Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent has been licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance as an ordinary life, including disability, agent and a general lines agent. During the years 1977 and 1978, the Respondent operated an insurance agency known as Florida Commercial Underwriters. During May, 1977, the Respondent was a general lines agent providing insurance coverages for The Fronton, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida. During June, 1977, The Fronton, Inc., delivered a check to the Respondent in the amount of $41,229.00 as a premium payment for various insurance coverages to be provided by the Respondent. Approximately $23,795.00 of that amount represented the premium payment for Policy No. 7485844, issued by the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania issued the policy to The Fronton, Inc., for the policy period from May 1, 1977, through May 1, 1978. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania had a firm policy during this period that premiums would be due within forty-five days from inception of the policy, or within fifteen days from the date of billing, whichever was later. Due to errors on its part, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania did not submit its bill to the Respondent until November 30, 1977. The notice on the face of the bill itself indicated that the premium was due within fifteen days of the date of the bill. The Respondent did not pay the premium in accordance with the bill. By notice dated January 31, 1978, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania advised The Fronton, Inc., that its policy would be cancelled effective February 17, 1978, because the premium had not been paid. Donald Roberts, the Assistant General Manager of The Fronton, Inc., immediately contacted the Respondent. The Respondent advised Roberts that the problem was apparently of a bookkeeping sort, and that the premium had been paid. Within four or five days of the time that he received the Notice of Cancellation, Roberts again contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent produce the cancelled check verifying that the premium had been paid. Roberts followed that telephone contact with a visit to the Respondent's office approximately forty-five minutes later. The Respondent searched for a cancelled check, but told Roberts that he would need to get it from the bank. Roberts told him to produce the cancelled check later that day. When the Respondent failed to do that, Roberts took the matter to the office of the State Attorney. Despite the fact that he told Roberts that the policy had been paid, the Respondent had not paid the premium. In fact, he did not pay the premium until May 8, 1978, after he had raised some money from another source. He paid the premium by delivering the check personally to the insurance company's office in Atlanta. Apparently mindful of the fact that the Respondent was acting as its agent, and that the Respondent's receipt of the premium was thus binding upon it, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania reinstated the policy, and has acknowledged that despite its Notice of Cancellation, the policy was in full force and effect during its entire term. The Respondent had suffered financial reverses during this period of time. He had apparently forgotten that the premium had not been paid between the time that he received the check from The Fronton, Inc., and the bill from the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. When he received the bill, he did not have sufficient funds available to pay it. He had in effect used the money paid by The Fronton, Inc., to cover other debts that he had. Since May, 1978, the Respondent has been working as an employee with another insurance agency. His employer assisted him in paying off the obligations that the Respondent incurred in connection with his former business. It does not appear that the Respondent has had problems of this sort in his new position, and he currently teaches an insurance agent's course at a local school.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Respondent has been charged in a one-count administrative complaint with violation of the following statutory provisions: Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9521, and 626.9541(1)(o)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, John Joseph Devins, is currently licensed in the State of Florida as a life insurance agent, as a life and health insurance agent, as a general lines insurance agent, and as a health insurance agent. The Respondent is currently, and was at all times relevant and material to this proceeding, a stockholder and officer of Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc., of Stuart, Florida. Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc., is an insurance agency incorporated under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida. The complaining consumer in this case, Ms. Louise Shellhammer, had carried homeowner's insurance with American Professional Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "American Professional") from 1986 until 1990. The agency of record for Ms. Shellhammer's American Professional homeowner's policy was the Devins-Varady Agency, Inc. Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's insurance policy was scheduled to lapse on or about November 25, 1990. In September of 1990, the Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Shellhammer informing her that her homeowner's insurance policy was up for renewal and that the Respondent had a new carrier that he thought Ms. Shellhammer should switch to. The letter requested that Ms. Shellhammer come into the Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc., and fill out a replacement application for her new insurance policy. Ms. Shellhammer failed to respond to the Respondent's letter because at the time she received the letter, she intended to change her homeowner's insurance to State Farm. Ms. Shellhammer did not follow through on her intentions in that regard and did not obtain replacement homeowner's insurance from State Farm in 1990. On or about November 15, 1990, the escrow department of Harbor Federal Savings and Loan (hereinafter referred to as "Harbor Federal"), the loss payee and holder of the mortgage on Ms.Shellhammer's home, sent a request to the Respondent for a bill for the renewal of Ms. Shellhammer's policy with American Professional. The premium for this policy was to be paid from escrowed funds held by Harbor Federal. The Respondent thereafter sent Ms. Shellhammer's renewal bill for her American Professional homeowner's policy to Harbor Federal. At the time of sending the bill to Harbor Federal, the Respondent did not attempt to bind renewal coverage with American Professional for Ms. Shellhammer. On or about November 28, 1990, the escrow department of Harbor Federal mailed a premium payment check to the Respondent in the amount of $263.00. That amount represented the renewal premium for Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's policy with American Professional. The check was mailed three days after the lapse of the insurance policy it was intended to renew. The Respondent received that check a few days later. Upon receipt of the check, the Respondent deposited the proceeds of the check into the premium trust account of the Devins-Varady Insurance Agency, Inc. The Respondent failed to forward the renewal premium to American Professional or to any other insurer. The Respondent also failed to take any other action to obtain a renewal insurance policy for Ms. Shellhammer. These failures occurred primarily because of an oversight at the time the check from Harbor Federal was deposited for collection. At the time of depositing the check, there was an apparent failure to make a notation that follow-up action was necessary to procure an insurance policy for Ms. Shellhammer, and the follow-up action was simply overlooked. The Respondent did not become aware of the fact that he had failed to obtain insurance for Ms. Shellhammer until on or about June 12, 1991, when Ms. Shellhammer contacted him to report a burglary loss. When the Respondent pulled Ms. Shellhammer's file to process the loss claim he first discovered that she did not have insurance. Upon looking into the matter and discovering what had happened, the Respondent admitted to Ms. Shellhammer that he had made a mistake and that it was his fault that she did not have insurance. The Respondent told Ms. Shellhammer to make a list of her losses and told her that he would reimburse her for her losses. The Respondent and Ms. Shellhammer have since had some differences of opinion about the extent of Ms. Shellhammer's losses. Early in July of 1991, the Respondent repaid Harbor Federal the $263.00 that he had received from them for Ms. Shellhammer's insurance premium. The repayment was received by Harbor Federal on or about July 12, 1991. Ms. Shellhammer did not make any inquiry of the Respondent as to the status of her homeowner's insurance policy at any time between the date of the Respondent's letter in September of 1990 and the date she reported the burglary loss in June of 1991. Harbor Federal did not make any inquiry of the Respondent as to the status of Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's insurance policy between November 28, 1990, the date it mailed a premium check, and the date of the burglary loss report in June of 1991. American Professional did not make any inquiry of the Respondent as to the status of Ms. Shellhammer's homeowner's insurance policy between November 25, 1990, the date the policy lapsed without being renewed, and the date of the burglary loss report in June of 1991. American Professional has done business with the Respondent and with the Respondent's agency for a number of years. With the exception of the incident that forms the basis for this proceeding, American Professional has never had any problems in its business relations with the Respondent or with the Respondent's agency.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 Mr. John Joseph Devins, pro se 5573 Southeast Federal Highway Stuart, Florida 34997 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level II Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 627.832(1)(i) and 627.848, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Alliant Premium Finance Corporation, is a Florida licensed premium finance company domiciled in Florida. Alliant has been licensed to sell premium finance agreements to the general public in Florida since December 16, 1993. William J. Villari has been the president of Alliant since its licensure. In 1995, Petitioner, Department of Insurance, performed a routine regulatory examination of Alliant. During the examination, 15 Alliant files, which had refunds due to insureds within 30 days, were reviewed. Out of the 15 files, 12 were late, ranging from 87 to 329 days late. The Department sent Alliant the Department's 1995 Report of Examination, which gave notice to Alliant that between December 16, 1993, and June 30, 1995, Alliant had violated the insurance code by failing to make refunds within 30 days. Mr. Villari advised the Department by letter dated December 18, 1995, that he was taking steps to ensure that in the future refunds would be made on a timely basis. No disciplinary action was taken by the Department as a result of the 1995 examination. During January 1998, the Department performed another routine regulatory examination of Alliant. The findings of the examination are contained in the Report of Examination for the period from July 1, 1995, to September 30, 1997. As was noted in the report, 11 Alliant accounts were reviewed which had refunds due to insureds within 30 days, and 8 of the 