash drawer instead of taking it to the head teller, who was the bank employee responsible for filing the Currency Transaction Report required by the federal Internal Revenue Service for such cash transactions. Mr. Peavy did not initially know that a Currency Transaction Report had not been filed. Indeed, he had never personally filled out or filed such a report before, and doing so was not normally his responsibility. Mr. Peavy received no personal gain from the failure to file the report. On July 13, 1985, approximately five years after Mr. Peavy's failure to file the Currency Transaction Report and five years before the instant state disciplinary charges were filed, a seven-count indictment was filed against Mr. Peavy in U.S. District Court in and for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 85-99CR-JAX-12. Approximately five years ago, on October 4, 1985, Mr. Peavy entered a plea of guilty to one count of violating Title 18, USC Sections 1001 and 1002 in that he knowingly and willfully concealed and covered up and caused to be concealed or covered up, material facts within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasurer of the United States to wit: knowingly and willfully failing to file a Currency Transaction Report for a transaction in excess of $10,000. It appears that a total of $50,000 cash somehow wound up in an escrow account at the bank, but there is no evidence or admission to show that either Mr. Peavy or the bank realized any profit or benefit from the transaction. The transaction also was unconnected to Mr. Peavy's insurance business. Mr. Peavy's federal guilty plea was accepted, and on December 4, 1985, he was adjudicated and convicted of the named felony. U.S. District Court Judge Howell Melton imposed a $5,000 fine and placed Mr. Peavy on three years' probation. Prior to entering his guilty plea, Mr. Peavy had executed a "Stipulated Factual Basis for the Plea of Guilty to Count One of the Indictment." This document was not offered in evidence at formal hearing, but upon Mr. Peavy's testimony, it is found that he had the opportunity to review and sign this document before entering his guilty plea and knew that it confirmed his willful failure to file the Currency Transaction Report and that his willful failure to file the Currency Transaction Report was for the purpose of concealing the $50,000 cash transaction from the Internal Revenue Service. At formal hearing, Mr. Peavy elaborated on his reasons for entering his plea of guilty in 1985 as being, in part, due to monetary reasons; his lawyer had advised him of the difference in cost of going to court and fighting the charges contained in seven counts as compared to working out a plea agreement to one count. There is no dispute that Mr. Peavy pleaded guilty and was convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the law of the United States of America. However, at the time Mr. Peavy entered his plea, Florida's insurance disciplinary statutes did not specifically address federal felonies. The material state statutes in effect at the time of Peavy's failure to file, at the time of his plea, and at the time of his conviction read: 626.611 Grounds for compulsory refusal, suspension, or revocation of agent's, solicitor's, or adjuster's license or service representative's, supervising or managing general agent's, or claims investigator's permit.--The department shall deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent, solicitor, or adjuster or the permit of any service representative, supervising, or managing general agent, or claims investigator, and it shall suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or permittee any one or more of the applicable grounds exist: * * * (14) Having been found guilty or, or having pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, a felony in this state or any other state which involves moral turpitude, without regard to whether a judgement of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction of such cases. * * * 626.621 Grounds for discretionary refusal, suspension or revocation of agent's, solicitors, or adjuster's license or service representatives, supervising or managing general agent's, or claims investigator's permit.--The department may, in its discretion, deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent, solicitor, or adjuster or the permit of any service agent, solicitor, or adjuster or the permit of any service representative, supervising or managing general agent or claims investigator, and it may suspend or revoke the eligibility to hold a license or permit of any such person, if it finds that as to the applicant, licensee, or permittee any one or more of the following applicable grounds exist under circumstances for which such denial, suspension, revocation, or refusal is not mandatory under Section 626.611: * * * (8) Having been found guilty of, or having pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony in this state or any other state, without regard to whether a judgment of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction of such cases. Mr. Peavy paid his fine, successfully completed his probation, and was granted restoration of his civil rights on January 13, 1989, pursuant to Article IV, Section 8, Constitution of the State of Florida. Robert Gayle Mercer is a Florida-licensed insurance agent in good standing. He was tendered and accepted over objection as an expert in the business of insurance. Mr. Mercer also has served for many years as a director of a state bank located in