Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Beach Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a Landscape Technologies or Landscape Technologies, Inc. or as Land Tech (Beach) operated as a dealer in agricultural products under license No. 2889 issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). On Beach's behalf, respondent Regency Insurance Company posted a surety bond with DACS, No. SF00356 in the amount of $3,000, effective September 24, 1988, through September 23, 1989, to secure payment for Florida agricultural products. Testimony of Brooks. On August 30, 1989, Beach took delivery from petitioners of seven live oak trees petitioners grew near Chiefland, Florida, agreeing to pay $125 for each which, with sales tax, aggregated $927.50. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716280. Testimony of Cochran. Having earlier made a deposit of $637.50, Beach took delivery from petitioners on September 18, 1989, of 15 Florida-grown live oak trees, agreeing to pay $170 for each. With sales tax (but less the deposit) Beach owed petitioners $2,065.50 on account of this transaction. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716788. Testimony of Cochran. The next day Beach took delivery from petitioners of 15 more Florida- grown trees again agreeing to pay $170 for each. Again with sales tax and less an earlier deposit, indebtedness on account of the transaction aggregated $2,065.50. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716790. Testimony of Cochran. Finally, on September 20, 1989, Beach took delivery from petitioners of 16 Florida-grown live oak trees, agreeing to pay $170 for each, which with sales tax and less an earlier deposit, amounted to $2,203.20. Petitioners's Exhibit No. 1, Inv. No. 716791. Testimony of Cochran. On March 3, 1990, Beach or Landscape Technologies, Inc. paid petitioners $1,000, thereby reducing indebtedness to petitioners on account of the foregoing transactions from $7,261.70 to $6,261.70. Petitioners applied a check in the amount of $1,500 to reduce the indebtedness to $4,761.70, even though the check purported to be in payment of another invoice. In the answer it filed with DACS, Landscape Technologies, Inc., admitted indebtedness of $4,661.10.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DACS order Beach to pay petitioners four thousand seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy cents ($4,761.70) within fifteen (15) days of the final order. That, in the event Beach fails to pay petitioners four thousand seven hundred sixty-one dollars and seventy cents ($4,761.70) within fifteen (15) days of the final order, DACS order Regency Insurance Company to pay three thousand dollars ($3,000) or such lesser sum as satisfies the requirements of Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes (1989), for disbursal to petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CHRISTOPHER B. PHILLIPS LANDSCAPE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 523 LAKEVIEW ROAD CLEARWATER, FL 34616 REGENCY INSURANCE COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 190 HALLANDALE, FL 33009-0190 CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 J. COCHRAN & RUSSELL STRANGE C & S TREE FARM ROUTE 1, BOX 738 CHIEFLAND, FL 32626 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Department of Management Services (DMS), has the responsibility of procuring insurance coverage for all state agencies. One area of coverage is for fire, windstorm and other risks to state owned buildings and their contents. The state is a self-insurer for the first two million dollars of loss through a fire insurance trust fund established for that purpose, but it purchases excess coverage from commercial insurance carriers for any claims in excess of that amount. Prior to this dispute arising, DMS obtained this excess coverage through the solicitation of bids and the awarding of a contract to an insurance company who purchased the excess coverage on behalf of the state. Indeed, petitioner, Acordia of South Florida, Inc. (ASFI), had provided this coverage for the previous nine years. Due to "gaps" in coverage caused by Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, and its desire to reduce rapidly spriraling costs, DMS decided to select an "agent of record" for obtaining the excess coverage. Under this approach, the selected firm (agent of record) would agree to work on behalf of the state to select and negotiate sufficient coverages for the Fire Insurance Trust Fund Excess Property Program. After obtaining the agency head's approval to negotiate a contract under Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code, rather than use the normal competitive bid or request for proposal process, a DMS staffer, in consultation with the Department of Insurance (DOI), prepared a prequalification questionnaire which was sent to interested vendors on April 28, 1993, inviting them to prequalify for the contract. Based on prequalification, the three highest ranked vendors were required to give an oral presentation to, and answer questions by, an evaluation committee who ranked them based on their presentation and responses. Only four vendors filed prequalifying responses, including petitioner and Johnson & Higgins of Georgia, Inc. (JHGI). After one vendor was preliminarily disqualified, the committee met separately with each of the three remaining vendors and then assigned a score. Under the committee's scoring procedures, JHGI received the highest score and was slated to receive the contract. Petitioner was ranked second. Claiming that the evaluation committee raised new matters during the negotiation process that were not contained in the prequalification questionnaire, ASFI has challenged the award of the contract to JHGI. The Specifications DOI was aware that several other states, including the State of Georgia, were using the agent of record approach for insurance acquisitions. Accordingly, DMS obtained a blank Request for Proposal used by the State of Georgia and gave it to DOI to use in tailoring specifications that would fit DMS' needs. There was no mention or reference to JHGI in any material received from Georgia. During the formulation of the Florida solicitation, DOI did not contact nor receive any input from JHGI. The suggestions by petitioner that JHGI improperly influenced the drafting of the specifications, or that the specifications were drawn in JHGI's favor, are rejected. DMS' invitation to negotiate was issued on April 28, 1993. It advised all vendors that DMS intended "to negotiate to award a contract to a licensed insurance broker/agent for the placement of the State of Florida's Fire Insurance Trust Fund Excess Property Program." (emphasis added) The invitation further stated that each broker/agent must complete the attached prequalifying questionnaire and return it to DMS by 2:00 p. m. on May 7, 1993. The questionnaire was simply intended to screen out bidders that could not qualify, establish minimum standards, and identify qualified firms for further negotiations. It was always envisioned that those vendors who