11 accounts were refunded late. The lateness ranged from 5 to 67 days. The report was mailed to Alliant on February 17, 1998. The 1998 examination also revealed that between July 1, 1995, and September 30, 1997, Alliant had failed to maintain certificates of mailing showing that notices of intent to cancel insurance contracts were mailed to insureds ten days before cancellation. The evidence did not show that Alliant had failed to mail the cancellation notices, only that Alliant had failed to maintain certificates showing that the notices had been mailed. Respondent does not dispute that Alliant was late in making refunds as noted in the 1998 Examination Report or that Alliant did not maintain certificates of mailing for the cancellation notices. Alliant disagrees with the penalty proposed by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, finding that Alliant Premium Finance Corporation violated Sections 627.832(1)(i) and 627.848(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of $2,500 for the violation of Subsection 627.832(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and $250 for the violation of Section 627.848(1), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher R. Hunt, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William J. Villari, President Alliant Premium Finance Corporation 303 Gardenia Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a resident of the State of Illinois and is employed by Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company as an associate, selling life and health insurance. He has been licensed by the State of Illinois as an insurance agent for 22 years and has engaged in the insurance business for that length of time. On or about February 26, 1988, the Florida Department of Insurance advised Respondent, by letter, that his application for taking the exam was denied for the following reasons: On or about January 11, 1982 you pleaded guilty to the offense of Forgery, a felony involving moral turpitude as contained in Count II of a Bill of Indictment for Case Number 81CF299. You failed to divulge the fact on your application for qualification as a nonresident agent that on or about April 28, 1982, your licensing authority in the State of Illinois was revoked; and that on or about December 14, 1982, the Director of Insurance's Order of April 28, 1982 revoking your licensing authority was rescinded and you were required to pay a civil penalty of One Thousand dollars ($1,000.00). The Department cited Section 626.785(1); 626.611(1), (2), (7) and (14); and Section 626.621(8), Florida Statutes, as authority for its action. In the latter part of 1977, Respondent sold to Dr. Hanshaw, of Quincy, Illinois, a $100,000.00 life insurance policy on each of Dr. Hanshaw's two children. The cash value of Dr. Hanshaw's existing life insurance was used to pay for the premiums on the children's policies. In 1979, the children's policies had lapsed due to Respondent's inability to get Dr. Hanshaw, owner of the policies, to execute a form reinstating the policies. Finally, after repeated attempts to obtain Dr. Hanshaw's signature on the reinstatement forms, and after a telephone conversation with Dr. Hanshaw, Respondent caused a person in Respondent's office to sign Dr. Hanshaw's name to the reinstatement forms in order to reinstate the insurance. Respondent then transmitted the forms to the home office and the policies were reinstated. Respondent's total compensation for the reinstatement was $30.68. Respondent felt he had the permission of Dr. Hanshaw to sign Dr. Hanshaw's signature to the forms. Approximately one year later, Dr. Hanshaw decided to surrender the policy on his life, and found the surrender value to be approximately $2,700.00 less than he felt it should be. The difference was due to the year's worth of premiums on the children's policies which had been deducted from the cash surrender value of Dr. Hanshaw's policy after the children's policies had been reinstated. Dr. Hanshaw promptly inquired of Respondent about the cash surrender value. At that time Respondent advised Dr. Hanshaw of the above reason for the lesser amount of the cash value. Respondent also reminded Dr. Hanshaw that he had caused Dr. Hanshaw's signature to be signed by a third party in order to prevent the children's policies from lapsing the previous year pursuant to Dr. Hanshaw's instructions. Dr. Hanshaw denied he had so instructed Respondent to reinstate the policies. Respondent then offered and Dr. Hanshaw accepted, a personal check from Respondent for the amount of the cash value loss allegedly experienced by Dr. Hanshaw. Some time thereafter, Dr. Hanshaw filed a Complaint with the Adams County Illinois State Attorney and on October 27, 1981, a Bill of Indictment was filed against Respondent. After plea negotiations, Respondent pleaded guilty to Count II of the Indictment (Forgery) and on March 22, 1982, the Court accepted Respondent's plea, dismissed all other Counts in the indictment, sentenced Respondent to two years probation and imposed a fine of $2,500.00, plus court costs. Part of the plea negotiation included the State Attorney's help in obtaining favorable treatment in any licensing procedure. On March 4, 1984, Respondent's Probation was successfully discharged. As a result of the aforesaid plea of guilty to forgery, a felony in the State of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Insurance issued an Order revoking Respondent's insurance license. However, the Order of Revocation did not take effect since Respondent timely sought a hearing on the allegations of the Order of Revocation. As a result of the hearing, Respondent's insurance license was not revoked. Instead, Respondent paid a civil penalty of $1,000.00, plus court reporter costs. Respondent testified that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea of guilty on other insurance licenses he might wish