Kissimmeee, Florida. The bank of which Mr. Mercer is a director is substantially similar in all respects to the bank in Bunnell, Florida, where Mr. Peavy's legal difficulties arose. As a bank director, Mr. Mercer is familiar with the necessity that banks file Currency Transaction Reports. It was Mr. Mercer's expert professional opinion, rendered within his education, training, and experience as an insurance agent, that the failure to file a Currency Transaction Report is not directly related to the business of insurance and that such failure has not rendered Mr. Peavy unfit or untrustworthy to engage in the business of insurance. In assessing the weight and credibility to be assigned to Mr. Mercer's expert opinion, the undersigned is not unmindful that at some point in time the witness Mercer, and the accused, Peavy, practiced the insurance business together, but due to the lapse of time and the removal of Mr. Mercer from the immediate geographical community wherein Mr. Peavy resides and practices, Mr. Mercer's testimony is found to be credible in all respects. The agency offered no expert testimony/evidence to refute Mr. Mercer's opinion. Mr. Peavy was held in the highest esteem by business, professional, and community service colleagues at the time the federal charges arose, plea was entered, and conviction adjudged. At that time, Mr. Peavy attempted to resign as a member of the Flagler County Chamber of Commerce; his colleagues, knowledgable of the federal charges, refused to accept his resignation. Many prominent community leaders knowledgeable of the nature of the federal charges also wrote to Judge Melton extolling Mr. Peavy's virtues and urging that he be placed on probation. Mr. Peavy has lived in Bunnell, Florida, since 1939, except for a short period of military service. During the whole of that time, he has been a community leader and volunteer, serving at various times on the City Commission, the County School Board, the County Chamber of Commerce, and as a Governor- appointed member of the County Housing Authority. He is active in church and in service and charity organizations, particularly as a fund raiser for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the March of Dimes, and the Humane Society. Mr. Peavy's current reputation in his community is one of trust, confidence, fair dealing, and a respect for the rights of others. Upon the direct testimony of Captain C. B. Eisenbach, a retired captain of the Flagler County Sheriff's Department, and Mrs. Etta Peterson, Flagler County Supervisor of Elections, each rendered by deposition, and upon the hearsay evidence which may legitimately be characterized as "explaining or supplementing" direct evidence pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S., it is found that Mr. Peavy has consistently maintained and currently maintains an exemplary reputation in the community for honesty, trustworthiness, and good moral character, as well as a reputation for truth and veracity. In making the foregoing finding of fact, the undersigned has considered the somewhat vague understanding Ms. Peterson expressed with regard to the nature of Mr. Peavy's very stale federal crime/conviction but does not find that her vagueness on that legal concept detracts from the credibility or significance of her testimony concerning Mr. Peavy's current reputation and good character.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint in Case No. 90-3698 and granting Peavy a license to as a general lines agent for Bankers and Shippers Insurance in Case No. 90-6615. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1991 at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 4th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Department of Insurance PFOF: 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all accepted. Peavy's PFOF: 1-5, 7-10, and 12 are accepted and adopted with minor modifications to better express the record as a whole and to eliminate legal conclusions. 6, and 11 are rejected as subordinate or unnecessary to the facts as found; admissible and reliable hearsay has been assessed within the RO. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert J. Datz, Esquire Datz, Jacobson and Lembcke Suite 2902 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 W. Douglas Hall, Esquire R. Vincent Russo, Esquire Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John C. Jordan, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a property and casualty insurance license, life and health insurance license, and life insurance license for the State of Florida. She has held her property and casualty license for about 20 years. In 1976, she was employed as an agent for the Orlando office of Commonwealth insurance agency, which she purchased in 1977 or 1978. She continues to own the Commonwealth agency, which is the agency involved in this case. Respondent has never previously been disciplined. In 1979 or 1980, Respondent was appointed to the board of directors of the Local Independent Agents Association, Central Florida chapter. She has continuously served on the board of directors of the organization ever since. She served as president of the association until September, 1991, when her term expired. During her tenure as president, the local association won the Walter H. Bennett award as the best local association in the country. Since May, 1986, Commonwealth had carried the insurance for the owner of the subject premises, which is a 12,000 square foot commercial block building located at 923 West Church Street in Orlando. In