Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents Richard Elliott Templin, Jr., was qualified for licensure as a general lines agent and as a life and health insurance agent in Florida and represented the Okeechobee Insurance Agency, (OIA), located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is currently eligible for licensure as a general lines agent and as a health and life insurance agent in Florida. RAVEN MILLER In March, 1984, Raven Miller applied for and was issued automobile insurance by OIA. She contacted that agency among others and found that it quoted her the cheapest price for the coverage she wanted, coverage sufficient to protect her and the finance company from loss. During the application process, she signed several forms provided to her by the agent who briefly discussed her coverage with her but did not advise her it would include life insurance or accidental death insurance. When she initially went into the office to renew the policy, she asked for coverage on the vehicle but did not desire anything else. The employee with whom she talked indicated understanding of her desires and filled out the required paperwork for her without asking any other questions of her. When the paperwork was completed, Ms. Miller was told that the premium cost would be $347.00 for which she gave a check and received a receipt, plus $110.00 for a term life insurance policy. She was not told that that this latter coverage was separate from the automobile coverage. Ms. Miller filled out nothing during the application process. All the documents were filled out by the clerk. The application form was completely filled out except for her signature when she signed it. It reflected that uninsured motorist coverage was rejected but Ms. Miller was not asked by anyone at the agency if she desired that coverage. When she inquired about deductibles, she was advised there was a mandatory $250.00 deductible and though she is reflected to have rejected bodily injury coverage, this was not discussed with her, either. The only form that Ms. Miller filled out personally was the pink application to Fortune Insurance Company, (Fortune), on which she identified her "beneficiary." This form was not explained to her, however, nor was there any discussion with her of life insurance coverage. Ms. Miller, who works with the Post Office, has $140,000 in life insurance coverage through her job and had she known she was being offered additional life insurance coverage, would have rejected it. When Ms. Miller signed the summary of coverage form, it was completely filled out. The lady with whom she was dealing briefly went over the various items on it but did not discuss them with her or explained anything to her. The confirmation form which she signed was filled out prior to being given to her for signature. The explanation regarding it was brief and she was not advised that life insurance coverage was optional. The life insurance premium was not forwarded by OIA to the company. She did not receive a policy from either Fortune Life or ATA. At no time during her dealings with OIA did she meet or deal with Respondent and she does not know him nor would she recognize him. When she sold her car in March, 1985, Ms. Miller cancelled the policy in person at the agency at which time she was advised that her refund would come in the mail. Even after numerous contacts with the agency to inquire where the refund was, it was not given to her. At no time during her dealings with OIA was she aware of the fact that she was applying for an accidental death policy. All she asked for, all she wanted, and all she thought she was getting was auto insurance sufficient to cover her, her bank, and others with whom she might have an accident in the event of loss. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Miller signed an acknowledgment of explanation both at the time of the original policy and and the time of renewal, the explanation in both cases was extremely brief. She asked no questions to speak of and no information was volunteered. In short, at the time of renewal the agency merely renewed the prior coverage. They did not show her what they were comparing with. She assumes that the figures were the same as for the original policy and she assumed that whatever she got was a standard coverage and charge to every applicant. Ms. Miller was satisfied with the coverage she received and the package she purchased. Her complaint to the Department of Insurance related to the failure to receive her refund not to the sale of the insurance to her. In fact, at the time she filed her complaint, she did not even know that she had a life insurance policy. DENNIS AND ALETA NELSON Dennis Nelson, who has worked for the Post Office for approximately 10 years, on or about March 21, 1985 went to the OIA because, having spoken with Respondent over the phone, and having gotten a quote for "full coverage" on his automobiles from him, he liked the price. Mr. Nelson dealt with Respondent who took down the particulars on the cars to be covered, then went to his rate books, and quoted a price to Mr. Nelson which was satisfactory. In doing so, he laid out the explanation of coverage form and indicated what coverage the Nelsons would have. In the course of the application process, there was no discussion of the limits of liability insurance, uninsured motorist Coverage, deductibles, or life insurance. When the paperwork was completed, Mr. Nelson signed the applications for insurance given to him and a premium finance agreement. Respondent explained to Mr. Nelson the application for life insurance and gave him the impression that it was mandatory. It was made mandatory by the company that a customer buy the whole package, but it was not mandatory under the state requirements. The failure to make this distinction is misleading and deceptive. Mr. Nelson never received any policies from any of the companies from whom he was supposed to have received coverage, though he made his premium payments. By the same token, the company did not receive Nelson's premiums from the agency and, therefore, did not issue a policy. Approximately three months after the coverage went into effect, OIA notified the Nelsons that the cost of coverage on their Blazer would be raised by more than $200 for the year. Mr. Nelson made the initial inquiry call to the company writing this coverage but he was poorly treated by company representatives and got no information. Thereafter, Mrs. Nelson went to OIA's Okeechobee Boulevard office and spoke with Respondent who indicated he could not understand it either. Nonetheless, she paid a part of the increase, ($110.00), at the time in cash. The Nelsons checked with other companies and were quoted lower prices. Because OIA could not explain the raise, they went to the Petitioner's local office where they were told that the life insurance coverage they had purchased was not mandatory. As a result, they decided to cancel their coverage with OIA which Mrs. Nelson did in person. When she attempted to fill out the cancellation form, she was told by an agency employee that she could not cancel the life insurance portion only her husband could do that. Mr. Nelson thereafter attempted to reach the Respondent to discuss this situation with him but could never seem to get in touch with him. Mr. Nelson felt he got repeated run arounds from the employees at OIA and was repeatedly referred to the Lake Worth office. When they ultimately received the refund from OIA, it was dishonored and thereafter, the Nelsons were reimbursed for it in cash. ROBERT M. ANDERSON Mr. Anderson, an employee of Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Corporation in West Palm Beach, purchased automobile insurance from OIA in July, 1985. He selected that agency because they offered him the best price for the coverage which he had told them he wanted, which was "the minimum necessary to satisfy state and bank requirements." During the course of his negotiations with the agency, he dealt with an individual known to him as "Rich" but though Respondent looks familiar to him, he cannot identify Respondent as that individual. He advised the individual with whom he dealt what kind of car he had, (a Porche 911), his age, and that he wanted the best deal he could get. In response, the individual gave him a quotation for a 12 month policy which was too high for his budget. He asked for a quote on the rate for 6 months which was quoted to him as $1,816.00, for which he wrote a check. Mr. Anderson thereafter filled out an application package for coverage. The summary of coverage form was not discussed with him in detail. For example, the $2,000 deductible of PIP coverage was not discussed nor were any details or deductibles on other coverages. Accidental death coverage was not discussed with him nor did he request it. He recognizes his signature on certain documents and does not dispute having signed them. However, he does not recall any discussion about them nor does he recall signing a power of attorney form or even discussing the need to have one signed. There was no discussion with Mr. Anderson regarding life insurance coverage and in fact, he would have declined it had it been discussed because he was fully covered through his company's group policy. Mr. Anderson was not prevented from asking questions but did not do so because he did not know what questions to ask. He was given the opportunity to read the forms but did not review them in detail because he did not understand them then and does not understand them now. He did not, however, indicate that he did not understand. Because he had 9 points on his driver's record, he did not ask many questions. He was grateful to get any coverage and did not feel it was appropriate to take the time, as busy as Respondent appeared to be, to ask questions. It was his understanding that everything he got was a part of the "total package" that he requested. Mr. Anderson had no complaint about the coverage that he received. His complaint to the Petitioner was based on his failure to secure a prompt refund from the agency at the time he desired to cancel the coverage, and it was at this time, in discussing the matter with the Commissioner's office, that he first learned he had life and other undesired coverages as a part of his auto insurance package. He has, however, subsequently received the refund requested. All of the individuals referenced above received and paid for as a part of their insurance coverage, membership in an automobile motor club. On policies of this nature, the selling agency retains 90 percent of the premium and remits only 10 percent to the insurer. The motor club membership included a life insurance policy issued by Fortune Life. None of the persons involved with Respondent here knew they were buying either life insurance, accidental death insurance, or motor club membership. All had asked for "total" coverage, desiring thereby only that coverage necessary to operator a motor vehicle legally in this state. Neither life insurance, accidental death insurance, nor motor club coverage is a requirement of the state for the operation of a motor vehicle. It is not unlawful for an insurance agency to make those coverages a necessary part of a package and condition the issuance of liability, property damage, and PIP coverage upon the purchase of a total package including the other. What is improper, however, is a failure on the part of the agency to disclose that the life, accidental death, and motor club coverages are not a part of the insurance requirements of the state and the failure to disclose this is the nexus of the offense alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For Petitioner 1-4 Accepted and incorporated herein. 5-7 Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-16 Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-18 Accepted and incorporated herein. 19 Accepted and incorporated herein. 20 Accepted but irrelevant. 21 Accepted and incorporated herein. 22 Accepted. 23-26 Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. 28 Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 Accepted but irrelevant. 30 Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32 Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 Rejected as unproven. Witness never identified Respondent as the individual with whom he dealt. In the remaining paragraph rulings, it is assumed only that Respondent was involved. 35&36 Accepted and incorporated herein. 37-39 Accepted and incorporated herein. 40&41 Accepted and incorporated herein. 42&43 Accepted. For Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted not as a Finding of Fact but as a recitation of the evidence, Accepted in substance. Paragraph is long and involved. See 3 above. See 3 above. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Office of Legal Services Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 David W. Spicer, Esquire Tammy J. Kissell, Esquire NCNB Tower, Suite 910 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2363 =================================================================
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance and insurance related activities in Florida. Petitioner is the agency responsible for regulating any licensed or unlicensed person or entity engaged in unfair insurance trade practices within the meaning of Section 626.951, Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent, Leroy Preston, is licensed to sell life and health insurance in Florida. The other Respondents are not licensed to transact insurance in Florida and are not otherwise licensed by Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 624 through 632, 634, 635, 637, 638, 641, 648, and 651 (the "Florida Insurance Code"). Respondent, American Family Benefits Group, Incorporated ("AFBG, Inc.") is a Florida corporation wholly owned by the four individual Respondents. Respondent, Roy L. Beach, is an officer and director of AFBG, Inc., and is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Respondents, Preston, Kenneth King, and Robert King, are officers and directors of AFBG, Inc. The individual Respondents comprise American Family Benefits Group ("AFBG") and the board of directors for AFBG, Inc. (the "Board"). Background Respondents designed a marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. Promotional materials describing the benefits of membership were reviewed and approved by each member of the Board and mailed to thousands of prospective customers in 50 states. Memberships were offered to individuals at a price of $99 per membership. The benefits of membership included: life insurance up to $350,000 at no cost to members; a certificate of deposit of $5,000; a major bank credit card, regardless of credit history, secured by the certificate of deposit; non- qualifying mortgage loans; non-qualifying automobile leases; discounted long distance service; and discounted catalog prices. Respondents received approximately 140,000 applications for membership. Approximately 600 applications included payment of the $99 membership fee. Petitioner issued a Notice And Order To Show Cause on February 10, 1994. The marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. was terminated by Respondents. Respondents returned the membership fee paid by approximately 300 applicants. On May 6, 1994, Petitioner issued an Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause ("Amended Notice"). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Sections 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a), (b), (h), (l), and (n). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(a) by making misrepresentations for the purpose of effecting an assignment or pledge of insurance policies to secure a loan. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(b) by representing that insurance policies obtained on the life of members would be used to secure a loan that would fund membership benefits. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(h) by offering the payment of money to induce customers to enter into an insurance contract. The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(l) by inducing customers to pledge, assign, borrow on insurance policies, convert insurance policies, or to take out an insurance policy with another insurer ("twisting"). Finally, the Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(n) by offering free insurance as an inducement for the purchase or sale or services directly or indirectly connected with real or personal property. Pledge Or Assignment To Effect A Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(a) Respondents knowingly issued and circulated a statement or sales presentation (the "promotional materials") that was a misrepresentation. The misrepresentation was made for the purposes of: effecting a pledge or assignment of an insurance policy; and effecting a loan against an insurance policy. Payment of the $99 membership fee did not entitle a new member to any of the benefits of membership. A new member was not required to elect any membership benefit, including the insurance benefits. Such a member could simply pay Respondents $99 and choose to receive none of the benefits of membership. A new member who wished to elect any of the benefits of membership was in substantially the same position as a new member who chose to receive no benefits. A new member who desired any one of the benefits of membership was first required to elect the insurance benefits. Insurance benefits entitled a new member to five universal life insurance policies on the life of the new member. Each policy was to be issued for $70,000. 2/ No life insurance policies were available unless a new member applied for and obtained all five policies and assigned four of the five policies to a bank. The bank must then make a loan in an amount and terms that were sufficient to fund all of the benefits of membership. 3/ A loan in the gross amount of $84,000 was needed to fund the benefits of membership. The net loan proceeds were to be used to purchase an annuity, a certificate of deposit to secure the credit card for the new member, pay Respondents a profit of $5,000, pay commissions and referral fees to independent parties up to $3,000, pay administrative costs, and fund the other benefits of membership. 