to obtain once he had discharged his debt to society. He has since discovered these effects, but after presentation of the above facts has been able to obtain other insurance licenses in other states. On or about September 24, 1987, Respondent filed an Application For Qualification as a Nonresident Life and Health Agent with the Department of Insurance. In that application, Respondent answered "No" to question 9 which asked if his license had ever been declined, suspended, placed on probation or administratively fined. However, on question 12, Respondent clearly states that he had been charged with and convicted of a felony, the location of that offense, that there was one charge of forgery, a $2,500.00 fine, two years probation, and that his Illinois license had been stayed. The negative response in question 9 forms the basis of Petitioner's reason for denial stated in paragraph 2(b) above. Respondent did not mislead, misrepresent or misstate anything to the Department of Insurance with his negative response to Question 9 of the Application. Respondent's license had clearly never been declined, suspended, placed on probation or revoked since the Illinois Order of Revocation never took effect. Nor did he mislead misrepresent or misstate anything to the Department with his negative response in reference to an administrative fine. He felt the fine he actually paid was not what question 9 was asking since he had paid a civil and not an administrative fine. He also thought that the license action was part and parcel of the criminal action. Nowhere in the application is "administrative fine" defined. Reasonable people can differ on the meaning of "administrative fine" especially where one state uses the term civil fine. These facts bear out the vagueness of the term's meaning. Before a person can misstate a fact there must be some agreement or mutual understanding as to what the fact is being stated for. There was clearly no such understanding in this case. The answer does not even come close to fraud since no intent to defraud the Department was demonstrated by the evidence. Additionally, his response to Question 12, together with the information he supplied along with the Application, was sufficient notice to the Department of the facts surrounding his Illinois license. The information supplied in Question 12 renders the response in Question 9 as immaterial. Therefore, the reasons given by the Department in Paragraph 2(b) above cannot stand as a basis for denying Respondent's licensure application. The reason given by the Department in paragraph 2(a) above involves the Respondent's forgery conviction. The forgery conviction does include an allegation of an intent to defraud. However, the facts of this case fails to demonstrate that moral turpitude was involved. This is especially true since this was a plea bargained case and the technical aspects of a crime do not bear the importance those aspects would if a trial had taken place or if Respondent had known the full effect such a plea would have on future licenses. Moreover, Respondent has rehabilitated himself. The Order rescinding the revocation of Respondent's license in Illinois specifically incorporates the Conclusion of Law made by the Hearing Officer, to-wit: "4. That, although convicted of the felony of forgery, the Licensee has demonstrated that he is sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust as required by Section 502(h) of the Illinois Insurance Code." Further, the testimony of Angelo P. Schiralli at the hearing attests to the honesty and trustworthiness of Respondent. Respondent is a person of honesty and trustworthiness and has had no problems with the law since 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's application be accepted and he be permitted to take the Life and Health Agent's exam. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 198, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1625 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 10 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 9 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. The facts contained in the first two paragraphs of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 are adopted. The first sentence of the third paragraph is adopted. The last sentence of the third paragraph was not shown by the evidence. The fourth paragraph is adopted as to the first sentence. The remainder of the fourth paragraph is rejected. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph is subordinate. The remainder of the fifth paragraph is rejected. The first sentence of paragraph 13 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact is subordinate. Remainder of the paragraph is rejected. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 10 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Department of Insurance Agency Regulation Section 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Donald H. Reed, Jr., Esquire First American Bank Building 2250 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against her and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Licensure Respondent has held a Florida 2-20 general lines (property and casualty) insurance agent license since July 24, 1998, and a Florida 2-15 life (including variable annuity and health) insurance agent license since August 17, 2005. Facts Common to Counts I through V and VIII At all times material to Counts I through V and VIII of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed by O. J. Insurance (O. J.), a Miami insurance agency she had previously owned for approximately 15 years before having sold it in January 2003. Respondent went to work for O. J.'s new owners in or around June 2003. She remained an employee of the agency for approximately two years. During this two-year period, Respondent was the only licensed insurance agent at the agency. The agency's two