July, 1987, the insurer refused to renew the policy on the grounds of the age of the building. Ruth Blint of Commonwealth assured the owner that she would place the insurance with another insurer. Mrs. Blint is a longtime employee of the agency and is in charge of commercial accounts of this type. Mrs. Blint was a dependable, competent employee on whom Respondent reasonably relied. Mrs. Blint contacted Dana Roehrig and Associates Inc. (Dana Roehrig), which is an insurance wholesaler. Commonwealth had done considerable business with Dana Roehrig in the past. Dealing with a number of property and casualty agents, Dana Roehrig secures insurers for the business solicited by the agents. Dana Roehrig itself is not an insurance agent. In this case, Dana Roehrig served as the issuing agent and agreed to issue the policy on behalf of American Empire Surplus Lines. The annual premium would be $5027, excluding taxes and fees. This premium was for the above- described premises, as well as another building located next door. The policy was issued effective July 21, 1987. It shows that the producing agency is Commonwealth and the producer is Dana Roehrig. The policy was countersigned on August 12, 1987, by a representative of the insurer. On July 21, 1987, the insured gave Mrs. Blint a check in the amount of $1000 payable to Commonwealth. This represented a downpayment on the premium for the American Empire policy. The check was deposited in Commonwealth's checking account and evidently forwarded to Dana Roehrig. On July 31, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued its monthly statement to Commonwealth. The statement, which involves only the subject policy, reflects a balance due of $3700.86. The gross premium is $5027. The commission amount of $502.70 is shown beside the gross commission. Below the gross premium is a $25 policy fee, $151.56 in state tax, and a deduction entered July 31, 1987, for $1000, which represents the premium downpayment. When the commission is deducted from the other entries, the balance is, as indicated, $3700.86. The bottom of the statement reads: "Payment is due in our office by August 14, 1987." No further payments were made by the insured or Commonwealth in August. The August 31, 1987, statement is identical to the July statement except that the bottom reads: "Payment is due in our office by September 14, 1987." On September 2, 1987, the insured gave Commonwealth a check for $2885.16. This payment appears to have been in connection with the insured's decision to delete the coverage on the adjoining building, which is not otherwise related to this case. An endorsement to the policy reflects that, in consideration of a returned premium of $1126 and sales tax of $33.78, all coverages are deleted for the adjoining building. The September 30 statement shows the $3700.86 balance brought forward from the preceding statement and deductions for the returned premium and sales tax totalling $1159.78. After reducing the credit to adjust for the unearned commission of $112.60 (which was part of the original commission of $502.70 for which Commonwealth had already received credit), the net deduction arising from the deleted coverage was $1047.18. Thus, the remaining balance for the subject property was $2653.68. In addition to showing the net sum due of $944.59 on an unrelated policy, the September 30 statement contained the usual notation that payment was due by the 12th of the following month. However, the statement contained a new line showing the aging of the receivable and showing, incorrectly, that $3700.86 was due for more than 90 days. As noted above, the remaining balance was $2653.68, which was first invoiced 90 days previously. Because it has not been paid the remaining balance on the subject policy, Dana Roehrig issued a notice of cancellation sometime during the period of October 16-19, 1987. The notice, which was sent to the insured and Commonwealth, advised that the policy "is hereby cancelled" effective 12:01 a.m. October 29, 1987. It was the policy of Dana Roehrig to send such notices about ten days in advance with two or three days added for mailing. One purpose of the notice is to allow the insured and agency to make the payment before the deadline and avoid cancellation of the policy. However, the policy of Dana Roehrig is not to reinstate policies if payments are received after the effective date of cancellation. Upon receiving the notice of cancellation, the insured immediately contacted Mrs. Blint. She assured him not to be concerned and that all would be taken care of. She told him that the property was still insured. The insured reasonably relied upon this information. The next time that the insured became involved was when the building's ceiling collapsed in June, 1988. He called Mrs. Blint to report the loss. After an adjuster investigated the claim, the insured heard nothing for months. He tried to reach Respondent, but she did not return his calls. Only after hiring an attorney did the insured learn that the cancellation in October, 1987, had taken effect and the property was uninsured. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the policy, the October 31 statement was identical to the September 30 statement except that payment was due by November 12, rather than October 12, and the aging information had been deleted. By check dated November 12, 1987, Commonwealth remitted to Dana Roehrig $3598.27, which was the total amount due on the October 30 statement. Dana Roehrig deposited the check and it cleared. The November 30 statement reflected zero balances due on the subject policy, as well as on the unrelated policy. However, the last entry shows the name of the subject insured and a credit to Commonwealth of $2717 plus sales tax of $81.51 minus a commission readjustment of $271.70 for a net credit of $2526.81. The record does not explain why the net credit does not equal $2653.68, which was the net amount due. It would appear that Dana Roehrig retained the difference of $125.87 plus the downpayment of $1000 for a total of $1125.87. It is possible that this amount is intended to represent the earned premium. Endorsement #1 on the policy states that the minimum earned premium, in the event of cancellation, was $1257. By check dated December 23, 1987, Dana Roehrig issued Commonwealth a check in the amount of $2526.81. The December 31 statement reflected the payment and showed a zero balance due. The record is otherwise silent as to what transpired following the issuance of the notice of cancellation. Neither Mrs. Blint nor Dana Roehrig representatives from Orlando testified. The only direct evidence pertaining to the period between December 31, 1987, and the claim the following summer is a memorandum from a Dana Roehrig representative to Mrs. Blint dated March 24, 1988. The memorandum references the insured and states in its entirety: Per our conversation of today, attached please find the copy of the cancellation notice & also a copy of the cancellation endorsement on the above captioned, which was cancelled effective 10/29/87. If you should have any questions, please call. Regardless of the ambiguity created by the monthly statements, which were not well coordinated with the cancellation procedure, Mrs. Blint was aware in late March, 1988, that there was a problem with the policy. She should have advised the insured, who presumably could have procured other insurance. Regardless whether the June, 1988, claim would have been covered, the ensuing litigation would not have involved coverage questions arising out of the cancellation of the policy if Mrs. Blint had communicated the problem to the insured when she received the March memorandum. Following the discovery that the policy had in fact been cancelled, the insured demanded that Respondent return the previously paid premiums. Based on advice of counsel, Respondent refused to do so until a representative of Petitioner demanded that she return the premiums. At that time, she obtained a cashiers check payable to the insured, dated June 1, 1990, and in the amount of $2526.81. Although this equals the check that Dana Roehrig returned to Commonwealth in December, 1987, the insured actually paid Commonwealth $1000 down and $2885.16 for a total of $3885.16. This discrepancy appears not to have been noticed as neither Petitioner nor the insured has evidently made further demands upon Respondent for return of premiums paid. The insured ultimately commenced a legal action against Commonwealth, Dana Roehrig, and American Empire. At the time of the hearing, the litigation remains pending.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 626.561(1) and, thus, 626.621(2), Florida Statutes, and, pursuant to Sections 626.681(1) and 626.691, Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $1002.70, and placing her insurance licenses on probation for a period of one year from the date of the final order. If Respondent fails to pay the entire fine within 30 days of the date of the final order, the final order should provide, pursuant to Section 626.681(3), Florida Statutes, that the probation is automatically replaced by a one-year suspension. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 James A. Bossart Division of Legal Affairs Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods Gatlin, Woods, et al. 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is licensed as a general lines insurance agent in the State of Florida. The "original issue date" of his license was August 16, 1994. Respondent was formerly licensed as an insurance adjuster. He surrendered his adjuster's license in 2005. In September of 2004, a criminal information was filed against Respondent in Orange County (Florida) Circuit Court Case No. 48-2004-CF006694-O. The information alleged that Respondent, between July 1, 2002, and April 15, 2003, "did in violation of Florida Statute 817.034(4)(a)(3), engage in a systematic, ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud ONE (1) or more persons, to wit: WORKMEN'S AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, or to obtain property from one (1) or more persons by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or willful misrepresentations of a future act, and who so obtained property, to wit: United States Money Curren[cy] from one or more of said persons, to wit: WORKMEN'S AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY." The charge stemmed from conduct that Respondent engaged in while acting in his capacity as an insurance adjuster for Workmen's Auto Insurance Company. Respondent was approximately 34 years of age at the time. On March 29, 2005, Respondent freely and voluntarily pled nolo contendere to the crime alleged in the information, adjudication of guilt was withheld, and he was placed on four years' probation, with "special conditions" that included: surrendering his insurance adjuster's license by April 29, 2005; performing 150 hours of community service; "inform[ing] any future employers of this crime"; "serv[ing] 1 Day[] in the County Jail, with 1 Day[] credit for time served; and "pay[ing] $17,312.87 restitution to Workmen's Insurance Group." Respondent failed to inform Petitioner in writing, within 30 days of March 29, 2005, that he had entered this plea of nolo contendere (although he did immediately inform his then employer of his plea). He did not realize that he was under an obligation to provide Petitioner with such notification. He assumed, given Petitioner's involvement in the prosecution, that it knew about the plea. Respondent has surrendered his insurance adjuster's license, as required by the order of probation. Respondent has completed the 150 hours of community service required by the order of probation. Respondent has made timely monthly restitution payments to Workmen's Insurance Group in accordance with a payment plan approved by the sentencing court, but has yet to make full restitution. Respondent is still on probation. Respondent is presently employed as a customer service representative with Freedom Insurance Agency, Inc. (Freedom) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The owner of Freedom, Julius Ridolfi, has written a letter expressing his desire to "offer [Respondent] a permanent position with Freedom Insurance as a licensed 2-20 Agent with full agent responsibilities," if Respondent's license is not revoked as a result of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's general lines insurance license. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Gautier Kitchen, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Raymond Antonio Flores 244 Northeast 46th Street Miami, Florida 33137 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what punishment should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent is now, and has been for approximately the past 20 years, licensed by Petitioner as a general lines insurance agent. On July 3, 1986, Petitioner received a complaint concerning Respondent from Elsa Garcia. Garcia reported that she had purchased automobile insurance through Dixie Insurance Brokers and had been given a temporary insurance binder bearing the signature of a "Paul J. Lovelace" reflecting that her coverage was to be effective March 11, 1985. According to Garcia, however, she had subsequently discovered, after having been involved in an automobile accident on March 23, 1985, that her insurance coverage had not taken effect until after the accident. Garcia's complaint was assigned to one of Petitioner's employees, Burton Powell, to review and investigate. As part of his investigation, Powell contacted Alan D. Kruger, Garcia's attorney. Kruger supplied Powell with Garcia's affidavit and other pertinent documents, including a copy of Garcia's automobile insurance application and the temporary insurance binder she had been given by Dixie Insurance Brokers. The application reflects that Garcia was seeking coverage for the period from April 2, 1985, to October 2, 1985. The binder, on the other hand, indicates that it was to be effective for one month commencing, not April 2, 1985, but March 11, 1985. Someone other than Respondent signed his name to both the application and the binder. 1/ On various occasions prior to December 18, 1987, Respondent was the general lines insurance agent of record for Dixie Insurance Brokers. 2/ On these occasions he never personally signed any insurance applications, nor did he otherwise play any role in the operation and control of the agency. By his own admission, he simply allowed the agency to use his license, without any restrictions imposed by him, in exchange for monetary consideration. In so doing, he willfully engaged in a scheme designed to circumvent the licensing requirements of the Florida Insurance Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order (1) dismissing Count I of the administrative complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of Count II of the administrative complaint; and (3) revoking Respondent's general lines insurance agent license for his having engaged in the conduct specified in Count II of the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of November, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 627.832(1)(i) and 627.848, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Alliant Premium Finance Corporation, is a Florida licensed premium finance company domiciled in Florida. Alliant has been licensed to sell premium finance agreements to the general public in Florida since December 16, 1993. William J. Villari has been the president of Alliant since its licensure. In 1995, Petitioner, Department of Insurance, performed a routine regulatory examination of Alliant. During the examination, 15 Alliant files, which had refunds due to insureds within 30 days, were reviewed. Out of the 15 files, 12 were late, ranging from 87 to 329 days late. The Department sent Alliant the Department's 1995 Report of Examination, which gave notice to Alliant that between December 16, 1993, and June 30, 1995, Alliant had violated the insurance code by failing to make refunds within 30 days. Mr. Villari advised the Department by letter dated December 18, 1995, that he was taking steps to ensure that in the future refunds would be made on a timely basis. No disciplinary action was taken by the Department as a result of the 1995 examination. During January 1998, the Department performed another routine regulatory examination of Alliant. The findings of the examination are contained in the Report of Examination for the period from July 1, 1995, to September 30, 1997. As was noted in the report, 11 Alliant accounts were reviewed which