4/ Respondents' pro forma projections of economic feasibility for the membership program showed an annual interest rate of six per cent, an amortization period of 20 years, and level periodic payments of principal and interest. Respondents' pro formal projections were based, in relevant part, on three assumptions. First, the insurance policies would be used as part of the collateral securing the loan needed to fund the benefits of membership. Second, Respondents were to be personally liable for each loan. Third, an annuity would secure the loan, pay the debt service on the loan, and pay the premiums for the insurance policies assigned to the lender. The insurance policies that new members were required to assign to the lender to secure the purported loan had no loan value. Respondents represented to prospective members that the life insurance policies were universal life policies. However, the policies were "skeleton" universal life policies that had de minimis cash value and no loan value. The loan to value ratio of any loan secured by the insurance policies would necessarily exceed 100 percent. Respondents' personal liability for loans to new members lacked economic substance. Capital contributions to AFBG, Inc. and Respondents' individual assets were inadequate to secure individual loans of $84,000 to 140,000 members. The annuity needed to pay the debt service on the loan and the insurance premiums on the policies securing the loan was not economically feasible. 5/ The membership fee of $99 was inadequate to pay the first year insurance premium on one $70,000 policy, much less the other four policies required to fund any of the benefits of membership. The economic reality of the membership program required a new member to pay Respondents $99 and to apply for and obtain five insurance policies from independent insurance agents. There was little or no probability of receiving any of the benefits of membership because the loan needed to fund those benefits had little or no economic reality. Thus, the membership program required a new member to pay $99 to Respondents for no benefits of membership. If $99 had been paid by all 140,000 applicants, Respondents would have received $13,860,000 in return for illusory promises of membership benefits. Insurance Policies To Secure Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(b) Respondents knowingly published, circulated, disseminated, and placed before the public an untrue statement concerning the business of insurance. Respondents represented that the universal life insurance policies obtained by individual members would be used as collateral to secure the loan needed to fund their insurance benefits. Respondents knew that the insurance policies were skeleton policies with little or no cash value and no loan value. The untrue statements issued by Respondents concerned the business of insurance. Respondents used economic incentives to induce prospective members to obtain life insurance policies. Without life insurance policies, new members were not entitled to any of the other benefits of membership including, a certificate of deposit, a credit card, non-qualifying mortgages, and non- qualifying car leases. The purchase and assignment of life insurance policies was an integral part of the business conducted by Respondents. The economic incentives used by Respondents were designed to effectuate a contract of insurance. Respondents effectuated approximately five contracts of insurance. The subsequent assignment of insurance policies to a lender also constituted the business of insurance. Those assignments constituted the transaction of matters subsequent to the insurance contract and arising out of the insurance contract. Unlawful Rebates: Section 626.9541(1)(h) 27. Respondents knowingly offered an indirect rebate of an insurance premium to prospective members as an inducement to enter into an insurance contract. Respondents' offer to pay the insurance premiums on members' insurance policies was a valuable consideration intended to induce new members to enter into insurance contracts. Twisting: Section 626.9541(1)(l) 28. Respondents knowingly made misleading representations with respect to insurance policies for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce new members to pledge, assign, borrow on, or convert an insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer. Respondents representations were misleading. 29. Respondents' representations led prospective members to believe that a pledge, assignment, or conversion of their insurance policies could be used to secure a loan needed to fund other membership benefits. The representation that a loan could be obtained by new members upon assignment of their insurance policies had no economic reality. Free Insurance: Section 626.9541(1)(n) Respondents offered to provide free insurance as an inducement for new members to purchase real or personal property. The benefits of membership included non-qualifying mortgages in real property, non-qualifying car leases, and non-qualifying bank credit cards. None of those benefits were available to new members unless they obtained life insurance policies and assigned those policies to a lender. The insurance policies were free to new members. There was no cost to new members. The insurance premiums were to be paid out of the annuity to be purchased from the net loan proceeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of all of the charges in the Amended Notice and ordering Respondents to permanently cease and desist the marketing of memberships in AFBG, Inc. It is further recommended that a fine of $4,000 should be imposed on each of the Respondents, not to exceed the aggregate amount of $20,000, and that the license of Respondent, Leroy Preston, should be suspended for 30 days. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 March, 1995.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent. The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida. The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency. After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts. The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal. In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before. With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately $150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500 to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900. At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage. As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all. Judy Nelson (Count V). Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated. Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage. Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her. On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990. Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security. Fred J. Miller (Count VI). On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage. A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt. It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account. Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card. On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed. Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990. Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy. Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV). Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.) On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security. Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III). Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security. In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly. On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing. One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle. At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/ Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs. John Stuiso (Count I). On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250. It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied. In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing. In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate. When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund. The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250. Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check. The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa. After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.). Wanda Mae Riley (Count II). In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business. Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did. Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing. In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether the School Board of Broward County's award of a contract for Excess General and Auto Liability insurance coverage to United National Insurance Company is barred because of illegality?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ranger Insurance Company, Petitioner, is the holder of a Certificate of Authority dated September 9, 1996 and issued by the Department of Insurance and Bill Nelson, Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer. Good through June 1, 1997, the certificate authorizes Ranger to write in a number of lines of insurance business, including, Private Passenger Auto Liability, Commercial Automobile Liability, Private Passenger Automobile Auto Physical Damage, Commercial Auto Physical Damage and Other Liability. As such, Ranger is an "authorized" or "admitted" insurer in the State of Florida. L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., is a joint venture and co- petitioner with Ranger in this proceeding through whom Ranger proposed to procure the Excess General and Auto Liability (“Excess GL/AL”) coverage. A timely proposal under Request for Proposal 97- 072S was submitted to the School Board of Broward County by the petitioners to provide the Excess GL/AL Insurance Coverage sought by the RFP. United National Insurance Company is an "eligible" surplus lines insurer, approved by the Florida Department of Insurance to transact all surplus lines coverages in the State of Florida and licensed as such. The Department has notified insurance agents of United Nation's eligibility as a surplus lines insurer since 1978. It is the insurer of the Excess General and Excess Auto Liability insurance coverage awarded by the School Board under RFP 97-072S. Arthur J. Gallagher & Company ("Gallagher,") is the eighth largest insurance broker in the world. It has four sales offices, nine service offices, and approximately 150 employees in the State of Florida alone. The office from which it conducted business related to this proceeding is in Boca Raton, Florida, an office for which Area President David L. Marcus is responsible. Gallagher submitted a timely proposal (the "Gallagher proposal,") in response to the RFP on behalf of United National. The School Board of Broward County is the authority that operates, controls, and supervises all free public schools in the Broward County School District, "[i]n accordance with the provisions of s. (4)(b) of Article IX of the State Constitution ...". Section 230.03(2), F.S. In accord with its powers, the School Board may contract directly to purchase insurance. It is not required by its purchasing rules to use a competitive bidding or procurement process to purchase insurance. Nonetheless, on Friday, April 26, 1996, it issued a request for proposals, the RFP at issue in this proceeding, for insurance coverages including for Excess GL/AL insurance coverages. Siver Insurance Management Consultants Siver Insurance Management Consultants ("Siver,") are the drafters of RFP 97-072S. The School Board relied on Siver to draft the RFP, particularly its technical sections. Technical review of the proposals made under the RFP was conducted by Siver. And Siver put together for the School Board's use a summary of the policies proposed by both United National and Ranger. The summary was considered by the School Board's Evaluation Committee when it evaluated the competing proposals. The determination of whether the competing proposers were properly licensed was made by Siver. The School Board's Evaluation Committee, indeed the School Board, itself, played no role in determining the licensing credentials of the proposers while the proposals were under consideration. Under the arrangement between Siver and the School Board, however, the School Board retained the primary responsibility for administering the RFP. The RFP Request for Proposal 97-072S was mailed to 324 vendors (prospective proposers) the same day as its issuance, April 26, 1996. None of the vendors knew the contents of the RFP until it was issued. The RFP sought proposals for seven coverages, each of which was severable from the remainder of the coverages and was allowed to be proposed separately. The scope of the request was described in the RFP as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida ... is seeking proposals for various insurance coverages and risk management services. To facilitate distribution of the underwriting data and the requirements for each of the coverages, this consolidated Request for Proposals ... has been prepared. However, each of the coverages is severable and may be proposed separately. The following are included: Boiler & Machinery Excess General and Automobile Liability Excess Workers' Compensation School Leaders Errors & Omissions Crime Including Employee Dishonesty - Faithful Performance, Depositor's Forgery Claim and Risk Management Services (Including Managed Care Services) Statutory Death Benefits Petitioner's Ex. 1, pg. I-1. Since the seven coverages are severable and no proposer had to submit a proposal on all seven coverages, one way of looking at RFP 97-072S is as a consolidated RFP composed of seven, separate proposals, each for a different type of insurance coverage. Of the 324 vendors to whom the RFP was sent, only two, Gallagher, on behalf of United National, and Ranger, through the action of the joint venture, submitted proposals with respect to the Excess GL/AL coverages. Reasons for Using an RFP The School Board, under the auspices of Siver, chose to seek insurance coverage through an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid, or what is colloquially referred to as a "straight bid," for a number of reasons. As one familiar with RFPs and Invitations to Bid might expect, the School Board and Siver were attracted to the RFP by the increased flexibility it offered in the ultimate product procured in comparison to the potentially less flexible product that would be procured through an invitation to bid. More pertinent to this case, however, Siver chose to use an RFP for the School Board in this case because "as explained ... by the Department of Insurance over the ... years, while there may... [be a] prohibition against any surplus lines agents submitting a straight bid, there would not be a prohibition against a ... [surplus lines] agent responding to a request for proposal " (Tr. 149.) The RFP approach was not chosen, however, in order to avoid any legal requirement or to circumvent the Insurance Code. As explained by Mr. Marshall, the approach was born of hard reality: Id. [O]ne of the primary motivations [for using an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid] was to allow us [The School Board and Siver] to consider surplus lines companies because of the fact that very often they were the only insurers that would respond on the number of coverages and clients that we were working for. The Insurance Code and the Surplus Lines Law The Insurance Code in Section 624.401, Florida Statutes, requires generally that an insurer be authorized by the Department of Insurance (the "Department,") to transact business in the State of Florida before it does so: (1) No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to the insurer by the department, except as to such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in this code. One place in the code where transactions are "expressly otherwise provided for ...," is in the Surplus Lines Law, Section 626.913 et seq., Florida Statues. The purposes of the law are described as follows: It is declared that the purposes of the Surplus Lines Law are to provide for orderly access for the insuring public of this state to insurers not authorized to transact insurance in this state, through only qualified, licensed, and supervised surplus lines agents resident in this state, for insurance coverages and to the extent thereof not procurable from authorized insurers, who under the laws of this state must meet certain standards as to policy forms and rates, from unwarranted competition by unauthorized insurers who, in the absence of this law, would not be subject to similar requirements; and for other purposes as set forth in this Surplus Lines Law. Section 626.913(2), F.S. Surplus lines insurance is authorized in the first instance only if coverages cannot be procured from authorized insurers: If certain insurance coverages of subjects resident, located, or to be performed in this state cannot be procured from authorized insurers, such coverages, hereinafter designated "surplus lines," may be procured from unauthorized insurers, subject to the following conditions: The insurance must be eligible for export under s. 626.916 or s. 626.917; The insurer must be an eligible surplus lines insurer under s. 626.917 or s. 626.918; The insurance must be so placed through a licensed Florida surplus lines agent; and The other applicable provisions of this Surplus Lines Law must be met. Section 626.915, Florida Statutes, and then only subject to certain other conditions: No insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets all of the following conditions: The full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state ... . Surplus lines agents must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring a properly documented statement of diligent effort from the retail or producing agent. However, to be in compliance with the diligent effort requirement, the surplus lines agent's reliance must be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the risk. Reasonableness shall be assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by-risk basis. It is not possible to obtain the full amount of insurance required by layering the risk, it is permissible to export the full amount. Section 626.916, F.S. Authorized vs. Unauthorized Insurers Unlike authorized insurers, unauthorized insurers do not have their rates and forms approved by the Department of Insurance, (the "Department.") Similarly, unauthorized insurers are not member of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, which guarantees payment of claims if an insurer becomes insolvent. Unauthorized insurers may qualify to transact Florida insurance business under the Surplus Lines Law and so, for purposes of the Surplus Lines Law, be considered "eligible" to transact surplus lines business in Florida. When a Surplus Lines insurer is eligible, Department of Insurance employees refer to the insurer in Surplus Lines terms as "authorized," a term in everyday English that is synonymous with "eligible." But an eligible surplus lines insurer remains an "unauthorized" insurer when compared to an "authorized" insurer for purposes of the Insurance Code and that part of the code known as the Surplus Lines Law. Submission and Review of