other employees (one of whom was Respondent's sister, Sonia Pupo) held Florida 4-40 customer representative licenses. Respondent and the agency's two customer representatives were all salaried employees. None of them received a commission. The agency itself, however, received commissions from the insurance companies whose policies it sold. Respondent's performance as an employee of the agency was evaluated on an annual basis. Among the factors considered in the evaluation process was Respondent's productivity (that is, the number of insurance policies she sold). After her first year as an employee of the agency, Respondent received a salary increase based upon the annual evaluation she had received. Facts Relating to Count I On or about December 30, 2003, Blanca Duron went to O. J., where she purchased automobile insurance from United Automobile Insurance Company (United) through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Ms. Duron. On the application, Respondent put down that Ms. Duron's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Ms. Duron's correct address. Ms. Duron actually resided on Southwest 7th Street in Miami. At no time did she ever tell Respondent that she lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Ms. Duron actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Ms. Duron's address on the application was to enable Ms. Duron to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had her correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count II On or about December 6, 2004, Brisaida Castillo went to O. J., where she purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Ms. Castillo. Respondent put down on the application that Ms. Castillo's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Ms. Castillo's correct address. Ms. Castillo actually resided on Northwest 22nd Court in Miami. At no time did she ever tell Respondent that she lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Ms. Castillo actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Ms. Castillo's address on the application was to enable Ms. Castillo to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had her correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count III On or about December 10, 2004, Ricardo Fernandez went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Fernandez. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Fernandez's address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, knowing that this was not Mr. Fernandez's correct address. Mr. Fernandez actually resided on Essex Avenue in Hialeah, Florida. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Mr. Fernandez actually lived. Respondent's purpose in falsifying Mr. Fernandez's address on the application was to enable Mr. Fernandez to pay a lower premium than United would have charged had his correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count IV On or about February 1, 2005, Pedro Cruz, Sr., went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United. It is unclear from the record whether it was Respondent or her sister, Ms. Pupo, who filled out Mr. Cruz, Sr.'s insurance application.4 The application indicated that Mr. Cruz, Sr.'s address was 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. This was not his correct address. He actually resided on Northwest 18th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida. 5205 Southwest 140th Place, Miami, Florida, was in a "territory" having lower insurance rates than the "territory" in which Mr. Cruz, Sr., actually lived. Consequently, Mr. Cruz, Sr., paid a lower premium than United would have charged had his correct address been entered on the application. Facts Relating to Count V On or about December 6, 2004, Pedro Cruz, Jr., went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Cruz, Jr. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Cruz, Jr.'s address was 5521 Southwest 163rd Court, Miami, Florida.5 Mr. Cruz, Jr., actually resided on Northwest 18th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5521 Southwest 163rd Court, Miami, Florida.6 Facts Relating to Count VIII On or about February 3, 2005, Eulogio Martinez went to O. J., where he purchased automobile insurance from United through Respondent. Respondent filled out the insurance application for Mr. Martinez. Respondent put down on the application that Mr. Martinez's address was 5205 Southwest 142nd Place, Miami, Florida. Mr. Martinez actually resided on Northwest 5th Street in Miami. At no time did he ever tell Respondent that he lived at 5205 Southwest 142nd Place, Miami, Florida.7 Facts Relating to Count XI Since September 2005, O.D.C. Insurance Services, Inc. (O.D.C.) has operated an insurance agency (selling Allstate insurance products) at 13860 Southwest 56th Street in Miami, Florida, for which it has not obtained a license. During this period of time, Respondent has been owner, sole officer (president), and registered agent of O.D.C. and responsible for the day-to-day operations of O.D.C.'s Allstate insurance agency. At all times material to Count XI of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was unaware of the requirement that insurance agencies, such as O.D.C.'s, be licensed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I through III of the Administrative Complaint, revoking her licenses for having committed these violations, and dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Parties Respondent, Department of Insurance (DOI) and Intervenor, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF) are state agencies charged with the regulation of insurance and banking activities, respectively. Great Northern Insured Annuity Corporation (GNA) is an insurance company and agency operating in Florida and elsewhere in space leased in financial institution lobbies, customer service areas and atriums. From its approximately eighty-four locations in