prequalified would be asked additional questions during the actual negotiation process. During these discussions, Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code, which governs this process, allows the vendor to give a "final firm price, terms and conditions." Of particular relevance to this dispute were the requirements in the questionnaire that each vendor identify (a) the "account executives" who would be assigned to the state's account (subparagraph 2a.), and (b) "information on compensation" (paragraph 4). Paragraph 2 of the questionnaire dealt generally with a vendor's organization and staffing. Subparagraph 2a. required the vendor to state "the name(s) and provide a resume for the account executive(s) who will be assigned to this account." In other words, the vendor was required to name the individuals who would administer the program. The second item in question, which contained a number of typographical errors, pertained to information on compensation and informed all vendors that they would be paid on a "fee basis." Subparagraph 4a. required the firm to "give details on how you will document that coverage are (sic) placed on a 'net' (ex-commission) basis," subparagraph 4b. stated that "(n)o commission may be received for placements of these (sic) coverage," while subparagraph 4c. provided that "(i)f your firm utilizes an intermediary, surplus lines of (sic) London broker owned by your firm or your parent firm, no commissions shall be allowed to these firms." Under this arrangement, then, the successful vendor would provide the services for a flat fee and state the amount of that fee on the questionnaire, and DMS would pay only premiums, with no commissions included, to insurance carriers for the coverage needed. This requirement was considered critical to DMS for controlling costs because DMS wanted to be sure it was paying pure premium to the carriers for risk coverage and not commissions to other entities for merely doing paperwork. Finally, the invitation to negotiate provided that after the questionnaires were timely filed, the three highest ranked vendors would meet individually with an evaluation committee and "verbally present and discuss the information furnished by the broker/agent and to answer questions posed by the committee." The latter questions are found in respondent's exhibit 8. The Evaluation Process The evaluation committee was composed of four persons, three from DMS, and one from DOI. All members participated in the questioning of vendor representatives, and after the session, each reviewed the tape recording of the meeting and independently assigned scores to each of the three vendors. Thereafter, the scores were combined and overall rankings were assigned the vendors. In this case, JHGI received a score of 310, petitioner received a score of 290, and Arthur J. Gallagher & Company, the third vendor, received the lowest score of 230. During the negotiation phase of the process, all vendors were asked to state "the name of one person and one alternate to be the account executive to administer the coverage" (question 2.a.). Petitioner says it had no advance notice that the name of an additional person would be required. Believing that DMS was looking for a person with multiple designations, ASFI initially responded to the question by naming Lee Anne Cross, an employee with CPUC, CIC, and AMIM designations. Since Cross had not handled a billion dollar property account, however, ASFI was given no points for naming that individual. In hindsight, ASFI now says that it would have named a different individual who had the necessary experience in handling large accounts, and this individual would have received at least thirty more points. Whether this assumption is correct is speculative at best. Even so, the committee did not allow petitioner to change its response and name a more qualified individual, and in this respect DMS did not follow the requirements of its own rule (60A-1.018), which contemplates that a vendor be allowed to give a "final firm price, terms and conditions" during the negotiation process. Petitioner contends that by requesting this information during the discussion phase of the process, the committee imposed a new requirement not previously mentioned in the prequalification questionnaire. However, the specifications asked each vendor to "state the name(s) and provide a resume of the account executive(s) who would be assigned to the account," and each vendor was advised to be prepared "to discuss the information furnished by the Broker/Agent and to answer questions posed by the committee." Accordingly, it is found that DMS did not deviate from the requirements stated in the prequalification questionnaire by asking question 2.a. Indeed, petitioner's witness acknowledged that when the question was asked, he simply named the wrong employee. During the negotiation process, all vendors were asked to provide a statement that they intended to comply with the requirement that DMS would pay no commissions to intermediaries who secured excess coverages for the state (question 4.e.). Only ASFI declined to make such a statement. ASFI responded that it could not place coverage without the use of non-owned intermediaries, and thus it would have to pay additional commissions to those entities. Since this was contrary to the clear requirement in paragraph 4, ASFI received only ten points, in contrast to thirty points received by JHGI for that question. After being told that no commissions would be paid, ASFI sought to amend its proposal by increasing its flat fee from $95,000 to $195,000 to take into account the additional commissions it would have to pay. Even then, AFSI's fee would have been $30,000 lower than the $225,000 fee proposed by JHGI. On the theory that the deadline for filing proposals had long since expired, and it would be unfair to allow a vendor to amend its proposal at that point, the committee denied ASFI's request to change its fee proposal. This was contrary to the terms of rule 60A-1.018(2). ASFI contends that by imposing the requirement that commissions could not be paid if non-owned intermediaries were used, DMS added a new requirement not previously found in the specifications. It further argues that by using the word "intermediary" in paragraph 4a. of the prequalification questionnaire, DMS was referring to an owned intermediary, rather than a non-owned intermediary. In addition, it points out that such a distinction was not made when DMS used the competitive bidding process. But under the new negotiation process, the questionnaire had stated in three different ways that DMS did not intend to pay any commissions other than the agent of record fee, no matter what entities were used. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to find that DMS deviated from the requirements of the specifications by asking question 4.e. Finally, ASFI suggests that the specifications were vague and confusing. However, AFSI could have sought to clarify or contest those items prior to being qualified but it failed to do so. Moreover, during the negotiation process, its representative did not indicate to the committee that he was confused or did not understand the requirements, and no objection was ever made until AFSI learned it had not been awarded the contract. Since the other two vendors filed responsive questionnaires, and were not confused, and the challenged language was self-explanatory, it is found that the specifications were not misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DMS reconsider the three proposals in a manner consistent with its rule and enter a final order awarding the agent of record contract for the Fire Insurance Trust Fund to the vendor "with the best price, terms and conditions." DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6454BID Petitioner: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 6-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 15 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14 and 16. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 24-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 28-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 30-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 32-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 40. Rejected as being irrelevant. 41. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 42. Rejected as being irrelevant. 43. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 44. 45. Rejected issues. Rejected as being as being unnecessary irrelevant. for a resolution of the Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 48. Covered in preliminary statement. 49-54. Rejected as being irrelevant. 55-56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 57-59. Rejected as being irrelevant. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 61. Rejected as being irrelevant. 62. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 63. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 7. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 12-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 16-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 18. Rejected as being unnecessary. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 24-25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 28-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 35-36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 37-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 39-41. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Did Respondent Williams fail to make an accounting for and payment to Petitioner for the proceeds of agricultural products purchased by Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Six L's grows watermelons in Collier County, Florida. It is therefore a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Respondent Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company is a dealer in agricultural products who engages in business in Florida. Respondent Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company is the surety for a bond posted by Respondent Williams to insure compliance with Section 604.20, Florida Statutes (1979). On May 26, 1980, Six L's sold 46,700 pounds of field run, crimson sweet, watermelons to Respondent Williams at a price of 5 1/2 cents per pound for a total cost of $2,568.50. The sale was negotiated between Mr. Charles Weisinger, a salesman for Six L's, and Mr. Larry DiMaria. Mr. DiMaria at that time was a purchasing agent for Respondent Williams. They agreed that the sale would be F.O.B. at Immokalee, Florida. On May 26, 1980 a truck under contract to Respondent Williams was loaded with 46,700 pounds of crimson sweet field run watermelons from the farm of Petitioner Six L's. The weight was verified by the Immokalee State Farmer's Market at 6:59 p.m., May 26, 1980. At that time Mr. DiMaria inspected the watermelons and accepted them on behalf of Respondent Williams. On the following day, May 27, 1980, Mr. DiMaria made payment for the watermelons by issuing check #465 drawn on the account of Williams Farms in the amount of $2,568.50, payable to Six L's Packing Company. Before Six L's could collect on the check, payment was stopped by Respondent Williams, and no payment for the watermelons has since been made by either Respondent. The final hearing in this case was initially noticed for December 4, 1980. At the request of Respondent Williams and with the agreement of Six L's it was continued to a later date. The final hearing was rescheduled for May 11, 1981 in Fort Myers, Florida at 10:00 a.m. At that time neither Respondent made an appearance. In order to give them time to appear the hearing was recessed until 10:30 a.m. At that time it resumed and was concluded at 11:30 a.m. with still no appearance by either Respondent. To the knowledge of the undersigned no attempt was made by the Respondents to request a continuance or otherwise explain their failure to appear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company indebted to Six L's Packing Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,568.50. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether Boyer Produce, Inc. and its surety, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, owe petitioner $1,751.80 as alleged in the complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In July 1993, petitioner, Patricia Thomas, was given authority by her brother to sell all remaining watermelons on his farm located in Citra, Florida. This amounted to approximately one truckload. She eventually sold them to respondent, Boyer Produce, Inc., a dealer (broker) in agricultural products located in Williston, Florida. Its owner and president is Kennedy Boyer (Boyer), who represented his firm in this proceeding. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and is in the amount of $75,000.00. Although the parties had never had business dealings before this transaction, through a mutual acquaintance, Randy Rowe, respondent learned that petitioner was interested in selling her watermelons. After Boyer visited the field and examined three watermelons which he described as "good," Boyer offered to purchase a truckload for 4 per pound if all melons were of the same quality. Thomas declined and counteroffered with a price of 5 per pound. The parties then agreed to split the difference and arrived at a sales price of 4 per pound. During the negotiations, Rowe acted as an intermediary between the parties and observed the formation of the contract as well as the loading of the goods onto the truck. Although the matter is in dispute, it is found that both parties agreed that Thomas would be paid 4 per pound for "good" watermelons delivered. This meant that petitioner would not be paid unless and until the watermelons were delivered to their final destination in "good" condition. In the trade, being in "good condition" meant that the watermelons would meet U. S. Grade No. 1 standards. Respondent also agreed to provide a truck and driver at petitioner's field and to transport the produce to Brooklyn, New York, the final destination. At the same time, petitioner was given the responsibility of loading the watermelons on