had refunds due to insureds within 30 days, and 8 of the 11 accounts were refunded late. The lateness ranged from 5 to 67 days. The report was mailed to Alliant on February 17, 1998. The 1998 examination also revealed that between July 1, 1995, and September 30, 1997, Alliant had failed to maintain certificates of mailing showing that notices of intent to cancel insurance contracts were mailed to insureds ten days before cancellation. The evidence did not show that Alliant had failed to mail the cancellation notices, only that Alliant had failed to maintain certificates showing that the notices had been mailed. Respondent does not dispute that Alliant was late in making refunds as noted in the 1998 Examination Report or that Alliant did not maintain certificates of mailing for the cancellation notices. Alliant disagrees with the penalty proposed by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, finding that Alliant Premium Finance Corporation violated Sections 627.832(1)(i) and 627.848(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 627.832(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and $250 for the violation of Section 627.848(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher R. Hunt, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William J. Villari, President Alliant Premium Finance Corporation 303 Gardenia Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a general lines, and a life and health insurance agent on or about February 8, 1990. By letter dated May 17, 1990, the Petitioner was informed that his applications for examination were denied based upon a finding that he lacked fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the insurance business. Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he is qualified to take these licensure examinations. On or about January 3, 1986, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to two counts in a superseding indictment filed in Case Number 84-00603(S)-05 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Based upon this plea, the Petitioner was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud an insurance company and filing a false insurance claim, each count being a felony involving moral turpitude. He was sentenced to three years probation, and ordered to pay a fine of $10,000. Special conditions of probation included prohibiting the Petitioner from engaging in the insurance business, and requiring that he make restitution to the Hartford Insurance Group in the sum of $1,778.08. On or about August 15, 1986, the Insurance Department of the State of New York revoked the Petitioner's insurance broker's license, based upon his felony conviction as set forth above. The Petitioner successfully completed his period of probation in New York on January 2, 1989, including payment of the $10,000 fine and restitution in the amount of $1,778.08. On or about September 22, 1989, the Board of Parole of the State of New York issued a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities to the Petitioner which removes bars to employment and licensure automatically imposed by the laws of the State of New York as a result of his conviction. However, this Certificate specifies that it shall not prevent any administrative or licensing body or board from relying upon this conviction as a basis for the exercise of its discretionary power to refuse to issue a license. The Petitioner failed to disclose on his applications for examination that his insurance broker's license in New York had been revoked. In fact, he specifically answered "no" to the question on these applications concerning whether his license had ever been revoked in another state. The Petitioner did disclose on his applications for examination that he had been charged with a felony in New York, and indicated that he had entered a plea to a single charge. He stated on his applications, however, that he had not been convicted by any court. The Petitioner claims that he did not know that his New York license had been revoked. Rather, he testified that he had sought to surrender his license in New York after his conviction in 1986, and thought that the administrative action had been concluded with his license surrender. He claims he never was notified of any hearing, and did not receive a copy of the order of revocation issued by the Insurance Department in New York. The Petitioner also claims that he entered his plea of guilty as a matter of convenience in order to avoid a long and expensive trial, and on the advise of his counsel. He maintains that he did not file a false insurance claim and did not conspire to defraud any insurance company. Rather, he testified that he was very ill at the time, and did not expect to live. In order to avoid the strain and expense of a trial, and since he did not believe he would ever again be physically able to engage in the insurance business, he agreed to resolve the criminal charges against him with a plea of guilty to two counts in the superseding indictment issued against him. Finally, he testified that he indicated on his applications that he had not been convicted by any court since he had not had a jury trial, and he was under the impression that a person can be convicted only if found guilty by a jury. Based upon his demeanor at hearing, it is found that the Petitioner is a credible witness and that his claims that he did not know his New York license had been revoked and that he thought a person could only be convicted if found guilty by a jury are truthful. Nevertheless, the