Proposals Both L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., (the "Joint Venture") and Gallagher submitted timely proposals with regard to Excess GL/AL coverage in response to the RFP. The Joint Venture's proposal was submitted, of course, on behalf of Ranger, an authorized insurer, and Gallagher's was submitted on behalf of United National, an insurer eligible to transact insurance in the State of Florida as a surplus lines insurer but otherwise an unauthorized insurer. The School Board's Insurance Evaluation Committee met on May 30, 1996, to evaluate proposals received pursuant to the RFP. Although briefly discussed by the Evaluation Committee, the issue of proper licensing was not determined independently by the committee. Instead of making that determination, the committee turned to its insurance consultant, Siver. Siver had determined that both proposers, Ranger and United National, were properly licensed for purposes of responding to the RFP and being considered by the committee. Siver communicated that determination to the committee. The committee relied on Siver's determination. Aside from receiving Siver's determination of proper licensing when "briefly discussed" (Tr. 108,) the Evaluation Committee did not address whether either Ranger or United National were properly licensed. Certainly, no issue of whether Ranger should take precedence over United National by virtue that it was an authorized insurer when United National was an unauthorized insurer and a mere eligible Surplus Lines insurer was ever discussed by the committee. In evaluating the proposals, the Committee awarded 73 points to the Gallagher proposal and 69 points to the Ranger proposal. Points were awarded on the basis of three criteria or in three categories: Qualifications (20 points maximum); Scope of Coverages/Services Offered (30 points maximum); and, Points for Projected Costs (50 points maximum.) The Ranger proposal outscored the Gallagher proposal in the "projected cost" category, 50 to 23, but it scored lower in the "qualifications" category, 14 versus 20 for Gallagher, and significantly lower in the "scope of coverages" category, five points versus 30 for Gallagher. The United National coverage was more than twice as costly as Ranger's, a $491,000 annual premium as opposed to Ranger's $226,799, which explains the points awarded in the "projected cost" category. The Gallagher proposal received more points than the Ranger proposal in the "qualifications" category because United National has provided the School Board with Excess GL/AL coverage for a number of years and Ranger has never provided the School Board with such coverage. The Ranger proposal fell so drastically short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/services offered" category primarily because of an athletic participation exclusion appearing in a rider to the specimen policy appearing in its proposal. Ranger had intended to cover athletic participation and the rider was included with the Ranger proposal in error. Ranger notified the School Board of its intent immediately after the tabulations were released. Nonetheless, the Evaluation Committee was never informed of the error and no attempt was made by the School Board to negotiate with Ranger to improve the coverages offered, despite authority in the RFP for the School Board to negotiate with any of the proposers. (The language used in the RFP is "with one or more" of the proposers.) The Ranger proposal also fell short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/service offered" category because the Gallagher proposal was made in several ways. One way was as to only Excess GL/AL coverage. Another way included School Leaders' Errors and Omissions ("E & O") coverage. The E & O coverage was offered by United National in the Gallagher proposal together with the Excess GL/AL coverage in a "combined lines" package, similar to United National coverages already existing for the School Board. Furthermore, the Ranger proposal expressly excluded coverage for Abuse and Molestation, a needed coverage due to the School Board's prior claims history. On June 5, 1996, the Evaluation Committee submitted its recommendations to the School Board's Purchasing Department. With regard to GL/AL coverage, the Evaluation Committee recommended the purchase of the GL/AL/E & O "combined lines" coverage offered by Gallagher through United National. The School Board posted its Proposal Recommendation/Tabulations adopting the recommendation, two days later, on June 7, 1996. Ranger Seeks Redress from the Department Following the School Board's award, Ranger, thinking that it should have received the award under the RFP as the only authorized insurer to submit a proposal for Excess GL/AL coverage, sought redress from the Department. On June 14, 1996, Ranger personnel met with the head of the Department's Surplus Lines Section, Carolyn Daniels, alleging a violation of the Insurance Code's Surplus Lines Law. On June 18, 1996, Ranger reiterated its complaint in writing and asked Ms. Daniels to find a violation that day. On June 24, 1996, Ranger, now through its attorneys, met with Ms. Daniels and her supervisor. Again, on July 4, 1996, Ranger's attorneys wrote to Ms. Daniels, further pleading for her to find a violation and asking for an administrative hearing if Ms. Daniels did not find in favor of the Ranger position. On a fifth attempt, Ranger wrote Ms. Daniels on July 11, 1996, requesting that she adopt Ranger's position. Ms. Daniels reviewed Ranger's five complaints with her supervisor, the Chief of the Bureau of Property and Casualty Solvency and Market Conduct. In a letter dated August 14, 1996, to the School Board's Purchasing Agent, Ms. Daniels announced her determination: I did not find any evidence to indicate that Mr. David L. Marcus of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company or United National Insurance Company violated the Surplus Lines Law in providing a quote for the School Board. Intervenor's Ex. No. 2. Ms. Daniel's determination was based on a number of factors, including the School Board's position in the transaction as an "informed consumer," (Tr. 422-423,) and that the School Board had possessed a United National policy for 13 years. But, the determination was primarily based on the fact that Gallagher had received three declinations from authorized insurers to provide Excess GL/AL coverage and so had performed that which was required prior to deciding that the coverage was eligible for export and provision by a surplus lines insurer: due diligence. Due Diligence Section 626.916(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, [n]o insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets ... the following condition[]: ... [t]he full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state, and the amount of insurance exported shall be only the excess over the amount so procurable from authorized insurers. (e.s.) The statute goes on to require that the diligent effort, "be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the export of that particular risk." Reasonableness is assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by- risk basis. Section 626.916(1)(a), F.S. "'Diligent effort' means seeking coverage from and having been rejected by at least three authorized insurers currently writing this type of coverage and documenting these rejections." Section 626.914(4), F.S. Under this definition, the "producing agent should contact at least three companies that are actually writing the types of clients and the business in the area [that they are] wanting to write." (Tr. 268.) A specific form to help insurance agents document their three rejections is adopted by Department rule. The rule provides: When placing coverage with an eligible surplus lines insurer, the surplus lines agent must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring from the retail or producing agent a properly documented statement of diligent effort on form DI4-1153 (7/94), "Statement of Diligent Effort", which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. Rule 4J-5.003(1), F.A.C. Fully aware of the requirement for documentation of diligent effort to find authorized insurers, and cognizant that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer could be found based on experience, Gallagher began soliciting proposals for coverage in the middle of April, 1996, several weeks before the School Board had issued the RFP. In fact, at the time that Gallagher started soliciting bids, the School Board had not yet assembled or distributed the underwriting data needed by bidders. Nonetheless, with good reason based on experience, Gallagher expected that the School Board would seek a "combined lines" package of GL/AL/E & O coverages like the School Board then received through United National, and that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer would step forward to propose coverage. Gallagher, therefore, used the policy form current in April of 1996, that is the form providing Excess GL/AL/E & O coverage in a "combined lines" package, "as an example of what the School Board had been looking for this type of program and seeking a program similar to that and similar in coverage." (Tr. 242.) But it also sought Excess GL/AL without combination with E & O coverage. As Mr. Marcus testified, when seeking coverage from authorized insurers beginning in April of 1996, Gallagher "would be looking at a variety of different ways, whether they were package or not." (Tr. 243.) One authorized insurer, Zurich-American, declined to quote because it could not offer a combined line SIR program (a package of excess general liability and excess auto liability coverages) as requested by the RFP. Furthermore, the School Board risk was too large for Zurich-American to handle. A second authorized insurer, American International Group, declined to quote due to the School Board's adverse loss experience. A third authorized insurer, APEX/Great American, declined to provide a quote to Gallagher due to the large size of the School Board account. The responses of these three authorized insurers were listed in a Statement of Diligent Effort provided to Ms. Daniels, which she considered in determining that Gallagher and Mr. Marcus had committed no violation of the Surplus Lines Law. Gallagher also provided Ms. Daniels with a second Statement of Diligent Effort. The statement documented the attempt to attract quotes by adding a school leaders errors and omission component to the Excess GL/AL coverage. It, too, was used by Ms. Daniels in making her determination of no violation of the Surplus Lines Law by Gallagher. The same three insurers refused to quote for the "combined lines" program. Attempts by other Authorized Insurers Gallagher requested that any responses to its requests for quotes be submitted by May 10, 1996, so that it could prepare and submit its proposal by the RFP's deadline for submission of original proposals by all vendors, 2:00 p.m. May 16, 1996. One insurer, Discover Re/USF&G attempted to submit a quote on May 15, 1996, one day before the RFP deadline but five days after May 10. By then, Gallagher had already started printing its 625 page proposal. Furthermore, the company failed to provide the required policy forms until the day after the School Board's deadline for filing proposals. Coregis Insurance Company offered coverage of up to $700,000 for each claim and for each occurrence, but like Discover Re/USF&G, failed to provide the required policy forms until after the RFP deadline. Furthermore, definitive coverage under the Coregis policy would only be provided on the condition that the Florida Legislature pass a Legislative Claims bill, a limiting condition not authorized in the RFP or requested by Gallagher. American Home Assurance Company never responded to Gallagher with the School Board's required quote or policy forms. Rather, the company merely provided an "indication" that the company declined to provide a quote. An "indication" consists of an approximate premium rate, without any terms or conditions. A "quote," on the other hand, includes the terms and conditions of a policy. The Department places with the producing agent the responsibility of determining whether an insurer's communication constitutes and "indication" or a "quote." An agent, according to Ms. Daniels, can only violate the Surplus Lines Law if the agent receives a reliable quote. Gallagher even requested a quote from Ranger, despite never having been appointed to transact insurance on its behalf. But Ranger declined. In response to a request by Gallagher's minority business partner, McKinley Financial Services, Ranger, through E. Michael Hoke on American E & S letterhead, wrote in a letter dated May 6, 1996, "[w]e have received a prior submission on this account so we are returning the attached." Intervenor's Ex. No. 7. The Petition Ranger's petition for formal administrative hearing is the letter dated June 19, 1996, to the Director of Purchasing for the School Board under the signature of E. Michael Hoke, CPCU, Assistant Vice President of AES/Ranger Insurance Company. The letter asks its readers to "bear[] in mind we are not attorneys," p. 1 of the letter, before it outlines three protest issues. The third protest issue is the one about which Ms. Daniels made her determination that no violation of the statute had been committed by Gallagher or its employees: "3) Florida Statute 626.901 (Representing or aiding unauthorized insurer prohibited)." The other two issues deal not with the propriety of Gallagher's actions but the legality of the School Board's award to an unauthorized insurer, United National, when coverage was available from an authorized insurer, Ranger: Florida Statute 626.913 (Surplus Lines Law). . . Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer ... Its proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested coverage was procurable. United National Insurance Company is an unauthorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida ... . The United National Insurance Company proposal and/or its offer to extend it's current policies appear to us as "unwarranted competition." Ranger Insurance Company is protected from unwarranted competition from United National Insurance Company in accordance with the Florida Statute 626.913. Florida Statute 626.913 (Eligibility for Export) ... Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida. ... It's proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested amounts were available. The proposal and/or contract extensions offered by United National are for the full amount of coverage sought and not excess over the amount procurable from Ranger, an authorized insurer. The petition, therefore, set in issue not just whether Gallagher acted illegally but whether the School Board acted illegally when it made the award to United National, an unauthorized insurer when Ranger, an authorized insurer, had also submitted a proposal. Extension As soon as the School Board was made aware of the Ranger protest, it extended the existing insurance contracts procured under RFP 92-080S, awarded approximately five years earlier. The extension was on a month-to-month basis until resolution of the protest. The extension was necessary to avoid a lapse in the School Board's coverage during this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the award to United National under the Gallagher proposal in response to RFP 97-072S be rescinded. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the School Board Attorney K.C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue - 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 A. Kenneth Levine, Esquire Blank, Risby and Meenan, P.A. Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Dr. Frank Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this consolidated proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Abraham Maida's applications to represent certain life insurance companies should be denied based upon his alleged unlawful failure to forward premium funds from insureds to the insurers during the applicable regular course of business. Also at issue are the charges in the Administrative Complaint in the related penal proceeding which concerns the same factual conduct involving the Respondent's alleged failure to forward premiums to the insurers involved in the policy contracts at issue.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Abraham George Maida, is licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent and a dental health care contract salesman. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing life, health and other types of insurance agents, with regulating their licensure and practice and with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in the statutes cited hereinbelow. Abraham Maida engaged in the business of selling insurance coverage to various employees of the City of Jacksonville. The premium payments for this coverage were collected by payroll deduction from the employees, and lump sum premium checks were remitted over to the Petitioner/Respondent, Mr. Maida, by the appropriate personnel of the City of Jacksonville. Mr. Maida, in turn, was required by his contractual arrangements with the underwriting insurance companies involved and by the Florida Insurance Code, Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, with timely remitting those premium funds over to the insurers who underwrote the risk for the employees in question. Mr. Maida failed to timely remit the premium funds which he collected from the City of Jacksonville to the relevant insurers for the months of February, March and April of 1990, in the case of policy contracts written on behalf of Loyal American Life Insurance Company. Additionally, Mr. Maida failed to timely remit the premium funds received from the City of Jacksonville, after it received them by payroll deduction from its employees, for the months of March, April and May of 1990, with regard to the premium funds due in contracts involving the ITT Life Insurance Company, in accordance with his contract with that company. Mr. Maida failed to timely remit the insurance premiums of James E. Daniels to the ITT Life Insurance Company, as well. The Petitioner/Respondent's contracts with these insurance companies required him to remit premium funds which he received from insureds, within thirty (30) days of receipt, to the insurance company underwriting the risk involved. This the Petitioner/Respondent failed to do for the companies involved in the above Findings of Fact and for those months of 1990 delineated above. In the case of most of the delinquent premium funds due these companies, Mr. Maida authorized them to debit his commission and/or renewal accounts with those companies, which were monies due and owing to him from the companies, in order to make up the premiums which he had not remitted over to the companies involved at that point. That procedure did not defray all of the delinquent premium amounts, however. in the case of ITT Life Insurance Company and the monies owed that company by Mr. Maida, it was established that $10,554.21 of delinquent premium amounts were owing to that company and not timely paid by Mr. Maida. Although he paid the portion of that figure representing the March premium funds due the company for March of 1990, he did not directly pay the premium funds due for April and May of 1990 but, rather, suffered the company to charge those delinquencies, for those months, to his agent's commission account. This procedure still left $4,877.54 unpaid, as of the time of hearing. It was established by witness, Steven Heinicke of that company, that Mr. Maida is their most consistently delinquent agent, in terms of timely remission of premium funds due the company for insurance business which Mr. Maida has written. It has also been established however, that Mr. Maida made a practice of always paying premium funds due the companies for which he wrote insurance in the precise amounts owing, regardless of whether the billing statements to him from those companies had inadvertently understated the amounts which they were due. It was also established that his failure to timely remit the insurance premium funds in question was not due to any intent to defraud those companies of the funds involved or to permanently convert the funds to his own use. Rather, it was established that Mr. Maida's difficulty in timely payment of the premium funds was due to misappropriation of the funds because of financial problems which he was suffering at tee times in question, due at least in part to federal income tax difficulties he was experiencing. There has been no shoring in this record that Mr. Maida is not a competent insurance agent in terms of his abilities and qualifications to fairly and effectively obtain and contract for insurance business with insureds on behalf of the insurance companies he represents. There was no showing that he lacks reasonably adequate knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by the licenses or permits which he presently holds or which he seeks in the licensure application involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be found guilty of the violations found to have been proven in the above Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order and that his licenses and eligibility for licensure with the insurers for which license application was made be suspended for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-6670 Respondent/Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-7. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gallagher, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esq. General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Norman J. Abood, Esq. Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esq. 1015 Blackstone Building Alan J. Leifer, Esq. Jacksonville, FL 32202 Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether the licenses of Frank Joseph Brennan should be disciplined for actions of Mr. Brennan or of agents associated with Frank J. Brennan, P.A. with respect to the sale of insurance products to three (3) clients: Rebecca Fisher, Celine M. Rompre, and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph T. Nolan.
Findings Of Fact Frank Brennan Frank Joseph Brennan holds licenses as an ordinary life agent, ordinary life including health, health agent, and ordinary-variable annuity agent. Brennan is the owner and president of Frank J. Brennan, P.A., which sells life and health insurance products, including tax sheltered annuities of the National Western Life Insurance Company. The firm has several thousand tax sheltered annuity clients. Brennan had been the president and the director of Lancer Securities Corporation. On March 22, 1979, he was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for acting as an officer or director of any registered investment company. That injunction states that it did not constitute evidence against or an admission by Brennan, and that the injunction did not "establish or prove any of the acts alleged or asserted in any pleadings." Brennan was suspended from associating with any investment advisor for 120 days, and barred from associating thereafter with an investment advisor other than as a supervised employee in an order entered by the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 1979. Brennan was barred from associating with any member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. in the capacity of a principal in an order entered by that association on October 15, 1980. Brennan was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 1980 from associating with any member in the capacity of a principal and fined $1,000. In May 1983, United Equitable Insurance Company terminated Brennan as an agent based on an adverse Equifax report. That report was not placed in evidence. (The foregoing findings 3 through 7 are based upon the Department of Insurance's Second Request for Admissions and Fifth Request for Official Recognition.) The Relationship Of Gregory Langsett And Betty Jones To The Frank J. Brennan, P.A. Frank J. Brennan, P.A., has contracts with a number of licensed insurance agents, including Gregory Langsett and Betty Jones. Langsett has a producer agreement with National Western Life Insurance Company which describes him as an independent contractor, and an agent's agreement with the Brennan firm. Under the agent's agreement Langsett has with the Brennan professional association dated December 4, 1981, Langsett is deemed an independent contractor and nothing in this agreement shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee. You are free to exercise your own judgement as to the persons from whom you solicit applications and the time and place of such solicitation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 28, Paragraph 1.) Brennan had been involved in training of Langsett and Jones when they first were associated with the firm. Agents such as Langsett and Jones are not listed on the employer's quarterly wage report made by the Frank J. Brennan, P.A. to the State of Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. Agents such as Langsett and Jones pay their own estimated income tax withholding and their own social security taxes. The Brennan firm does provide agents with business cards (although Jones had her own cards printed). It also provides sales kits, telephone answering, postal services, makes available space for meeting with clients at the firm office and provides accounting services incident to the payment of commissions on business submitted to carriers through the firm, all without charge to the agents. Educational meetings are held on Fridays, which the agents are encouraged, but not required, to attend which discuss the various insurance products available through insurance companies the Brennan firm is associated with. Agents benefit from advertising done by the Brennan firm. Brennan occasionally provides leads to agents. For example, January 1986 Brennan provided to Betty Jones and her husband (also a licensed insurance agent) a list of approximately 100 names of employees of the Boca Raton Academy so that they could be solicited for purchase of tax sheltered annuities, and an arrangement was worked out under which Brennan and the Joneses would divide commissions from any such sales. There is no evidence that Brennan controlled the time, place or manner of these solicitations, or of any other solicitations for the purchase of insurance products. Langsett and Jones were not subject to the direct supervision and control of Brennan in their activities of soliciting insurance clients. They are not employees of the Professional Association -- they are independent contractors. This arrangement of appointing soliciting agents who are independent contractors is used by other sellers of tax sheltered annuities, and is not unique to the Brennan firm. (Tr. 496, 579). Brennan does have the authority, based on his contracts with insurance carriers, to appoint licensed agents as agents of insurance carriers. Rebecca Fisher's Dealings With Frank J. Brennan, P.A. and Frank Brennan Rebecca Fisher is an employee of the Dade County School Board. She contacted Langsett concerning tax sheltered annuities offered by the National Western Life Insurance Company, after learning of Langsett from another employee. Under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, employees of school boards may have a portion of their wages paid into a tax sheltered annuity. They pay no income tax on the amounts deposited in the annuity through payroll deduction and the interest paid on the amounts deposited is not taxed when earned. Such annuities are long term savings plans designed to supplement the participant's retirement income. Ms. Fisher already had a tax sheltered annuity with Northern Life Insurance Company which had a face value of over $90,000. She had bought it through an insurance agent, Mr. Paul Indianer, with whom she had dealt over a number of years. Langsett met with Mrs. Fisher at her home for about 15 to 20 minutes on a Saturday in June 1985. Mrs. Fisher was not able to spend much time with Mr. Langsett that day because she had to go to a funeral at about noon. Thereafter, Mrs. Fisher attempted to call Langsett at the Brennan insurance offices. She called after 5:00 p.m. and Langsett was not there. Respondent Brennan answered the phone call. They discussed the possibility of opening a tax sheltered annuity account through National Western by rolling over into a new account money she had in her current tax sheltered annuity. Mrs. Fisher knew if the money were rolled over she would incur a surrender charge. She also discussed with Brennan whether it would be possible to borrow money from a new National Western tax sheltered annuity for home improvements. She was told money borrowed from a National Western annuity could be used for home improvements, and taxes would not have to be paid on the money borrowed from the annuity until her death. Her current annuity did not have a provision that permitted borrowing. At the hearing the provision permitting borrowing was referred to as the TEFRA provision -- so known , because it had its genesis in a portion of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). (Tr. 45, 46, 80) Reviewing the totality of Mrs. Fisher's testimony, the Hearing Officer is not persuaded that Mrs. Fisher is able to recall with clarity the conversation which she had with Mr. Brennan. For example, the Hearing Officer does not accept the testimony that Respondent or Langsett told Fisher that National Western would pay 20 percent interest the first year and 18 percent the second year on its annuities. Those figures represented the surrender charges on the Northern Life tax sheltered annuity she already had. Neither did Brennan tell Fisher that she would get $75,000 of free life insurance in connection with a new tax sheltered annuity. One of the possibilities Brennan mentioned to Fisher was a more involved transaction in which her money would be rolled over into a new tax sheltered annuity, and a $50,000 loan would be taken against that new annuity. The $50,000 might be used to purchase a single premium life insurance policy. Interest paid on the amount placed in that policy would accumulate without any income tax being owed on the interest as it was paid. National Western Life Insurance Company would provide $75,000 of life insurance in connection with such a policy, over and above its $50,000 face amount, for a $155,000 total life insurance benefit. The single premium life insurance policy does not make a specific charge for the $75,000 additional death benefit. There is, of course, a charge for this insurance in that the interest rate paid on the $50,000 deposited in the single premium life insurance policy is reduced by the mortality charge on the $75,000 additional death benefit. Mrs. Fisher confused these two different insurance products (the tax sheltered annuity and the single premium life insurance policy), and thought that the life insurance was part of the tax sheltered annuity, which is not what Brennan discussed. Mrs. Fisher's notes of her conversation indicate that there would be a rollover penalty assessed against the face amount of her Northern Life tax sheltered annuity if she moved it to a National Western tax sheltered annuity. She had incurred penalties when she had moved money from her first annuity with Franklin Life to Standard Life the second annuity from Standard Life to Northern Life, both at the suggestion of her insurance advisor/agent, Mr. Indianer. (Tr. 57). Those notes also appear to indicate that Brennan referred to her current Northern Life tax sheltered annuity as "antiquated," and described the method by which payments are made under the annuity as "suicide" from an income tax point-of-view. In view of the complexity of these insurance matters, and Mrs. Fisher's misunderstanding of what Brennan had said on other significant portions of the conversation, the Hearing Officer is not satisfied that the evidence is clear and convincing that Brennan used those terms to describe Mrs. Fisher's current insurance products in his conversation with Mrs. Fisher. Similarly, the testimony that Brennan referred to her old Franklin Life and Standard Life annuities (which Indianer had already persuaded her to replace) as "garbage" is not accepted. Under the Internal Revenue Code, if money were borrowed from the annuity for the purpose of home improvements, no tax would be due on the amount borrowed until the annuitant's death, or the surrender of the annuity for cash or annuitization. (Tr. 624, 781). Borrowings for other purposes must be paid back in five years or they are treated as a distribution from the shelter, and require that income tax be paid on that distribution. Neither the code nor case law requires a loan to be repaid when the annuitant reaches a certain age. In short, contrary to the allegations of Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, the evidence is not convincing that Brennan made improper or defamatory remarks about Fisher's prior annuities or existing annuity, that he misrepresented the actual tax implications of the plans or the interest rate offered by the plans, or falsely represented that Fisher would receive $75,000 of free life insurance with a National Western annuity contract. Celine Rompre's Dealings With Betty J. Jones Betty J. Jones is an insurance agent licensed by the State of Florida. She also worked as an independent contractor through the Frank J. Brennan, P.A., selling tax sheltered annuity products of the National Western Life Insurance Company. Unlike Langsett there is no evidence that she has a written contract with the Brennan firm, but she does have a producer agreement with National Western Life Insurance Company. On or about July 23, 1985, Ms. Jones solicited Celine M. Rompre for the purpose of selling her a National Western Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Rompre was an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board who already had a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity payroll deduction handled through Voyager Life Insurance Company; the insurance agency which had sold that annuity to her was owned by Edward Parmele. Respondent Brennan personally had nothing to do with the solicitation which Betty J. Jones made of Celine Rompre. Betty J. Jones was not acting under the direct supervision and control of Frank J. Brennan in that transaction. Betty Jones met with Celine Rompre and discussed the National Western tax sheltered annuity. Mrs. Rompre's husband also works and the Rompres do not need Mrs. Rompre's salary for living expenses. At the time she spoke with Betty Jones, Mrs. Rompre's annual salary was $5,500. She believed that it would increase to $7,200 at the beginning of the next school year, which did happen. At the time Mrs. Rompre was putting $1,040 into her Voyager Insurance Company tax sheltered annuity each year. Betty Jones discussed with Mrs. Rompre increasing her tax sheltered annuity contribution to approximately $4,000 per year. Jones told her that the maximum amount she could contribute would have to be separately calculated for each year. (Tr. 752). Mrs. Rompre was interested in this because Mrs. Rompre's daughter was then in the 8th grade, and it would be possible to borrow against that money to help with her daughter's education. Mrs. Rompre knew she would incur a substantial surrender charge on her current annuity if she switched to National Western. She signed papers prepared by Jones to accomplish the transfer of her annuity to National Western. Rompre was not eligible to increase her Section 403(b) annuity contribution immediately because she had changed her contribution once that year and only one change in the payroll deduction can be made annually. (Tr. 751). When the paperwork went to the School Board to change the annuity from the Voyager annuity to the National Western annuity, Mrs. Rompre was contacted by Mr. Parmele about her Voyager annuity. He stated that Mrs. Rompre could not put $4,000 per year into a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. This influenced Mrs. Rompre to cancel the transfer to National Western. In fact, Mrs. Rompre was in a situation where she qualified to put as much as $5,051 into a tax sheltered annuity (this amount is known as the maximum exclusion allowance) over the next year under a catch-up provision of the Internal Revenue Code because she had not been contributing to an annuity for all eight years she had been employed by the Palm Beach County School Board. (Tr. 780). There is no evidence that Ms. Rompre was contributing to any other qualified retirement plans that would have affected her maximum exclusion allowance. Betty Jones did not misrepresent to Celine Rompre the amount of her maximum exclusion allowance, the terms of the surrender charges for the Voyager life insurance policy or the National Western life insurance policy, or improperly affixed the signature of Celine Rompre to a letter to the Voyager Life Insurance Company requesting cancellation of her existing account. Dealings Of Frank J. Brennan With The Nolans In about March of 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Nolan went to Brennan for help preparing their tax return and for financial planning. Mr. Brennan had been highly recommended to them. Mr. Nolan is a loss prevention manager for Radio Shack, and Mrs. Nolan is employed by the School Board of Broward County. Mr. Nolan had recently received an inheritance of about $30,000 and was looking for a way to invest it. The Nolans emphasized that the investment