the truck. To assist petitioner in meeting her up- front labor costs, respondent advanced $500.00 as partial payment for the shipment. Winston Smith was hired by respondent to transport the melons to New York. He arrived at petitioner's field on Saturday, July 16, 1993, and remained there while approximately 46,000 pounds of melons were loaded on an open top flat bed trailer. One of the loaders said the melons were "packed real tight," and four bales of straw were used in packing. According to Rowe, who observed the loading, the watermelons packed that day were in "good" condition, and any nonconforming watermelons were "kicked" off the truck. Also, by way of admission, the driver, as agent for Boyer, acknowledged to Rowe that the melons loaded were in "good" condition. Late that afternoon, a thunderstorm came through the area and, due to lightening, no further loading could be performed. Since around 46,000 pounds had already been loaded, petitioner desired for the truck to be sent on its way north. Smith, however, told petitioner he wanted 50,000 pounds in order to make his trip to New York worthwhile and he would not go with anything less. Acceding to his wishes, petitioner agreed to meet Smith the next morning and load an additional two hundred watermelons, or 4,000 pounds, on the truck. Smith then drove the loaded truck to a nearby motel where he spent the night. That evening it rained, and this resulted in the uncovered watermelons and straw getting wet. The next morning, Smith telephoned petitioner and advised her to meet him at 9:00 a. m. at a local Starvin' Marvin store, which had a weight scale that could certify the weight of the shipment. Petitioner carried two hundred watermelons to the store at 9:00 a. m., but Smith did not arrive. Around noon, she received a call from Smith advising that his truck was broken down at the motel and would not start. The watermelons were then taken to the motel and loaded onto the trailer. In all, 50,040 pounds were loaded. Smith's truck would still not start after the watermelons were loaded, and Smith refused to spend any money out of his own pocket to repair the truck. Not wanting to delay the shipment any longer, petitioner gave Smith $35.00 to have someone assist him in starting the vehicle. In order for the repairs to be made, the loaded trailer had to be jacked up and the truck unhooked from and later rehooked to the trailer. This was accomplished only with great difficulty, and Smith was forced to "jostle" the trailer with the power unit for some two hours altogether. According to Rowe, he warned Smith that such jostling could bruise the melons and "mess them up." Smith was also cautioned early on that he should make the necessary repairs as soon as possible so that the load of watermelons would not continue to sit uncovered in the sun. The truck eventually departed around 9:00 p. m., Sunday evening after the uncovered trailer had sat in the sun all day. The shipment was delivered to Brooklyn on the following Tuesday afternoon or evening, and it was inspected by a government inspector on Wednesday morning. According to the inspection report, which has been received in evidence, the load was split evenly between crimson and jubilee melons, and 23 percent and 21 percent, respectively, of the two types of melons failed to meet grade. No greater than a 12 percent "margin" is allowed on government inspections. Almost all of the defects cited in the report were attributable to the melons being "over-ripe." The buyer in New York rejected the entire shipment as not meeting standards. Respondent then sold the shipment for only $1350.00 resulting in a loss of $350.00 on the transaction. In addition, respondent says the driver (Smith) accepted $1200.00 instead of the $2,000.00 he would have normally charged to transport a load to New York. When petitioner asked for her money a few weeks later, respondent declined, saying the goods had not met specification when delivered to their destination, and if she had any remedy at all, it was against Smith, the driver. If petitioner had been paid 4 per pound for the entire shipment, she would have been entitled to an additional $1,751.80, or a total of $2,251.80. Petitioner contends that the melons failed to meet grade because of the negligence of the driver. More specifically, she says the loaded melons sat in the sun for almost two days, including all day Sunday after being soaked from the Saturday evening rain. If wet melons are exposed to the hot sun for any length of time, they run the risk of "wet burning," which causes decay. But even if this occurred, only 1 percent of the shipment was found to have "decay" by the government inspector. Petitioner also says that by being jostled for two hours on Sunday, the melons were bruised. Again, however, the melons were rejected primarily because they were over-ripe, not bruised. Therefore, and consistent with the findings in the inspection report, it is found that the jostling and wet burning did not have a material impact on the quality of the melons. Respondent contended the melons were close to being fully ripened when they were picked and loaded. In this regard, Charles Strange, Sr. agreed that if the melons sat in the field for another four or five days, they would have started "going bad." By this, it may be reasonably inferred that, unless the melons were loaded and delivered in a timely manner, they would have become over-ripe and would not meet grade within a matter of days. Therefore, a timely delivery of the melons was extremely important, and to the extent respondent's agent, Smith, experienced at least a twenty-four hour delay in delivering the melons through no fault of petitioner, this contributed in part to their failure to meet grade. Petitioner is accordingly entitled to some additional compensation, a fair allocation of which is one-half of the value of the shipment, or $1125.90, less the $500.00 already paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioner $625.90 within thirty days from date of the agency's final order. In the event such payment is not timely made, the surety should be liable for such payment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Post Office Box 1985 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1985 Patricia Thomas Post Office Box 522 Archer, Florida 32618 Kennedy Boyer 15A South West 2nd Avenue Williston, Florida 32696