Florida it markets annuities, securities and whole life insurance products. Approximately one-third of its 1992 sales of $130 million was in annuities. GNA's principal profits in Florida are derived from its sale of annuities, which it directly underwrites and services. First Nationwide Bank (FNB) leases space in its lobbies and other common areas to insurance agencies and companies, including Vista Financial Group, (Vista). In 1992 Vista sold approximately $13.5 million in annuities from the locations it leases from FNB. First Union Mortgage Corporation (FUMC) is a financial institution with "grandfathered" insurance activities pursuant to section 626.988(5), F.S. It has also been granted a certificate of authority by DOI as a Third Party Administrator pursuant to section 626.88, F.S. Florida Bankers Association (FBA) is a trade association of the banking industry in Florida. It represents its financial institution members. The Association of Banks in Insurance Inc. (ABI) is a trade association of financial institutions and insurance companies. The Florida Association of Life Underwriters (FALU) is a professional association of life, health and direct writer multi-line insurance agents with approximately 8,900 members. James Mitchell and Co. and its subsidiary, JMC Insurance Services Corporation (JMC) are California corporations involved in marketing financial products, including annuities in Florida. Florida Central Credit Union, Railroad and Industrial Federal Credit Union and GTE Federal Credit Union are state or federally chartered credit unions authorized to do business in Florida. Credit Union Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Federal Credit Union, sells insurance to credit union members. The Florida Association of Insurance Agents (FAIA) is a trade association representing independent insurance agents in Florida. Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A. is a trustee for annuities issued by James Mitchell and Company. Barnett Banks Insurance, Inc. is a Florida licensed insurance company providing credit insurance of various types for credit extended by Barnett Banks throughout Florida. BTI Services, Inc. a subsidiary of Barnett, provides records administration services for insurers. Marketing One, Inc., Liberty Securities Corporation and Compulife, Inc. market annuities to existing and prospective customers of financial institutions. Those marketing activities are conducted from lobbies, atriums or other central areas of the premises of the financial institutions. The Financial Institutions Insurance Association is a California non- profit association of financial institutions and insurance companies with members in Florida who lease space to insurance agency tenants. California Federal Bank is a federal savings bank operating branches in the State of Florida and leasing space to a company selling insurance in that space in bank branch offices. The Statute Although other sections of statutes are cited as "law implemented" in proposed Chapter 4-223, its undeniable focus is section 626.988, F.S., as described in the first rule of the proposed chapter: 4-223.001 Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to implement the provisions of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, and to ensure that customers of financial institutions conduct their business in an atmosphere free from direct or indirect coercion, unfair competition, and unfair or deceptive trade practices, and to implement those statutory provisions which prohibit insurance agents and solicitors who are directly or indirectly associated with, under contract with, or controlled by a financial institution from engaging in insurance agency activities as an employee agent, principal, or agent of a financial institution agency. These rules establish procedures and standards for insurance companies, agencies, agents and solicitors in their relationships and business arrangements with financial institutions. Embodied in Florida's insurance code, a code described as more lengthy than the New Testament, Section 626.988 F.S. enacted in 1974, ". . . generally prohibits banking institutions from engaging in insurance agency activities. . . ." Florida Association of Insurance Agents, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 591 F.2d 334 (U.S. 5th Cir. 1979). The prohibition is accomplished indirectly by forbidding licensed insurance agents or solicitors from engaging in insurance agency activities under certain relationships with financial institutions. There are exceptions to the blanket prohibition, including an amendment in 1990 to permit state chartered banks to sell annuities in the event that federal law permits federal banks to sell annuities. After almost twenty years of attempted enforcement, DOI has described section 626.988, F.S. as "a vague statute with imprecise standards". (Notice of proposed rule, Florida Administrative Weekly, June 26, 1992) The Rules DOI's experience with interpretation and enforcement of Section 626.988, F.S. commenced in earnest in the early 1980's, when insurance companies began to market annuities in the lobbies or public access areas of financial institutions. Many of these companies consulted with the department and obtained guidance as to the applicability of the law to their varied circumstances. In 1985, American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, through its counsel, Edward Kutter, Esquire, inquired of Commissioner Gunter concerning the effect of the law on its operations. American Pioneer Life Insurance Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of American Pioneer Savings Bank. Donald Dowdell, General Counsel of the department, responded by letter dated November 18, 1985. He analyzed the relationships among the insurer, the financial institution, and the insurance agents and determined that there was no significant probability of the