vehicle be liquid so they could access the money if they needed it. They were concerned that they might need it for the care of their parents. When Mr. Nolan came to Brennan, he had whole life insurance policies with Prudential and Metropolitan Life which had some cash value. Brennan suggested those policies be cancelled so that the cash value could be invested, and this was done. Mrs. Nolan's Section 403(b) Tax Sheltered Annuity When the Nolans came to Brennan, Mrs. Nolan did not have a Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Brennan suggested that she contribute to such an annuity program as a means of saving on income taxes. He also told them they could borrow against those funds, but this was of no interest to the Nolans. Mrs. Nolan purchased a tax sheltered annuity with Great American Life Insurance Company which currently paid 13.75 percent interest. One of the documents which is filled out to begin the payroll deduction with the Broward County School Board for Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuities is an amendment to the annuitant's employment contract to cause part of the salary to be paid directly into the annuity. On that form there are disclosures, including whether there is a sales charge, administration fee, or transfer fee, as well as whether there is a surrender charge. The amendment which she executed does not show any surrender charge in connection with the Great American Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) annuity she purchased. Later the Nolans received another copy of the amendment which had the surrender charge portion filled in. It stated there would be a surrender charge of one-fifth of the first year's deposits only, which is waived if all proceeds are withdrawn over 36 months or longer. When Mr. Nolan received this he immediately called Mr. Brennan to ask about the surrender charge. Brennan told him that the annuity document itself explained the surrender charge and it should have been on the amendment to the employment contract as well. Brennan negligently failed to explain the surrender charge to the Nolans when the annuity was first taken out. After receiving the altered amendment to employment contract, Mrs. Nolan instructed the School Board to stop the annuity deductions as of December She had contributed $7,234 to the annuity at that time. The Nolans then asked to cancel the annuity because they had not been made aware of the surrender charge. Mr. Brennan responded by stating that in order to get the refund, they would have to sign a release at the request of the insurance company, but the Nolans refused to sign any release. They prepared a short letter to the insurance company seeking the recision of the policy. Brennan also wrote to the company seeking the refund. The Nolans did receive their money back. In connection with the rescission, the Nolans demanded and received from Brennan assurances that if the amount deposited in the annuity were not received by March 3, 1986, that Brennan would pay 10 percent interest per year on the proceeds until the Nolans received the proceeds. The Nolans received the amount before the agreed date when Brennan would begin to pay interest. The amount they received was only the principal paid in, however, and did not include any interest for the period the money had been held by Great American Life Insurance Company. Repayment of the $7,234 rendered these funds subject to current income taxes, because that income had not been subject to tax when placed in the annuity. The Nolans' Other Insurance Purchases From Brennan When the Great American Section 403(b) annuity was purchased, the Nolans also purchased other insurance products. These included two $2,000 individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for Mr. and Mrs. Nolan with National Western in the form of annuity policies, a Kemper Life Insurance policy on Mr. Nolan with a face value of $100,000 to replace the existing policies he had cancelled, and a $30,000 single premium endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan from National Western Life Insurance Company, which included a life insurance benefit so that the face amount of the policy was $200,602. These purchases saved the Nolans about $3,000 in income taxes. The Nolan's had had IRA accounts at savings and loan institutions before they came to Brennan, which they would roll over when the instruments in which the money was deposited matured. Brennan explained that these National Western annuities were different than the accounts they had. These annuities were cancelled because the Nolans became dissatisfied with Brennan due to the non-disclosure of the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) annuity with Great American Life Insurance Company. Mr. Brennan arranged for those to be cancelled without penalty at the request of the Nolans. They received the principal paid in plus interest. After the cancellation of the prior whole life policies at Brennan's suggestion, see Finding of Fact 37, above, Mr. Nolan purchased a Kemper Life Insurance term life insurance policy. At first he considered rescinding it along with the IRAs, also due to dissatisfaction with Brennan because of the failure to disclose the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) annuity. Ultimately he kept the Kemper policy, which was a better policy than the ones that had been cancelled. The $30,000 inheritance Mr. Nolan received was used to purchase a $30,000 single premium life endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan, which then paid 11.12 percent interest on the amount deposited and permitted borrowing from the policy at 7.4 percent. The policy was placed on Mrs. Nolan's life because she was the better underwriting risk. The interest which accrued on that policy was not subject to current federal income taxation, so the purchase was consistent with the Nolan's goal of achieving a high yield on the money with minimum taxation. That $30,000 premium purchased over $200,000 worth of life insurance on Mrs. Nolan, which Brennan described as "a freebie" in connection with the tax sheltered investment of the $30,000. This policy was cancelled under a policy provision which gave the right to cancel the policy during the first year, in part due to dissatisfaction with Brennan over the non-disclosure of the surrender charge on the Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity. Nolan was also dissatisfied with the endowment policy after he received it because (1) the interest guaranteed to be paid on the $30,000 was only 4 percent although he understood that the actual interest to be paid would fluctuate with economic conditions and be competitive and (2) to access the $30,000 he could not withdraw money, but had to borrow from the policy. Although a loan could be processed quickly, Mr. Nolan did not like the idea of having to borrow his own money. The record is not clear whether the Nolans did or did not receive interest on the $30,000 for the time it was on deposit with National Western Life Insurance Company before the cancellation. The policy itself provides that on cancellation the insured "will be refunded the greater of the premium you paid or the cash value at that time." (Respondent's Exhibit 25) Because Mrs. Nolan signed an application naming Mr. Nolan and beneficiary for the insurance purchased with the $30,000, because she had a physical examination to obtain the policy, and because the check to purchase it was made out to National Western Life Insurance, Mr. Nolan's testimony that he did not understand that the "investment" he was making with his $30,000 involved the purchase of an insurance policy is not accepted. Brennan did sell the $30,000 policy to the Nolans in part on the basis that they would receive approximately $200,000 in free life insurance. The Nolans were more interested in a tax shelter for the $30,000 that would pay high interest, not in the insurance benefit. In summary, Brennan failed to explain the surrender charge associated with the Great American Life Insurance Company Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity to the Nolans when it was purchased. Brennan made no misrepresentations with respect to the sale of the two annuities from National Western Life Insurance which were to be used as the Nolans' individual retirement accounts. There were no misrepresentations made to Mr. Nolan with respect to the purchase of his Kemper Life Insurance policy, which he still has. Brennan told the Nolans that they would receive free life insurance associated with the deposit of $30,000 in the endowment policy on Mrs. Nolan's life, which had been purchased due to the tax free accumulation of interest on the $30,000 deposited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. That on Count III, for offering free life insurance as an inducement for the deposit of $30,000 in the single premium endowment policy, Brennan be FINED $2,500.00 and his license SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0707 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. See Rule 28-5.405(3), Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Before ruling on the individual proposals made by the Petitioner, it is appropriate to make some general comments. The proposals submitted by the Petitioner are exceptionally detailed, indeed unnecessarily so. Many are rejected as unnecessary or cumulative to the facts found in the Recommended Order. Others are irrelevant because they address issues not properly raised by the allegations of the First Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of the principal witnesses on counts one and two, Rebecca Fisher and Celine Rompre, was certainly sincere but generally unpersuasive. The testimony of the other expert witnesses who make their livings by selling tax sheltered annuities was also not convincing because their view of Mr. Brennan and his activities is so colored by their competition. Mr. Parmele's testimony left an abiding impression of hostility to Brennan for trying to persuade clients of Parmele to switch their annuities to companies represented by Brennan, and Parmele's testimony is discounted based upon his hostility. Mr. Indianer was not as hostile, but his financial interest in removing Brennan as a competitor also causes substantial discounting of his testimony. The opinions of Robert Storms are accorded little weight because he does not regard himself as an expert in tax sheltered annuities. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 3-6. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected because it is not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript citation given. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary, and unsupported by the transcript citation given. Covered in Finding of Fact 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unsupported by transcript citation given which only reflects a division of commissions between the Jones' and Brennan with respect to sales to employees of the Boca Raton Academy. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the exhibit citation given. PX 25 authorizes Langsett to procure applications; whether this is a license as a "writing agent" is unclear. Rejected as a statement of law. Rejected because Betty Jones had no written contract with the Brennan firm. Langsett's relationships are covered in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected because Jones had no written contract with the Brennan firm. With respect to Langsett's contract with the firm, rejected as irrelevant. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 8. Jones had no written contract with the firm. Rejected because Langsett and Jones testified that being independent contractors included that they pay their own expenses, not meant that they pay their own expenses. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with the transcript citations given. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent that the information was provided in the form of sales kits, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate and cumulative to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and inconsistent with the transcript citation given. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact, also irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as unnecessary. The citation given supports only the statement made as to Betty Jones. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. - Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact, also unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact, also unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a statement of law, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as subordinate to Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as inconsistent with Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected for the reasons stated for the rejection of proposed finding of fact 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Further, Mr. Storm's testimony is not persuasive on the point. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the form, PX 9, is a creation of a committee which is advisory to the risk manager of the School Board of Broward County and has no legal status. Rejected because the form, PX 9, is a creation of a committee which is advisory to the risk manager of the School Board of Broward County and has no legal status. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Mr. Storm's testimony as to what would be misleading is unpersuasive. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. The power to appoint sub-agents who become producers for insurance carriers does not mean that Brennan exercised direct supervision and control over such persons, or over Langsett and Jones in the situations at issue in this matter. Although true, rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 25. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony7 not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the finding is taken out of context. Agents such as Langsett submit business through the Brennan firm and receive their commission through the accounting system at the Brennan firm. When the files are submitted to the carriers, this does not imply that the firm has the right not to pay Langsett, it is the medium through which his payments are processed. See Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as a misstatement of the testimony. That testimony occurred because Langsett was asked about commissions payable in a situation he never had experienced. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 12 concerning education. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 12 and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. As pointed out at the beginning of these rulings, Mrs. Fisher's version of her dealings with Langsett and Brennan were not found persuasive. For example, only one meeting occurred between Fisher and Langsett, not two. Rejected as irrelevant to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint and unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected because I do not accept Mrs. Fisher's version of the events, rendering Mr. Indianer's comments on that version irrelevant and unnecessary. See also the general comment about Indianer at the beginning of this section. The issue of free life insurance is covered in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not findings of fact. Covered in Findings of Fact 27, 29, 30 and 31. Many of the proposed findings are rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 29, 30 and 31. The proposal that Jones told Rompre she could deposit $4,000 per year for five years is rejected and the contrary testimony of Ms. Jones, incorporated in Finding of Fact 31, has been accepted. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Storms is not found persuasive. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not findings of fact. Many of the proposals are unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected because Mr. Parmele's testimony is not found persuasive. Further, many of the proposals aggregated in the finding are unnecessary. That Jones told Rompre she could deposit $4,000 a year for five years has been rejected. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Covered in Finding of Fact 1. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 2. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 8. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 25. The proposal that Jones had a written agent's agreement with the Brennan firm is rejected because no such document was offered in evidence. To the extent necessary, covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as cumulative to Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary but discussed in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact as relates to the credibility of Indianer and Parmele. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary but discussed in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 14. Covered in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary because Indianer's testimony has not been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 14 and 25. Covered in Findings of Fact 26, 27 and 31. Covered in Finding of Fact 29. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as cumulative to Findings of Fact 30 and 31. Rejected as unnecessary, and as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Parmele has not been accepted for the reasons. stated in the introduction to the rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. See also Finding of Fact 33. Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as unnecessary because it is based on income of $7,200 which was not Mrs. Rompre's income at the time of her meeting with Betty Jones. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. To the extent not cumulative, covered in Finding of Fact 31. Covered in Findings of Fact 35 and 38. Covered in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 43. Covered in Findings of Fact 39, 44 and 46. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and because the problem was not only that the form did not contain the surrender charge, but that Brennan had not explained the surrender charge to the Nolans when the Great American Section 403(b) tax sheltered annuity was first purchased. Generally rejected as unnecessary. The surrender value is explained in the altered amendment to the employment contract. See Finding of Fact 39. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 41. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 44. Covered in Finding of Fact 44. Covered in Finding of Fact 46 and 47. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 46. Covered in Finding of Fact 46. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 46. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as unnecessary and because the testimony of Mr. Indianer has not been found persuasive. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. Parmele has not been accepted. Covered in Finding of Fact 23. Sentences 1 and 2, covered in Finding of Fact 14. The remainder, rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Falco, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Room 413-B, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Russell L. Forkey, Esquire Pamela M. Burdick, Esquire 400 Southeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents offered and sold securities in Florida, in violation of the registration requirements of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes; offered and sold securities in Florida while Respondents were unregistered, in violation of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; or committed fraud in the offer, sale, or purchase of securities in Florida, in violation of Section 517.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes. If so, an additional issue is the penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent James A. Torchia (Respondent) held a valid life and health insurance license. Respondent was the president and owner of Respondent Empire Insurance, Inc. (Empire Insurance), a now-dissolved Florida corporation. Empire Insurance was in the insurance business, and Respondent was its sole registered insurance agent. At no material time has Respondent or Empire Insurance held any license or registration to engage in the sale or offer for sale of securities in Florida. At no material time were the investments described below sold and offered for sale by Respondent or Empire Insurance registered as securities in Florida. These cases involve viaticated life insurance policies. A life insurance policy is viaticated when the policy owner, also known as the viator, enters into a viatical settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the viator sells the policy and death benefits to the purchaser for an amount less than the death benefit--the closer the viator is perceived to be to death, the greater the discount from the face amount of the death benefit. The viatical industry emerged to provide dying insureds, prior to death, a means by which to sell their life insurance policies to obtain cash to enjoy during their remaining lives. As this industry matured, brokers and dealers, respectively, arranged for the sale of, and bought and resold, life insurance policies of dying insureds. Prior to the death of the viator, these viaticated life insurance policies, or interests in such policies, may be sold and resold several times. In these cases, viators sold their life insurance policies to Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc. (FinFed). Having raised money from investors, American Benefit Services (ABS) then paid FinFed, which assigned viaticated policies, or interests in the policies, to various trusts. The trusts held the legal title to the policies, and the trust beneficiaries, who are the investors from whom ABS had obtained the funds to pay FinFed, held equitable title to the policies. Sometimes in these cases, a broker or dealer, such as William Page and Associates, intervened between the viator and FinFed. At some point, though, ABS obtained money from investors to acquire policies, but did not pay the money to FinFed to purchase viaticated life insurance policies. The FinFed and ABS investment program eventually became a Ponzi scheme, in which investor payouts were derived largely, if not exclusively, from the investments of other investors. ABS typically acquired funds through the promotional efforts of insurance agents, such as Respondent and Empire Insurance. Using literature provided by ABS, these agents often sold these investments to insurance clients. As was typical, Respondent and Empire Insurance advertised the types of claims described below by publishing large display ads that ran in Florida newspapers. Among the ABS literature is a Participation Disclosure (Disclosure), which describes the investment. The Disclosure addresses the investor as a "Participant" and the investment as a "Participation." The Disclosure contains a Participation Agreement (Agreement), which provides that the parties agree to the Disclosure and states whether the investor has chosen the Growth Plan or Income Plan, which are described below; a Disbursement Letter of Instruction, which is described below; and a Letter of Instruction to Trust, which is described below. The agent obtains the investor's signature to all three of these documents when the investor delivers his check, payable to the escrow agent, to purchase the investment. The Disclosure states that the investments offer a “High Return”: “Guaranteed Return on Participation 42% at Maturity.” The Disclosure adds that the investments are “Low Risk”: “Secured by a Guaranteed Insurance Industry Receivable”; “Secured by $300,000 State Insurance Guarantee Fund”; “Short Term Participation (Maturity Expectation 36 Months)”; “Principal Liquid After One Year With No Surrender Charge”; “State Regulated Participation”; “All Transactions By Independent Trust & Escrow Agents”; and “If policy fails to mature at 36 months, participant may elect full return of principal plus 15% simple interest.” The Disclosure describes two alternative investments: the Growth Plan and Income Plan. For the Growth Plan, the Disclosure states: “At maturity, Participant receives principal plus 42%, creating maximum growth of funds.” For the Income Plan, the Disclosure states: “If income is desired, participation can be structured with monthly income plans.” Different rates of return for the Growth and Income plans are set forth below. For investors choosing the Income Plan, ABS applied only 70 percent of the investment to the purchase of viaticated life insurance policies. ABS reserved the remaining 30 percent as the source of money to "repay" the investor the income that he was due to receive under the Income Plan, which, as noted below, paid a total yield of 29.6 percent over three years. The Disclosure states that ABS places all investor funds in attorneys’ trust accounts, pursuant to arrangements with two “bonded and insured” “financial escrow agents.” At another point in the document, the Disclosure states that the investor funds are deposited “directly” with a “financial escrow agent,” pursuant to the participant’s Disbursement Letter of Instruction. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction identifies a Florida attorney as the “financial escrow agent,” who receives the investor’s funds and disburses them, “to the order of [FinFed) or to the source of the [viaticated insurance] benefits and/or its designees.” This disbursement takes place only after the attorney receives “[a] copy of the irrevocable, absolute assignment, executed in favor of Participant and recorded with the trust account as indicated on the assignment of [viaticated insurance] benefits, and setting out the ownership percentage of said [viaticated insurance] benefits”; a “medical overview” of the insured indicative of not more than 36 months’ life expectancy; confirmation that the policy is in full force and effect and has been in force beyond the period during which the insurer may contest coverage; and a copy of the shipping airbill confirming that the assignment was sent to the investor. The Disclosure states that the investor will direct a trust company to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. When the life insurance policy matures on the death of the viator, the insurer pays the death benefits to the trust company, which pays these proceeds to the investor, in accordance with his interest in the trust. Accordingly, the Letter of Instruction to Trust directs FinFed, as the trust company, to establish a trust, or a fractional interest in a trust, in the name of the investor. The Letter of Instruction to Trust provides that the viaticated insurance benefits obtained with the investor's investment shall be assigned to this trust, and, at maturity, FinFed shall pay the investor a specified sum upon the death of the viator and the trustee's receipt of the death benefit from the insurer. The Disclosure provides that, at anytime from 12 to 36 months after the execution of the Disclosure, the investor has the option to request ABS to return his investment, without interest. At 36 months, if the viator has not yet died, the investor has the right to receive the return of his investment, plus 15 percent (five percent annually). The Disclosure states that ABS will pay all costs and fees to maintain the policy and that all policies are based on a life expectancy for the viator of no more than 36 months. Also, the Disclosure assures that ABS will invest only in policies that are issued by insurers that are rated "A" or better by A.M. Best "at the time that the Participant's deposit is confirmed." The Disclosure mentions that the trust company will name the investor as an irrevocable assignee of the policy benefits. The irrevocable assignment of policy benefits mentioned in the Disclosure and the Disbursement Letter of Instruction is an anomaly because it does not conform to the documentary scheme described above. After the investor pays the escrow agent and executes the documents described above, FinFed executes the “Irrevocable Absolute Assignment of Viaticated Insurance Benefits.” This assignment is from the trustee, as grantor, to the investor, as grantee, and applies to a specified percentage of a specific life insurance policy, whose death benefit is disclosed on the assignment. The assignment includes the "right to receive any viaticated insurance benefit payable under the Trusts [sic] guaranteed receivables of assigned viaticated insurance benefits from the noted insurance company; [and the] right to assign any and all rights received under this Trust irrevocable absolute assignment." On its face, the assignment assigns the trust corpus-- i.e., the insurance policy or an interest in an insurance policy--to the trust beneficiary. Doing so would dissolve the trust and defeat the purpose of the other documents, which provide for the trust to hold the policy and, upon the death of the viator, to pay the policy proceeds in accordance with the interests of the trust beneficiaries. The assignment bears an ornate border and the corporate seal of FinFed. Probably, FinFed intended the assignment to impress the investors with the "reality" of their investment, as the decorated intangible of an "irrevocable" interest in an actual insurance policy may seem more impressive than the unadorned intangible of a beneficial interest in a trust that holds an insurance policy. Or possibly, the FinFed/ABS principals and professionals elected not to invest much time or effort in the details of the transactional documentation of a Ponzi scheme. What was true then is truer now. Obviously, in those cases in which no policy existed, the investor paid his money before any policy had been selected for him. However, this appears to have been the process contemplated by the ABS literature, even in those cases in which a policy did exist. The Disbursement Letter of Instruction and correspondence from Respondent, Empire Insurance, or Empire Financial Consultant to ABS reveal that FinFed did not assign a policy, or part of a policy, to an investor until after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In some cases, Respondent or Empire Insurance requested ABS to obtain for an investor a policy whose insured had special characteristics or a investment plan with a maturity shorter than 36 months. FinFed and ABS undertook other tasks after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents. In addition to matching a viator with an investor, based on the investor's expressed investment objectives, FinFed paid the premiums on the viaticated policies until the viator died and checked on the health of the viator. Also, if the viator did not die within three years and the investor elected to obtain a return of his investment, plus 15 percent, ABS, as a broker, resold the investor's investment to generate the 15 percent return that had been guaranteed to the investor. Similarly, ABS would sell the investment of investors who wanted their money back prior to three years. The escrow agent also assumed an important duty--in retrospect, the most important duty--after the investor paid for his investment and signed the closing documents; the escrow agent was to verify the existence of the viaticated policy. Respondent and Empire Insurance sold beneficial interests in trusts holding viaticated life insurance policies in 50 separate transactions. These investors invested a total of $1.5 million, nearly all of which has been lost. Respondent and Empire Insurance earned commissions of about $120,000 on these sales. Petitioner proved that Respondent and Empire Insurance made the following sales. Net worths appear for those investors for whom Respondent recorded net worths; for most, he just wrote "sufficient" on the form. Unless otherwise indicated, the yield was 42 percent for the Growth Plan. In all cases, investors paid money for their investments. In all cases, FinFed and ABS assigned parts of policies to the trusts, even of investors investing relatively large amounts. On March 21, 1998, Phillip A. Allan, a Florida resident, paid $69,247.53 for the Growth Plan. On March 26, 1998, Monica Bracone, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $900,000, paid $8000 for the Growth Plan. On April 2, 1998, Alan G. and Judy LeFort, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on June 8, 1998, the LeForts paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In the second transaction, the yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement notes a 36-month life expectancy of the viator. The different yields based on life expectancies are set forth below, but, as noted above, the standard yield was 42 percent, and, as noted below, this was based on a 36-month life expectancy, so Respondent miscalculated the investment return or misdocumented the investment on the LeForts' second transaction. On April 29, 1998, Doron and Barbara Sterling, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on August 14, 1998, the Sterlings paid $100,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield for the second transaction is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement notes that the Sterlings were seeking a viator with a life expectancy of only 30 months. When transmitting the closing documents for the second Sterling transaction, Respondent, writing ABS on Empire Insurance letterhead, stated in part: This guy has already invested with us (15,000) [sic]. He gave me this application but wants a 30 month term. Since he has invested, he did some research and has asked that he be put on a low T-cell count and the viator to be an IV drug user. I know it is another favor but this guy is a close friend and has the potential to put at least another 500,000 [sic]. If you can not [sic] do it, then I understand. You have done a lot for me and I always try to bring in good quality business. If this inventory is not available, the client has requested that we return the funds . . . In a third transaction, on February 24, 1999, the Sterlings paid $71,973 for the Growth Plan. The yield is only 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects the typical 36-month life expectancy for the viator. Although the investors would not have received this document, Respondent completed an ABS form entitled, "New Business Transmittal," and checked the box, "Life Expectancy 2 years or less (28%). The other boxes are: "Life Expectancy 2 1/2 years or less (35%)" and "Life Expectancy 3 years or less (42%)." On May 4, 1998, Hector Alvero and Idelma Guillen, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $6000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on October 29, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a third transaction, on November 30, 1998, Ms. Guillen paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. For this investment, Ms. Guillen requested an "IV drug user," according to Respondent in a letter dated December 1, 1998, on Empire Financial Consultants letterhead. This is the first use of the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants, not Empire Insurance, and all letters after that date are on the letterhead of Empire Financial Consultants. In a fourth transaction, on January 29, 1999, Ms. Guillen paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On April 23, 1998, Bonnie P. Jensen, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $120,000, paid $65,884.14 for the Growth Plan. Her yield was 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 20, 1998, Michael J. Mosack, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $70,600 for the Income Plan. He was to receive monthly distributions of $580.10 for three years. The total yield, including monthly distributions, is $20,883.48, which is about 29.6 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On May 27, 1998, Lewis and Fernande G. Iachance, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On June 3, 1998, Sidney Yospe, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $1,500,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, and the Participation Agreement reflects a 30-month life expectancy. On June 12, 1998, Bernard Aptheker, with a reported net worth of $100,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 10, 1998, Irene M. and Herman Kutschenreuter, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $200,000, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 9, 1998, Daniel and Mary Spinosa, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 5, 1998, Pauline J. and Anthony Torchia, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000 and the parents of Respondent, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. On June 29, 1998, Christopher D. Bailey, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $500,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction on the same day, Mr. Bailey paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. Petitioner submitted documents concerning a purported purchase by Lauren W. Kramer on July 21, 1998, but they were marked "VOID" and do not appear to be valid. On July 22, 1998, Laura M. and Kenneth D. Braun, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $150,000, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan, as Respondent completed the Participation Agreement. However, the agreement calls for them to receive $205.42 monthly for 36 months and receive a total yield, including monthly payments, of 29.6 percent, so it appears that the Brauns bought the Income Plan. In a second transaction, also on July 22, 