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Greg Davenport Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Container Grown, is entitled to payment from an Agricultural Bond issued to Respondent, A.W. Kelley’s Gardens, Inc., and, if so, the amount owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed producer of an agricultural product: Nursery plants and flowers. Petitioner is duly incorporated by the State of Florida and is in good standing. Greg Davenport is listed as Director and President of the corporation in the Division of Corporations’ web-based records. Respondent is a duly incorporated Florida corporation. Its business address is 6901 Hendry Creek Drive, Ft. Myers, Florida. The directors of the corporation are listed as Dixie Kelley, Drew Kelley, and Kent Kelley. Respondent is a plant retail business. Respondent has been a customer of Petitioner for many years, going back as far as 2006 according to evidence submitted at final hearing. During that time, Respondent has purchased approximately $91,000.00 worth of goods from Petitioner. (In its PRO, Respondent says the relationship goes back 25 years or more, but there was no sworn testimony to that effect.) During the period March 22 through May 24, 2012, Respondent ordered numerous items from Petitioner for which he was billed in accordance with standard practices. The following invoices provide the invoice number, date of invoice, and amount of purchase: Invoice 1399 - March 22, 2012 - $1,570.00 Invoice 1818 – March 27, 2012 - $2,105.00 Invoice 1391 – April 10, 2012 - $1,130.00 Invoice 1303 – April 25, 2012 - $ 850.00 Invoice 1419 – May 16, 2012 - $1,145.00 Invoice 1431 – May 24, 2012 - $1,175.00 TOTAL - $7,975.00 Petitioner contacted Respondent on numerous occasions to request payment on the outstanding invoices. Those efforts were in vain. At first, Respondent would make empty promises to pay, but ultimately just refused to accept Petitioner’s calls. Meanwhile, Respondent’s owner relocated to North Carolina, causing Petitioner to fear that payment may never be forthcoming. Respondent made some promises to make payments “whenever he could” to satisfy the debt. He said, however, that even if he could not pay, Petitioner should not attach his agriculture bond. Respondent’s failure to make any promised payments was the basis for Petitioner seeking payment by way of the bond. Respondent does not deny his failure to pay the outstanding invoices. He does not dispute that the products he received were of acceptable quality. He does, in fact, admit his indebtedness to Petitioner. Respondent does not feel his bond should be attached for payment of this debt. He cites, as reasons, that: 1) his business suffered during the national financial crisis; 2) there was some embezzlement going on in his business that affected his ability to pay obligees; 3) there is a related civil lawsuit underway in circuit court relating to the embezzlement; and 4) Davenport and Kelley have been friends for a long time and thus he should be allowed more time to pay the invoices. Respondent’s PRO sets forth other bases for why he believes it would be improper to attach his agriculture bond. However, none of those bases was addressed by sworn witnesses at final hearing and are thus not evidence in this case. Further, Respondent contends that two witnesses he subpoenaed but failed to show up for final hearing prejudiced his case. He did not prove, however, that either of the supposed witnesses had been properly served. Respondent’s PRO also sets forth facts not elicited through testimony or documentary evidence during final hearing. Respondent relies in part on various documents exchanged between the parties during discovery, but none of those were offered into evidence and thus are not part of the record. Respondent acquired a bond through Suretec Insurance Company. The amount of the bond was not disclosed at final hearing but, per statute, must be at least $5,000.00. The surety company was not represented at final hearing. No defense was raised by the surety company concerning Petitioner’s attempt to attach the bond. Petitioner is entitled to payment in the amount of $7,975.00 for the products it provided to Respondent. Besides the amount set forth above, Petitioner claims the sum of $100.00 paid for the filing of his two claims against Respondent’s bond. The total sum owed to Petitioner by Respondent is $8,075.00.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: Respondent shall pay to Petitioner, within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order, the sum of $8,075.00; If Respondent fails to timely make the aforementioned payment, the Department shall call upon Suretec Surety Company to pay over to the Department the full amount of Respondent’s bond; and The Department shall then turn the proceeds of the bond over to Petitioner to satisfy the debt that has been established. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Michael Cronin SureTec Insurance Company Suite 320 9737 Great Hills Trail Austin, Texas 78759 Greg Davenport Greg Davenport Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Container Grown 613 Corbel Drive Naples, Florida 34110-1106 Kent O. Kelley A. W. Kelley’s Gardens Inc. 6901 Hendry Creek Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Adam Putnam Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, Above All Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc. (Above All), should be required to pay the sum of $7,129.05 to the Petitioner for landscape plants and materials allegedly purchased by the Respondent from the Petitioner, and, with regard to the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, whether it should be obligated for the payment of the plants and materials in question to the extent of its surety bond number 2 1BSBBU 6765 (the Bond), in the bonded amount of $4,999.00.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Skinner Nurseries, Inc. (Skinner), is a corporation whose address is 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent Above All is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 2772, Ocala, Florida. The Respondent was licensed as a dealer in agriculture products at times pertinent hereto and was supported by surety bond number 2 1BSBBU 6765, in the amount of $4,999.00. The surety bond was issued by the co- Respondent, Hardford Fire Insurance Company, as surety. The conditions and provisions of the bond were to assure proper accounting and payment to producers, their agents or representatives for agricultural products purchased by the Respondent, Above All. On July 23, 2003 through August 1, 2003, Skinner Nurseries, Inc. sold the Respondent certain nursery plants as an agent for Florida producers, totaling $7,129.05. That amount remains unpaid to Skinner. The subject complaint was filed with the Department within six months of the dates of sale. The only response to the complaint by the Respondent was that to the effect that it agreed that amounts were owed to Skinner, but it disagreed with the amounts Skinner was claiming. The testimony of Chris Diaz establishes that invoices in the amount of $7,129.05 represent the number of trees, shrubs, and various nursery stock or materials sold and shipped to the Respondent. The Petitioner sent statements on a monthly basis, as well as certified letters, to the Respondent and received no payment at all in return, not even as to an undisputed amount. The amount of $7,079.05 referenced in the Administrative Complaint does not include freight charges. The goods and materials in question were shipped from the Bunnell nursery site of Skinner to the Respondent's location in Ocala, Florida. The Respondent did not appear at either hearing scheduled and presented no testimony or evidence. The facts that are established by the