Petitioner was in error regarding both claims, and as a result, he answered questions on his applications in a false and incomplete manner. He was convicted on two felony counts, and his license was revoked in New York based on those convictions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that he is not qualified to take the examination for licensure as a general lines, and a life and health insurance agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as a summary of the evidence (Exhibit P-2) and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding 6. Adopted, in part, in Finding 2, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary, simply a summation of testimony, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 8. Rejected in Finding 9. Rejected as a comment on the record and not a proposed finding of fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Berman, Esquire 2450 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 401 Hollywood, FL 33020 Gordon Thomas Nicol, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, PLaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the license of Allen Franklin Meredith (Respondent) should be disciplined by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Petitioner) for allegedly allowing others to use his general lines insurance agent license, and to sign his name to insurance policy applications while Respondent was not present, as more particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint issued herein on or about October 12, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed, and eligible for licensure, in the State of Florida as a life and health insurance agent, health insurance agent, and a general lines insurance agent. During April, 1989, Respondent approached Gordon Rowan, owner of Gordon Rowan Real Estate and Insurance in Winter Haven, Florida, to inquire whether Rowan would assist Respondent in obtaining a renewal of his general lines insurance agent license. Respondent was residing with his family in Georgia at the time, and told Rowan that his Florida general lines agent license was about to expire, and he needed to get licensed with a Florida company in order to apply for renewal. Rowan agreed to pay for Respondent's renewal fee, and for licensing him with a Florida Company doing business through Rowan's agency. On or about April 30, 1987, Rowan applied to National Insurance Associates for licensure on behalf of Respondent, and paid the applicable license fee. On or about May 20, 1987, Respondent was licensed with National Insurance Associates as a general lines insurance agent, and his Florida general lines license was renewed. Respondent admitted in an affidavit executed on November 16, 1987, that he did authorize Rowan to use his general lines license from the beginning of May to the end of June, 1987, while he was still living in Georgia. This authorization was in exchange for Rowan's assistance in obtaining Respondent's licensure with National Insurance Association, and renewal of his Florida license. However, at hearing Respondent testified that he never authorized Rowan to "use" his license, only to "place" his license with Rowan's agency. Rowan testified that Respondent had, in fact, told him that he could use his license and write business under it, including signing Respondent's name to policy applications, even though Respondent was not in the office and did not participate in these transactions. Rowan's assistant, May Satava, was present when Rowan and Respondent discussed their arrangement, and confirmed Rowan's testimony. Based upon the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the affidavit executed by the Respondent shortly after the events involved in this matter, it is found that Respondent's uncorroborated testimony at hearing is not credible, while that of Rowan and Satava is found to be credible and consistent with statements made to Luis Rivera, the Petitioner's investigator, in October, 1987. Respondent did tell Rowan that he could use his general lines license to write business, and to sign his name to applications in exchange for Rowan's assistance in obtaining the renewal of his Florida general lines agent license. Working under Rowan's control and supervision, Satava did sign Respondent's name to approximately 48 policy applications from May through July, 1987, while Respondent actually signed only 3 additional policy applications during this period. Thus, the vast majority of business written under Respondent's license during this time was actually completed by Satava, an unlicensed person working under the control and supervision of Rowan, without any involvement of Respondent, pursuant to his agreement with Rowan that Rowan could use his license. Respondent did receive a commission payment in the amount of $200 from Rowan for June and July commissions. This represented Rowan's estimate of a reasonable payment to Respondent for the use of his license during this time when Satava signed Respondent's name to approximately 48 policy applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's general lines agent license, and eligibility for licensure, for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th Florida. day of March, 1990 in Tallahassee, DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. 5-6. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon T. Nicol, Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Allen Franklin Meredith 140 Flamingo Drive Auburndale, FL 33823 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