financial institution exercising control over the agents: . . . In view of the fact that American Pioneer Savings Bank is the ultimate parent of American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, the specific issue which must be resolved in responding to your inquiry is whether an independent agent appointed by American Pioneer Life is directly or indirectly associated with, or retained, controlled, or employed by American Pioneer Savings Bank. Absent such a relationship, Section 626.988 does not prevent American Pioneer Life and its agents from marketing insurance in this state. . . . These corporate relationships in and of themselves do not create a prohibited relationship between American Pioneer Savings Bank and independent insurance agents appointed by American Pioneer Life. . . . It is recognized that as the corporate parent, American Pioneer Savings Bank may influence or control various corporate activities of its subsidiaries which would not entail control of the solicitation, effectuation and servicing of coverage by insurance agents. If, in fact, American Pioneer Savings Bank does not directly or indirectly control the conduct of insurance activities by American Pioneer Life agents but, instead, the agents sell insurance free of influence from the financial institution, the prohibitions of the statute are inapplicable. (GNA Exhibit No. 8) (emphasis added) Thus, in 1985, the department limited the prohibitions of section 626.988, F.S. to the financial institution's control of, and authority over, an agent's insurance activities. By 1986, other aspects of an association became a concern of the department. Letters responding to inquiries outlined requirements that leased space and insurance sales literature be physically or visually separated from the functions of the financial institution. (GNA Exhibits No. 10, 13 and 16) As a result of the body of opinions being circulated in the form of incipient policy, the department proposed rules implementing section 626.988. These proposed rules were later withdrawn before adoption, but the department continued to use them as guidelines. During this period, DOI received a handful of complaints, mostly from agents. Douglas Shropshire, director of Agent and Agency Services during the relevant period, testified that he could not recall a single consumer complaint with respect to financial institutions engaging in the distribution of insurance products. Gail Connell, identified by Mr. Shropshire as "the Department's person most intimately familiar with field investigation of .988 issues" (Tr. at 760), agreed. (FUMC Exhibit No. 35, at 184-85 See also. FUMC Exhibit No. 36 at 347-50, 353) In 1991, in anticipation of the rule-making mandate of section 120.535, the department reviewed its guidelines. As a part of that review, representatives of the agents' associations, FALU, FAIA and others, were consulted as to the desirability of the rules. In January, 1992, DOI published proposed rules that were substantially similar to the guidelines. Donald Dowdell stated that the proposed rules published at that time represented the department's determination of a reasonable interpretation of the statute, adding, "[T]he line was drawn with the realization of what was happening in the real world today. We could have -- I think the statute prohibits an association, and as I indicated yesterday, if we had wanted to be Draconian about it and make life easier on ourselves, we could have attempted to prohibit any kind of association and see how that would have flown." (FUMC Exhibit No. 36 at 260-261) The rules published in January of 1992 were withdrawn in order to permit the department to correct some perceived inadequacies in the economic impact statement. The rules were presented at a workshop and were republished in June, 1992. The rules were virtually the same as those published in January. A public hearing was held July 12, 1992. On October 6, 1992, DOI published a Notice of Change which materially altered Rules 4-223.003, .004, and .005. According to the Notice of Change, the change was in response to comments received at the public hearing held July 12. More specifically, the amendments were the result of the department's adoption of FALU's position in its petition challenging the June version of the rules. The amendments most significantly provided a definition of "associated" or "associate" and forbade insurance agents from occupying space virtually anywhere within the confines of a financial institution. Mr. Shropshire drafted the amendment to Rules 4-223.003-.005. His source for the definition of "associate" was Webster's Dictionary. Mr. Shropshire testified that the modified proposal resulted from "explosive changes" in the number of banks involved in insurance in this state (Tr. at 793) and information which had come to his knowledge which indicated a need for a more restrictive rule. The two sources of information regarding insurance activities in Florida identified by Mr. Shropshire were the report prepared by investigator Ernest Ulrich in support of the economic impact statement and an ongoing investigation and prosecution of JMC for its marketing of annuities. Both sources predate or were contemporaneous to the June publication of the rules. Mr. Shropshire's reason for the October change was the anticipated difficulty DOI faced in enforcing its rules as originally published. He stated, "So it was getting plain to us that we were going to have to very vigorously and closely and labor-intensively enforce the rule, if it was passed as it was promulgated in June of '92." (tr. at 808) As described by Mr. Shropshire and others, the agency was concerned that insurance activities in financial institutions were not being conducted behind partitions, or even behind planters or other visual separations; and that bank agents were making referrals, taking telephone messages, and setting