1998, the Brauns paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Roy R. Worrall, a Florida resident, paid $100,000 for the Income Plan. The Participation Agreement provides that he will receive monthly payments of $821.66 and a total yield of 29.6 percent. On July 16, 1998, Earl and Rosemary Gilmore, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $250,000, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on February 12, 1999, the Gilmores paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 28 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of two years or less. On July 14, 1998, David M. Bobrow, a Florida resident with a reported net worth of $700,000 on one form and $70,000 on another form, paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. In a second transaction, on the same day, Mr. Bobrow paid $15,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 27, 1998, Cecilia and Harold Lopatin, Florida residents with a reported net worth of $300,000, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On July 30, 1998, Ada R. Davis, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Income Plan. Her total yield, including monthly payments of $246.50 for three years, is 29.6 percent. In a second transaction, on the same day, Ms. Davis paid $30,000 for the Income Plan on the same terms as the first purchase. On July 27, 1998, Joseph F. and Adelaide A. O'Keefe, Florida residents with a net worth of $300,000, paid $12,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 5, 1998, Thurley E. Margeson, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 19, 1998, Stephanie Segaria, a Florida resident, paid $20,000 for the Growth Plan. On August 26, 1998, Roy and Glenda Raines, Florida residents, paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy. The New Business Transmittal to ABS notes a life expectancy of 30 months or less. In a second transaction, on the same day, the Raineses paid $5000 for the Growth Plan. The yield is 35 percent, but the Participation Agreement reflects a 36-month life expectancy, although, again, the New Business Transmittal notes the life expectancy of 30 months or less. On November 24, 1998, Dan W. Lipford, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan in two transactions. In a third transaction, on January 13, 1999, Mr. Lipford paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 1, 1998, Mary E. Friebes, a Florida resident, paid $30,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 4, 1998, Allan Hidalgo, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 17, 1998, Paul E. and Rose E. Frechette, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including monthly payments of $205.41 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 26, 1998, Theodore and Tillie F. Friedman, Florida residents, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 19, 1999, Robert S. and Karen M. Devos, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. On January 20, 1999, Arthur Hecker, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $410.83 for 36 months, is 29.6 percent. On February 11, 1999, Michael Galotola, a Florida resident, paid $25,000 for the Growth Plan. In a second transaction, on the same day, Michael and Anna Galotola paid $12,500 for the Growth Plan. On November 3, 1998, Lee Chamberlain, a Florida resident, paid $50,000 for the Growth Plan. On December 23, 1998, Herbert L. Pasqual, a Florida resident, paid $200,000 for the Income Plan. The yield, including a monthly payment of $1643.33 for three years, is 29.6 percent. On December 1, 1998, Charles R. and Maryann Schuyler, Florida residents, paid $10,000 for the Growth Plan. Respondent and Empire Insurance were never aware of the fraud being perpetrated by FinFed and ABS at anytime during the 38 transactions mentioned above. Respondent attempted to verify with third parties the existence of the viaticated insurance policies. When ABS presented its program to 30-40 potential agents, including Respondent, ABS presented these persons an opinion letter from ABS's attorney, stating that the investment was not a security, under Florida law. Respondent also contacted Petitioner's predecessor agency and asked if these transactions involving viaticated life insurance policies constituted the sale of securities. An agency employee informed Respondent that these transactions did not constitute the sale of securities.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Finding James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., not guilty of violating Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes; Finding James A. Torchia guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes; Finding Empire Insurance, Inc., guilty of 38 violations of Section 517.07(1), Florida Statutes, and 38 violations of Section 517.12(1), Florida Statutes, except for transactions closed on or after December 1, 1998; Directing James A. Torchia and Empire Insurance, Inc., to cease and desist from further violations of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $120,000 against James A. Torchia. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Fred H. Wilsen Senior Attorney Office of Financial Institutions and Securities Regulation South Tower, Suite S-225 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1799 Barry S. Mittelberg Mittelberg & Nicosia, P.A. 8100 North University Drive, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33321
The Issue A notice and order to show cause, issued to Respondent on January 15, 1992, seeks to terminate Respondent's grandfathered status under Section 626.988, F.S., and seeks to suspend or revoke Respondent's certificate of authority pursuant to Section 626.891, F.S. Various violations are alleged, including expanding the scope of functions being performed on April 2, 1974; soliciting prospective insurance customers by placing enclosures and solicitations in First Union Bank customers' bank statements; adding resident life agents; and allowing an unlicensed individual to solicit applications of insurance in Florida. The issues for resolution in this proceeding are whether the alleged violations occurred and if so, what discipline or remedial action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, First Union Mortgage Corporation (FUMC), is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business at 301 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. FUMC is a "financial institution agency" as defined in Section 626.988(1)(c), F.S. FUMC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Union Corporation, a registered bank holding company with headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. First Union Corporation is also a financial institution as defined in Section 626.988(1)(a), F.S. First Union National Bank of Florida, N.A., is a national bank authorized to do business in Florida and is a sister corporation of FUMC. Until February 8, 1987, FUMC was known as Cameron Brown Mortgage Company. Under that name it had engaged in certain insurance activities in Florida since the late 1960's. When Cameron Brown became FUMC there was no change in ownership, affiliation or corporate structure. Before and after the name change the company was owned by First Union Corporation. THE DECLARATORY STATEMENT On April 2, 1974, Section 626.988, F.S., took effect, prohibiting insurance agents or solicitors licensed by the Department of Insurance (DOI) from engaging in insurance agency activities as employees, officers, directors, agents or associates of a financial institution agency. The same section includes a "grandfather" provision for continued operation of financial institution agencies which were in existence and engaged in insurance agency activities as of April 2, 1974. FUMC represented to DOI that it was entitled to the grandfather exemption for its pre-1974 insurance agency activities, and in February 1988, FUMC filed a petition for declaratory statement pursuant to Section 120.565, F.S. for determination of its status. After notice to FUMC and to the public, a proceeding on the petition was conducted on March 30, 1988 by a staffperson of DOI appointed as hearing officer. On August 5, 1988, a declaratory statement was issued, and on September 2, 1988, an amended declaratory statement was issued. The latter statement finds in pertinent part: First Union Insurance Group (formerly the insurance division of Cameron Brown Company) was engaged in insurance agency activities prior to April 2, 1974. First Union Mortgage Corporation through First Union Insurance Group has continuously [word apparently deleted here] licensed agents and conducted insurance agency activities in Florida since and before April 2 1974. The scope of insurance agency activities continuously conducted by First Union Mortgage Corporation has been limited to: One life and health insurance agent, (Mr. Winifred Eugene Strickland), who served as an agent for the insurance division of Cameron-Brown Company while also serving as a salaried employee of American Heritage Life Insurance Company. Although Mr. Strickland apparently had one or more additional sub- agents involved in soliciting Cameron-Brown Customers, their involvement was sporadic and does not meet the test for "continuously engaged" so as to entitle First Union Mortgage Corporation to more than one life and health insurance agent. One non-resident property and casualty agent, (Charles Johnson). Mr. Johnson has been licensed as the successor agent for Mr. Hubert Reid Jones. Mr. Jones and Mr. Johnson sold, through countersignature relationships with Florida agents, property and casualty insurance prior and subsequent to April 2, 1974. The solicitation and servicing of customers of Cameron-Brown Company (now First Union Mortgage Corporation) was the focus of its insurance agency activities. . . . (Petitioner's Exhibit A Pages 3-4) The amended declaratory Statement also provides: . . . But for application of the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 626.988(5), Florida Statutes, any insurance agent or solicitor licensed by the Department of Insurance (the Department) would be prohibited from association with First Union Mortgage Corporation in insurance agency activities. . . . (Petitioner's Exhibit A Page 5) The amended declaratory Statement concludes as follows: . . . Pursuant to Section 626.988(5), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner's subsidiary, First Union Mortgage Corporation, is entitled to continue to engage in insurance agency activities through First Union Insurance Group by utilizing one licensed non-resident property and casualty insurance (Class 9-20) and one licensed resident life and health insurance agent. This recognition of grandfather status for Petitioner's subsidiary First Union Mortgage Corporation does not extend to Petitioner's subsidiary, First Union National Banks of Florida. First Union Mortgage Corporation may solicit prospective insurance customers so long as neither the Petitioner, First Union Corporation, nor any subsidiary bank plays an active role in such insurance solicitation through endorsements, bank mailings, providing space within bank offices, or similar activities. . . . (Petitioner's Exhibit A Pages 7-8) emphasis added. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY AS "THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR" In addition to its activities described in the amended declaratory statement, FUMC (then, Cameron Brown) was engaged in other insurance related activities prior to 1970. Under contracts with various life and health insurers Cameron Brown provided third party administrator services including receiving and reviewing applications, issuing policies, explaining and collecting premiums and accounting for and remitting premiums to the insurance companies. The insurance companies with whom Cameron Brown contracted handled the actual solicitation and sale of the policies. The contracts in effect in 1968, 1970 and 1978 between Cameron Brown and Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company were typical of the arrangements with other companies, according to Charles Johnson, Jr., retired vice president in charge of insurance agency operations at Cameron Brown. (Transcript, p. 102). As provided in the contracts with Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, the administrative services were in connection with the mortgage insurance program made available by the insurance company to borrowers of Cameron Brown. (Respondent's Exhibits number 1, 2, 3). This included borrowers in the State of Florida, although the services were being provided out of Cameron Brown/FUMC's principal offices in Charlotte, North Carolina. Prior to 1983, when Chapter 626 Part VII, Florida Statutes was enacted, Florida did not regulate third party administrators as such. Section 626.8805, F.S. now requires a certificate of authority to be issued by the Department of Insurance (DOI). On or about September 26, 1986, Cameron Brown applied to DOI for authorization to operate in the State of Florida as a third party administrator. The application was prepared by Peter Nagle, senior vice-president of FUMC who had just recently joined what was then Cameron Brown. On the application, and later in October, in response to DOI's request for additional information, Nagle indicated that Cameron Brown had operated as an administrator of insurance plans since December 1983 and that the company was not providing such services on plans for Florida residents. This information was an inadvertent error, primarily the result of Nagles unfamiliarity with the company's history. There is no evidence that the information was material to a determination of the company's eligibility for certification. Nor is there evidence of any scheme by the company to conceal its past practices at the time of application in 1986. In its application Cameron Brown disclosed its affiliation with First Union Corporation, and further provided that First Union National Bank of Florida conducted only credit insurance activities in First Union Corporation locations in Florida. DOI issued a certificate of authority for Cameron Brown to operate as an administrator in the State of Florida on October 14, 1986. The cover letter provides, "the certificate is perpetual and shows no expiration date contingent upon your annual filing, due March 1st". (Petitioner's exhibit B, p.17) Those annual filings have been made, and on May 18, 1987, the certificate of authority was reissued in the name of FUMC. During the declaratory statement proceeding, the company's third party administrator status was never an issue. DOI never asked about, and FUMC never mentioned, the existence of its certificate or the company's insurance administration activities. The staff of DOI involved in the declaratory statement proceeding did not know about their agency's grant of the certificate to FUMC. Their pique at FUMC"s failure to affirmatively raise the certificate issue, however, is misplaced in the absence of any evidence that the outcome of the declaratory statement would have been altered with that knowledge. At most, the staff can only say that their investigation would have been different had they realized that FUMC was providing insurance administration services. INVESTIGATION AND ALLEGED VIOLATIONS After the third party administrator certificate was issued, and after the amended declaratory statement was issued, sometime in 1989, DOI began investigating all financial institutions claiming grandfathered status under Section 626.988, F.S. This included FUMC, and during a two day visit to the Charlotte, North Carolina headquarters, DOI staff, obviously other than staff involved in the certificate process, learned for the first time that FUMC was operating as an administrator of insurance plans. Even then this did not trigger further investigation of the administrator activities, as there was no evidence that the company was out of compliance with its amended declaratory statement. Approximately a year later, in the summer of 1990, DOI's Bureau of Agent and Agency Investigations began receiving inquiries regarding Monumental General Insurance solicitations mailed to First Union Bank customers in Florida. Gail Connell, DOI Analyst II, opened her investigation. A few months later complaints were received from insurance agents who were also customers of First Union Bank regarding solicitations done by American Heritage Life. The brochure from Monumental General sent to First Union Bank customers listed a toll-free number for the plan administrator, First Union Insurance Group, a division of FUMC. The mailing included letters from the president of Monumental General and the senior vice-president of First Union National Bank of Florida, with an enrollment form for a $1,000 no-cost accidental death group policy and optional additional coverage. Benefits and premiums for the additional coverage were explained in the brochure. A pre-paid postage reply envelope was addressed to "First Union Insurance Group, Plan Administrator, Attn: Daniel J. McPherson, Licensed Resident Agent, P. O. Box 2678, Jacksonville, Florida 32203-9851". (Petitioner's Exhibit C; pp. 157-163.) Daniel McPherson is not one of FUMC's grandfathered agents nor a successor to a grandfathered agent. The American Heritage Life mailings were stuffed in bank statements of customers of First Union National Bank. These mailings included a simple check- off form for the customer to return for more information and for a personalized quotation for term life insurance. Some mailings indicated return to "C. Dennis Wiggins, Resident Licensed Agent, P. O. Box 2678, Jacksonville, Florida 32203- 9851", and others required return to "Robert T. Jones, Sr. Resident Licensed Agent, P. O. Box 2678, Jacksonville, Florida 32203-2678" (Petitioner's Exhibit C, p 141, 154). Neither of these agents are FUMC's grandfathered agents or their successors. The American Heritage mailings also included a toll-free number for information. Gail Connell called that number and was eventually connected to a person identified as Sheila Auten, an insurance specialist for FUMC in North Carolina. Ms. Connell said to Ms. Auten that she was interested in more information about the term life policy addressed in the brochure. Ms. Auten asked questions about Ms. Connell's name, address, age, occupation and general health. Ms. Auten gave some history about American Heritage Life, estimated a premium for Ms. Connell, and offered to take her application over the phone. In response to Ms. Connell's question, she indicated that the completed application would be mailed to American Heritage Life in Jacksonville. Ms. Connell did not reveal her occupation as DOI investigator. Ms. Connell said she needed to think about the decisions and asked Ms. Auten to mail her something. A few days later Ms. Connell received a brochure