Petitioner are thus undisputed. The Respondent has never paid any of the amounts represented by the subject invoices contained in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 in evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witness, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring that Above All Law Care & Landscaping, Inc., pay the complainant Skinner Nurseries, Inc., the amount of $7,129.05, to be paid within fifteen days from the date of entry of a final order in this matter. In the event that the Respondent does not comply with that order then the surety, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, should be ordered to provide payment under the conditions and provisions of the applicable bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Bureau of License and Bond 407 South Calhoun Street, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Daniel I. Lawrence, President Above All Landscaping Post Office Box 2772 Ocala, Florida 34471 Chris Diaz Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Scott Cochrane Hartford Insurance Company Hartford Plaza, T-4 Hartford, Connecticut 06115
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs, associated with defending DOAH Case No. 13- 3820PL, pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2014), as a small business and a prevailing party.
Findings Of Fact DFS is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of insurance agents in Florida and is responsible for administrating the disciplinary provisions of chapter 626, pursuant to sections 20.121(2)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, de la Paz was a licensed general lines insurance agent in Florida. De la Paz also is a director and officer of the MDLPA, which she has co- owned with her daughter, Jenny Mondaca Toledo (Mondaca), since 2000. On October 15, 2003, the Office of Insurance Regulation issued a cease and desist order (Order) against IWSF and NAM from conducting insurance-related activities in Florida, including but not limited to, "transacting any new or renewal insurance business in this state, and from collecting any premiums from Florida insureds." The sale of insurance products by unauthorized entities (UEs) poses a danger to Florida consumers, because UEs are not vetted by the Office of Insurance Regulation, their financial stability is questionable, they may not have sufficient reserves to pay claims for consumers, and they do not participate in the Guarantee Fund which protects consumers should a company become insolvent. DFS has undertaken a variety of media campaigns in an effort to warn licensed agents about the dangers and consequences of providing insurance products through UEs. DFS regularly conducts investigations against agents for selling UE products. Generally, consumers will not know the quality of alleged insurance providers until the consumer makes a claim against their policy. For this reason, DFS cautions agents to verify the status of insurance providers prior to selling a policy. Agents can access the website for the Office of Insurance Regulation or call to inquire about the status of a particular company. The website has been available for approximately 17 years. DFS tried to warn Florida insurance agents that IWSF was an UE; however, IWSF was the most prevalent UE selling in Florida, and approximately 584 consumers were provided with IWSF policies sold by various agents. In an effort to stop the sale of insurance products through IWSF and NAM, DFS obtained a list of Florida customers from the Canadian bankruptcy receiver of IWSF. DFS' Bureau of Investigations sent a survey to these consumers and through the survey, it was determined that Carlos Guzman (Guzman) and Jorge Saez (Saez) purchased IWSF watercraft insurance from MDLPA in April 2009. Field Insurance Regional Administrator Lidia Azcue (Azcue) and Investigator Marlene Suarez (Suarez) opened an investigation regarding this transaction. Azcue and Suarez went to MDLPA on December 4 and 5, 2012. The alleged violation being investigated was that the agency sold unauthorized products, and the purpose was to see if any others were being sold. They did not inform the staff at MDLPA of the reason for the investigation. De la Paz was not present nor was she interviewed during these visits. Azcue and Suarez asked for and received the binder book of MDLPA on a thumb drive. Mondaca was present on the first day of the investigation and was described by Azcue as cooperative. Azcue also requested and received files for other consumers who purchased marine insurance products from MDLPA. As a result of the investigation, and prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, DFS obtained the following information and documentation regarding MDLPA and the transaction between MDLPA, Saez, and Guzman: De la Paz and her daughter, Mondaca (referred to on the Bank of America signature card as "Jenny M. Toledo, President") had signature authority for the MDLPA corporate bank account at Bank of America; An IWSF quote printed April 14, 2009, for the vessel owned by Saenz (sic) and Guzman, which was faxed to MDLPA by IWSF to "Odalis" (referring to Odaylis Chiullan (Chiullan), an employee of MDLPA) which references de la Paz and MDLPA as the contact; A fax dated May 6, 2009, from Chiullan to IWSF asking IWSF to bind coverage for Guzman and Saez effective May 6, 2009; Undated handwritten notes on a "File Action Log" form regarding "Jorge Sahel Saez" in the handwriting of Chiullan; A fax dated May 6, 2009, from IWSF to "Odaylis" at MDLPA; An unsigned and undated "Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form" to be signed by Guzman and Saez, which was obtained by Chiullan from the premium financing company. In correspondence prior to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, de la Paz advised DFS that it was Chiullan who had the form signed by Guzman and Saez and transmitted the signed forms and check for the down payment to the finance company; A receipt prepared by Chiullan dated May 6, 2009, acknowledging delivery of $280.00 as a "down payment" by Guzman and Saez for financing of a policy with NAM; The premium finance agreement between the finance company and Guzman and Saez prepared by the finance company and sent to Chiullan. The agreement is signed by Guzman and by de la Paz on behalf of MDLPA as "broker or agent"; Check number 1138 dated May 6, 2009, and drawn on the bank account of Guzman payable to the finance company in the amount of $370.00. This check was delivered to Chiullan and forwarded by her to the finance company along with the signed, original documents for the financing of the balance of the insurance premiums; A fax dated May 12, 2009, from NAM to Odaylis at MDLPA, requesting confirmation of the payment plan arranged with Saez and Guzman; IWSF declaration page for Guzman and Saez; IWSF renewal certificate for Guzman and Saez for the period of May 6, 2010, through May 5, 2011, signed by Guzman on May 4, 2010; and Correspondence from IWSF to de la Paz at MDLPA dated May 13, 2010, returning two checks, one signed by Mondaca and one signed