explaining the product, a premium rate sheet and an application form. A few weeks later, when Ms. Connell did not return the application she received this letter from Sheila Auten: Dear Ms. Connell: Recently we sent you a proposal for term life insurance from American Heritage Life Insurance Company. I regret I have been unable to reach you by telephone to discuss it and answer any questions you may have. This term insurance is one of the best values on the market today. You can be sure it will provide you with a high level of life insurance protection at a very competitive rate. Once you decide to apply for this valuable insurance coverage, I would be happy to answer your questions or help you apply. Don't delay. Call me now at 1-800-366-8703. (Petitioner Exhibit C, p. 176) Ms. Auten is not licensed in Florida as an insurance agent or customer account representative. DOI considers it necessary for third party administrators to use licensed agents if they are engaged in solicitation of insurance. Based on her investigation, including a review of the compensation paid to FUMC for its agency activities compared to its administrator activities, Ms. Connell concluded that FUMC was using its administrator status to perform functions beyond the scope of its amended declaratory statement. She also concluded that FUMC was using unlicensed agents (Sheila Auten) to solicit insurance. These conclusions form the basis for the allegations in the agency's Notice and Order to Show Cause issued to FUMC on January 15, 1992. FUMC concedes that no grandfathered agent participated in the Monumental and American Heritage solicitations which triggered Ms. Connell's investigation. The two insurance companies solicit customers through direct mailings conducted by their licensed agents, which mailings go to customer lists provided by First Union National Bank of Florida or are enclosed in bank statements sent out by that institution. The bank has endorsed some of the products offered by the insurance companies. Other than provide marketing advice to the insurance company, FUMC plays no part at all in the sending or preparation of the mail solicitations. The bank sends out its statements; the insurance company or its agent, unaffiliated with FUMC, sends the inserts to the place where the bank statements are prepared; and a machine stuffs the inserts. The returned inquiry forms go to a Florida post office box, as indicated in paragraphs 18 and 19 above, and are forwarded to FUMC for its administrative support services. Those services include the further response to inquiries (as evidenced by Ms. Connell's encounter with Sheila Auten), review and approval of applications based on the insurance company's underwriting guidelines, entry into the administrative system, issuance of the policy and explanation to the customer, drafting the premiums out of the customer's account, and general servicing of the policy. These functions are consistent with administrator agreements between FUMC and Monumental General effective October 1, 1986; and FUMC and American Heritage Life effective November 1, 1989. There is no evidence that FUMC has been subject to discipline in the past, has operated unprofessionally or has caused harm or risk of harm other than through what DOI asserts is the impermissible involvement of a financial institution in the insurance business. It is primarily its status as a financial institution that has resulted in this proceeding against FUMC.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the amended notice and order to show cause be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1476 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted generally in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted generally in paragraph 7, but the implied characterization of that order as establishing the only way that insurance activities might be conducted is rejected as discussed in the conclusions of law. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as an inappropriate characterization as a grant of exemption, as discussed in the conclusions of law. Adopted in part in paragraph 7, but the characterization of the order as a permit is rejected. See paragraph 8, above. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as improperly precluding the possibility of Respondent's later presenting evidence of other activities in which it engaged as of April 2, 1974, if it is determined that third-party administrator status must also be grandfathered in order to continue. This was not an issue in the prior proceeding. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to deliberate concealment. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in part, as to the first sentence. Otherwise, rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as argument rather than proposed finding of fact. Adopted in paragraph 12. 17-18. Adopted generally but Respondent's contention as to evidence in this proceeding is rejected, as provided in conclusions of law, paragraph 32. 19. Rejected as unnecessary. 20-27. Rejected as argument. 28-29. (not included in the filing). 30-33. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 20-22, except for the characterization of the activity as "soliciting". Rejected as unsubstantiated by the evidence. This case establishes only that the department now interprets FUMC's administrator activities as solicitation, not that it is a policy supported by rule, procedure or reason. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The level of compensation did not establish the association the department theorizes. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. The response given by the witness on page 189 was a qualified, inconclusive response. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 3. Included in Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted by implication in paragraph 11. 9-10. Adopted in paragraph 8. 11-14. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 15. Rejected as unnecessary. 16-17. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9, but there is no competent evidence that the same kinds of services were being provided since 1970. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 14. Adopted in paragraph 7. 25-26. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. 27-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 15. 36-37. Adopted in paragraph 7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 25. 41-42. Adopted in paragraph 26. 43-44. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 45. Adopted in paragraph 26. 46-49. Adopted in paragraphs 20-22. Included in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 52-53. Adopted in paragraph 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance Division off Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 J. Thomas Cardwell, Esquire Virginia B. Townes, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent is licensed as a life insurance agent and as a life and health insurance agent. Respondent operated through his agency listed as Tax Saving Concepts, Inc., 1003 10th Lane, Lake Worth, Florida 33463-4354. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626. This case was initiated by an anonymous complaint submitted by fax on August 23, 1999, to a Department office. The anonymous complainer faxed a copy of a newspaper ad from that day's edition of The Palm Beach Post. The ad reads as follows: “85% OFF TERM LIFE INSUANCE COMMISSIONS! LEGAL SAVINGS per Florida Statute 626.572 PERSAVE (sic) $1,000’s. Call 800-2-save-75. www.lifeinsurancediscounts .com Tax Saving Concepts Since 1986” The web page advertisement reads: 90% OFF 2ND-TO-DIE LIFE INSURANCE COMMISSIONS LEGALLY! YOU CAN SAVE $100,000+ IN YOUR POCKET! Save 90% off your 2nd-to-die life insurance commission costs legally when you sign your application in Florida with Tax Saving Concepts, Inc., a registered legal rebating broker since 1986. Our tax-free rebates can save you $100,000+. References from our happy clients will prove to you that you too will save thousands of dollars on your 2nd-to-die life insurance commission costs. We also offer deep discounts on term life insurance. Tax Saving Concepts, Inc. Of Florida America’s Oldest & Deepest Discount Life Insurance Broker Since 1986™ Registered Legal Rebating Broker Since 1986 We have never had a consumer complaint Email us: since 86@gate.net 561-439-6974 “Palm Beach agent Barry H. Small offers a 90% commission rebate. ” The Wall Street Journal March 25, 1993 By letter dated August 31, 1999, the Department, through an authorized representative, requested that Respondent get in touch to discuss the newspaper ad and website. Respondent answered by letter dated September 9, 1999, wherein he stated, “ABSOLUTELY NO life insurance companies are mentioned at my seminar.” He further stated, “I have not and do not intend to run this Palm Beach Post listing again.” After receiving this non-response, the case was referred to William Darryl May (May) of the Department’s Bureau of Agent and Agency Investigations for follow-up. May initiated the Department's investigation with a call to Small on January 26, 2000. May was successful in making telephone contact, but the conversation was unproductive due to Small's distrust of the Department's staff and unwillingness to provide information. Small believes himself to be the victim of a conspiracy between the Commissioner of Insurance and insurance agents who do not rebate commissions; he therefore felt justified in refusing to cooperate with May in answering questions concerning whether and to whom he had rebated commissions to customers, saying only, “You know the companies I am licensed with.” More specifically, Small would not provide the names of any customers he had rebated commissions to. Small feared adverse impacts upon his relationship with any customers state investigators might choose to contact. Small elaborated on his fears in a letter to May dated October 15, 1999 which states in part: I am writing the following facts from a consciousness that I can be killed at any moment. There is a contract on my life to have me killed, taken out by business competitors. On 6 occasions in the last 3 years, mafia hitmen, paid for by these business competitors have tried to kill me. Taking Small up on his implicit suggestion that the state deal directly with companies with whom Small had contractual relationships, May sent identical letters to the insurance companies for which Small was then authorized, or appointed, to sell insurance. May later received responses from companies, as follows: Banner Life Insurance Company, responded on January 26, 2000, through its legal department, with a letter to Small, which stated in pertinent part: We are in receipt of the enclosed newspaper advertisement and Internet website advertisement from the Florida Department of Insurance. Since these advertisements could potentially result in the sale of Banner Life Insurance Company products, they should have been submitted to our company for prior approval. We have thoroughly reviewed our records and advertising logs, and have determined that you never received permission from us to use the enclosed advertisements. Furthermore, if these advertisements had been submitted, they would not have been approved for use. First Colony Life Insurance Company, through its law department, wrote to May on December 15, 1999, and stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements; did not authorize Small to rebate commissions; and had no record of a rebate schedule filed by Small. Unum Life Insurance company, through its customer relations manager, wrote to May on December 14, 1999, and stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements; did not authorize Small to rebate commissions, and had no record of a rebate schedule filed by Small. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, through its Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, by letter to May dated December 14, 1999, stated that it did not approve of the newspaper and website advertisements and did not authorize Small to rebate commissions. The letter also stated that Lincoln Benefit's file research revealed a letter from Small to a general agent for Lincoln Benefit detailing his rebating schedule, but did not supply any details regarding that document. Transamerica Life Companies, through a compliance officer, wrote to the Insurance Commissioner on December 7, 1999, stating that it had not approved the newspaper or web site advertisements, and further noting that ". . . when Mr. Small was recontracted as a producer in June 1999, the company had him sign a document acknowledging [its strict anti- rebating policy].” Midland National Life Insurance Company, through its Consumer Affairs Associate, wrote to May on February 2, 2000. The letter stated that Small had produced little business for the company and that the company was in the process of terminating Small's appointment. It further stated that the company had not approved either of the advertisements. Finally, the letter made reference to its cooperation in a prior investigation of Small arising out a 1993 advertisement, and noted that it had been informed by the Department in August 1996 that that investigation was being closed. Sun Life of Canada, through its markets [sic] compliance office, wrote to May on November 2, 1999, stating that the company affirmatively requires that ads "used to promote Sun Life products" are subject to review and approval, and that the company does not permit rebating. Hartford Life, through its legal office, addressed a December 17, 1999, letter to May which stated that neither Respondent individually, nor through the Tax Savings Concepts entity, ever sought permission to rebate commissions with that company and no such authorization was ever granted. At a minimum, the language of the advertisements published by Small to readers of The Palm Beach Post and to the entire world via the Internet, demonstrates that Small promotes his business by advertising to the public his willingness to grant rebates. Yet, he feels well justified in his unwillingness to cooperate with regulatory authorities by providing information which would facilitate a determination as to the bona fides of his advertisements, and the details of his rebating practices. Rather, Small insists that the regulators find out what they can from the companies with whom he is authorized. In this case, that procedure compels the conclusion that with the possible exception of Lincoln Benefit, Small has not filed rebate schedules at any time material to this case. AS TO THE COUNT I ALLEGATIONS Respondent’s newspaper advertisement is, when viewed in the light most generous to Small, unclear, ambiguous, and misleading. "85% off commissions" in the context of the entire advertisement doesn't tell the prospective purchasers what he is saving, if anything. Small's representation that the prospective customer will enjoy “Legal Savings per Florida Statute 626.572” is false with respect to at least eight of the companies he represented at all times material to this case. As to these companies, clear and convincing evidence establishes that he was not authorized to rebate pursuant to that statute. In his untimely and unauthorized Motion to Quash, Small asserts that the baffling expression “PERSAVE $1,000’s” is there due to an error by The Palm Beach Post. It should have read, he contends, "You Save $1,000's." Thus, by Small's own admission, the suggestion to readers was intended to be that they stood to realize thousands of dollars in savings by doing business with Small. AS TO THE COUNT II ALLEGATIONS The web site advertisement is similarly unclear to the point of being intentionally misleading. Small is not a "Palm Beach agent." His office is located within his home in Lake Worth, a municipality within the greater Palm Beaches area. Palm Beach is one of the best known playgrounds of some of the world's wealthiest people, and carries a cachet which the truth--that Small never leaves his home in Lake Worth--does not. It suggests to readers that Small's clientele includes the rich residents of Palm Beach, whom he makes richer. The "85% off insurance commissions" advertised in the newspaper is upped to 90% off for Internet readers, and again begs the question, “90% off of what?” In this advertisement, the phrase “$100,000+” of savings “in your pocket,” made without any factual predicate, convincingly suggests an intent to mislead. Beyond self-serving and often incoherent testimony, Respondent's only effort to rebut the Department's case was through testimony that he had once “discussed” with Richard Scalesse (Scalesse), a Hartford Life account executive, “a large insurance case of about $120,000 of annual premium.” Scalesse could not remember details of the case. Assuming the accuracy of Small's testimony, in particular the claim that this case was “a very, very large case,” it does not rebut any element of the administrative charges nor does it support any element of an affirmative defense. The last statement in the web page ad reads: “We also offer deep discounts on term life insurance.” What other type of insurance is being offered? Did the other discounts apply only to whole life? Annuities? Universal life? The advertisement offers no concrete information upon which a consumer could make a rational decision to consider doing business with the advertising agent. Respondent's claims that the newspaper advertisement was placed by mistake and will never be repeated is too little, too late. The advertisement is not benign in that it simply advertises a "seminar," as Small contends. The advertisement says nothing about a seminar, and even if it did, Small, when attempting to attract customers to his insurance business, is at all times bound by the statutes and rules governing the conduct and business practices of state- licensed insurance agents, no matter what he thinks of their constitutionality, or the people whose jobs it is to enforce those statutes and rules. Each of the false and misleading statements contained in The Palm Beach Post ad, as well as on Small's website, was, at all times material to this case, authorized by Small.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding the Respondent, Barry Howard Small, guilty of violating Subsections 626.572(1), 626.611(7); 626.611(9); 626.611(13); 626.621(2); 626.621(3); 626.621(6); 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., and Rules 4-150.101; 4-150.105(1)-(4); 4-150.107(1)(a); and 4-150.114(10), and suspending his license for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ 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 9th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Barry Howard Small 3200 South Ocean Boulevard Apartment 103D Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