by de la Paz, for reissuance in the name of IWSF. No interviews were conducted as part of the investigation by DFS of de la Paz, Mondaca, Chiullan, Guzman, or Saez. After the field investigation was concluded, the investigative file was forwarded on January 16, 2013, to Veronica Jackson, Government Analyst I, who reviewed the file for legal sufficiency. On May 24, 2013, a letter from Kathy Spencer, Stipulation Program Coordinator with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Atwater (Atwater), was sent to de la Paz alleging that she "aided and abetted an unauthorized entity in the sale of insurance." No further details were provided, nor were any Florida Statutes cited. Attached to the correspondence was a proposed settlement stipulation for consent order which offered de la Paz a $5,000.00 penalty and a one-year period of probation in lieu of having a formal administrative complaint filed against her. On June 13, 2013, de la Paz responded with a letter to Atwater explaining that at no time had de la Paz or anyone at MDLPA received notification that IWSF and NAM were not authorized to sell insurance products in Florida. De la Paz asserted that Chiullan, who held a 220 license and only worked for MDLPA for a few weeks, was the individual who handled the transaction with Guzman and Saez. De la Paz pointed out that to be charged with violation of section 626.734, de la Paz, as the licensed agent and owner of the insurance agency, cannot be subject to disciplinary proceedings due to Chiullan's placing this one policy with IWSF, because she was not aware of such act and the facts constituting a violation of the insurance code. Additionally, de la Paz pointed out that section 626.910 provides a person "aiding an unauthorized insurer" shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $1000.00 for each non-willful violation. De la Paz emphasized that she personally "did absolutely nothing to violate the code, let alone commit a willful violation of the code." For this reason, she could not sign the stipulation admitting that she committed a willful violation. De la Paz's letter was forwarded to Jackson who asked de la Paz for documentation supporting de la Paz's position. De la Paz corresponded with Jackson on June 29 and July 2, 2013. In this correspondence, in addition to once again supplying the requested documentation, de la Paz reiterated her lack of knowledge of IWSF as a UE and her lack of involvement in the Guzman/Saez transaction. On July 2, 2013, Azcue contacted de la Paz to invite her to come to DFS' office and review the investigative file. This meeting was not mandatory. According to de la Paz's credible testimony, she asked to bring her attorney and was told she could not. De la Paz declined to attend the meeting. On August 26, 2013, after negotiations with de la Paz were unsuccessful, DFS filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against de la Paz, alleging that on May 6, 2009, Guzman and Saez purchased a policy for watercraft insurance from MDLPA. De la Paz was charged with a violation of section 626.611, "Knowingly aiding, assisting, procuring, advising, or abetting any person in violation of or to violate a provision of the insurance code or any order or rule of the department, commission, or office." De la Paz was also charged with a violation of section 626.734, which provides that any general lines agent who is an officer, director, or stockholder of an incorporated general lines insurance agency shall remain personally and fully liable and accountable for any wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the code committed by such licensee by any person under his or her direct supervision and control while acting on behalf of the corporation. A final hearing on the Administrative Complaint was held on December 4, 2013, and January 7, 2014. A Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on March 28, 2014, which found that DFS failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that de la Paz knowingly aided, assisted, procured, advised, or abetted two UEs when Chiullan sold what was purported to be watercraft insurance in the spring of 2009 to Saez and Guzman. DFS admits that de la Paz is a "small business party" and was a "prevailing party" for purposes of the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, section 57.111. There is no dispute that de la Paz's attorney's fees for defending the underlying action in the amount of $29,700.00 and costs in the amount of $1,265.39 are reasonable. De la Paz's additional cost for the final hearing Transcript in the amount of $831.75 is also reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioners were producers of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent GMS was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license no. 936 by the Department and bonded by Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial) in the sum of $50,000.00 - Bond No. CZ 7117346. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Commercial was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). Prior to Petitioners selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Respondent GMS, Petitioners and Respondent GMS entered into a verbal contract whereby: (a) Petitioners would harvest and load their melons on trucks furnished by Respondent GMS at Petitioners' farm; (b) the loading, grading and inspection, if any, was to be supervised by, and the responsibility of Respondent GMS or its agent; (c) the melons were to be U.S. No. 1 grade; (d) the melons were purchased F.O.B. Petitioner's farm subject to acceptance by Respondent GMS, with title and risk of loss passing to Respondent GMS at point of shipment (See Transcript Page 95 lines 5-7); (e) the price was left open subject to Petitioners being paid the market price for the melons at place of shipment on the day of shipment as determined by Respondent GMS less one (1) or two (2) cent sales charge, depending on the price; and requiring Respondent GMS to notify Petitioners on a daily basis of that price and; (f) the settlement was to be made by Respondent GMS within a reasonable time after the sale of the melons by Respondent GMS. Respondent GMS was not acting as Petitioners agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the Petitioners on a net return basis nor was it acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioners and the buyers. Respondent GMS did not make the type of accounting to Petitioners as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes had it been their agent. Although Respondent GMS purchased over twenty (20) loads of melons from the Petitioners, there are only ten (10) loads of melons in dispute and they are represented by track report numbers 536 dated April 29, 1985, 534 dated April 30, 1985, 2363 and 537, dated May 1, 1985, 2379, 2386 and 538 dated May 2, 1985, and 2385, 2412 and 2387 dated May 3, 1985. Jennings W. Starling (Starling) was the agent of Respondent GMS responsible for loading; grading- inspecting and accepting and approving the loads of melons for shipment that Respondent GMS was purchasing from Petitioners during the 1985 melon season. Petitioners and Starling were both aware that some of the melons had hollow hearth a conditions if known, would cause the melons to be rejected. Aware of this condition in the melons, Starling allowed Petitioners to load the melons on the truck furnished by Respondent GMS. Starling rejected from 20 percent to 40 percent of the melons harvested and brought in from Petitioners' fields before accepting and approving a load for shipment. Starling accepted and approved for shipment all ten (10) of the disputed loads of melons. On a daily basis, Robert E. McDaniel, Sr., one of the Petitioners, would contact the office of Respondent GMS in Lakeland Florida to obtain the price being paid that day by Respondent GMS to Petitioners but was not always successful, however, he would within a day or two obtain the price for a particular day. Robert E. McDaniel did obtain the price to be paid by Respondent GMS for the ten (10) disputed loads and informed his son Robert E. McDaniel, Jr. of those prices. The prices quoted to Robert E. McDaniel, Sr. by Respondent GMS on the ten (10) disputed loads were 12 cents, 10 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 8 cents, 7 cents, 7 cents, and 7 cents on tract reports number 536, 534, 2363, 537, 2379, 2386, 538, 2385, 2412 and 2387, respectively. No written record of their prices was produced at the hearing but the testimony of Robert E. McDaniel Sr. concerning these prices was the most credible evidence presented. After the melons were shipped, sometimes as much as one week after, a track report was given to Robert E. McDaniel Jr. by Starling for initialing. Sometimes a price would be indicated on the track report but this price was based on selling price at point of destination and not the market price at point of shipment. Also, the letters "H.H." would also appear on the track report which, according to the testimony of Starling, indicated hollow heart but the evidence was insufficient to prove that Starling had rejected these loads for shipment because of a hollow heart condition in the melons. The loads in question were paid for by Respondent GMS based on a price at point of destination under its drafts no. 831912 and 851311. The amount in dispute is as follows: DATE TRACK NET AMOUNT AMOUNT SHIPPED
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent GMS be ordered to pay to the Petitioners the sum of $11.212.31. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent GMS fails to timely pay the Petitioners as ordered, then Respondent Commercial be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 13th day of June, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, H.P. Sod, Inc., is entitled to payment from an Agricultural Bond issued to Respondent, PLS Landscape Services, Inc., and, if so, the amount owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed producer of an agricultural product, i.e., sod. Petitioner is a duly incorporated for-profit corporation in the State of Florida and is in good standing. Horacio Pereira is the putative owner of the company, referring to himself at final hearing as “the boss, the guy who tells people what to do.” Respondent is a duly incorporated Florida corporation. Its business address is 6132 Snook Court, Port St. Lucie, Florida. The only officer or director of the corporation is George J. Kijewski. Respondent is a landscaping business. From the period July 23, 2012, through October 16, 2012, Respondent purchased quantities of Bahia sod from Petitioner on numerous occasions. The dates of purchase, quantity of sod purchased, and ticket numbers for each purchase are as follows: 23 – Ticket 36930 – 10 pallets 23 - Ticket 36983 – 16 pallets 30 – Ticket 37185 – 10 pallets 1 – Ticket 36818 – 16 pallets 1 – Ticket 37276 – 16 pallets 1 – Ticket 37283 – 16 pallets 6 – Ticket 36872 – 16 pallets 8 – Ticket 37319 – 16 pallets July July July August August August August August August 10 – Ticket 37339 – 16 pallets September 4 – Ticket 37727 – 16 pallets October 15 – Ticket 38712 – 16 pallets October 16 – Ticket 38720 – 16 pallets Petitioner issued the following invoices to Respondent concerning the aforementioned purchases of Bahia sod: Invoice 6615 – July 26 – Tickets 36930, 36983 $620.20 Invoice 6640 – August 2 – Tickets 36818, 37185, 37276, 37283 - $1,420.96 Invoice 6671 – August 16 – Tickets 36872, 37319, 37339 - $1,104.24 Invoice 6735 – September 6 – Ticket 37727 - $445.12 Invoice 6875 – October 18 – Tickets 38712, 38720 - $890.24 TOTAL - $4,481.11 Respondent did not remit payments on any of the aforementioned invoices. Respondent contends that some of the sod which it purchased from Petitioner was of inferior quality or was in less quantity than ordered. Specifically, Respondent said some of the sod was wet and fell apart when being installed. He also said the wet sod resulted in some pallets containing 370 to 390 square feet of sod rather than the 400 feet that is standard on a pallet. Respondent’s testimony was general in nature, not specific to any particular shipment, and flies in the face of his on-going purchases of sod from Petitioner. Further, there was no credible evidence presented at final hearing that Respondent ever complained to Petitioner about the quality or quantity of the sod. Had he done so, Petitioner said it would have corrected the problem. Respondent did reportedly tell one of his drivers, Mr. Calloway, on occasion that the sod was wet or otherwise not up to par. However, that complaint was never provided to Petitioner so that action could be taken. Respondent acquired a bond in the sum of $5,000.00 through TD Bank, N.A. (also referred to in this matter as United States Corporation Company, as Surety). The bank was not represented at the final hearing held in this matter. No defense was raised by the bank concerning Petitioner’s attempt to attach the bond. Petitioner paid a fee of $50.00 to the Department of Agriculture to bring this action. Petitioner hired an attorney to represent its interest in this matter. The attorney charged $175.00 per hour and, as of the date of the final hearing, had billed approximately five hours of time or $875.00 in fees. Subsequent to the final hearing, the attorney submitted a post-hearing proposed order on behalf of Petitioner. The attorney expended $180.00 in costs for service of a subpoena and witness fees. The total sum demanded by Petitioner in its action against Respondent is $5,586.11. Respondent’s PRO filed in this matter asserts a number of “facts” which were not established by competent testimony at the final hearing. Those facts were not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as follows: Respondent shall pay to Petitioner, within 15 days of the entry of the Final Order, the sum of $5,586.11; or If Respondent fails to timely make the aforementioned payment, the Department shall call upon TD Bank, N.A., to pay over to the Department the full amount of Respondent’s bond; and The Department shall then turn the entire proceeds of the bond over to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2013.