appointments for insurance agents who covered multiple bank branches on a "circuit-rider" system. Banks leasing space to agents also commonly paid bank employees a bonus for making appointments and referrals of customers to the agents. DOI determined that these leasing arrangements established a strong connection between the bank and the agent, in effect wrapping the insurance program in the bank's colors and presenting it as another bank product. This, to DOI, justified the previously characterized "Draconian" measures. The banks' and other witnesses freely described the economic advantage to a financial institution of having insurance services available at the same location for its customers. Additional amendments to the proposed rules were published in December 1992. Those amendments acknowledge or track the statutory exceptions to the section 626.988(2), F.S. prohibitions. The rules therefore do not apply to mortgage insurance business, credit unions, banks located in cities having a population of less than 5,000, and the sale of annuities when national banks have been authorized to sell such annuities. During the course of the formal hearing, the agency proposed a final change to the rules at issue, clarifying that Chapter 4-223 does not apply to credit life and disability insurance and credit unemployment insurance. (American Banking Insurance Co. Exhibit No. 1) The Economic Impact Dr. Tim Lynch, Director for the Center for Economic Policy Analysis for Florida State University, conducted surveys, collected data and analyzed the economic impact of the June 1992 version of the proposed rules. He prepared the economic impact statement for DOI. Dr. Lynch was consulted by the department about the October changes to the proposed rules and did additional analysis on the impact of the proposed changes. The economic impact statement prepared for the June publication was not amended, but Dr. Lynch's observations are found in his notes, or what he terms a "work in progress". He discussed those observations with department staff and considers the economic impact of prohibiting leases to be at least in the $ millions. The agency did not republish an economic impact statement after the October changes, but plainly considered the impact of those changes as articulated by its consultant, Dr. Lynch. Prohibiting the sale of annuities on bank premises would have a devastating effect on companies engaged in that activity. Banks, also, would be affected, as they recognize a substantial benefit of providing their customers the convenience of an in-house service. Although annuities are defined in Florida law as "life insurance" (See Section 364.602(1), F.S.) they are generally considered investments for future security rather than a cushion against loss. On March 20, 1990, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a formal approval letter stating, among other things, that under controlling Federal banking law, annuities are primarily financial investment instruments that national banks are permitted and authorized to sell. (GNA Exhibit No. 41) A follow-up letter to J. Thomas Caldwell as representative of the Florida Bankers Association specifically concluded that federally chartered banks in Florida were authorized to sell annuities. (GNA Exhibit No. 42) The OCC conclusion with regard to the authority of national banks was upheld in the Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. v. Robert Clarke, et. al., (VALIC) on November 22, 1991, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. H-91-1016, 786 F. Supp. 639. The case is pending on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Clarke, Case No. 92-2010) In the meantime, the OCC continues to issue opinion letters consistent with its earlier opinion. (See 5/10/93 letter filed as supplemental authority on 6/18/93) National banks are presently selling annuities, and the impact of the October 1992 absolute prohibitions is nullified as to annuity products by the December 1992 amendments addressed in paragraph 30, above.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Earle Anthony Bennett, is now and was at all times material hereto licensed by petitioner as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, petitioner has jurisdiction over the insurance licenses and appointments of respondent. On October 17, 1990, respondent entered into a home service agent's contract with The Independent Life and Accident Insurance Company (Independent Life). Pertinent to this case, such contract provided: Article 1. Description of General Duties The Agent agrees to canvass for insurance, to collect premiums as due on the policies assigned to the agency, to aid in the proper settlement of claims, to keep true records of the business on the books, to forward to the Company on Company forms a true account of each week of the agency, and to give full time to the business of the Company. Article 2. Collections The Agent agrees to pay over all monies collected to the District Sales Manager or to such other person as the Company may direct. No money shall be retained by the Agent out of collections for any purpose. The agent agrees that should legal proceedings be necessary to collect monies due from the Agent to the Company the Agent shall pay legal costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. * * * Article 37. Indebtedness Due Company The Company may use any commissions, vacation pay, or other compensation due the Agent to reimburse itself for any indebtedness due the Company by the Agent. In November 1991, respondent terminated his employment with Independent Life, and Independent Life notified petitioner of the cancellation of respondent's appointment as one of its insurance agents. Thereafter, on November 7, 1991, Independent Life conducted an audit of respondent's account which revealed a deficiency of $1,613.70 in insurance premiums collected by respondent and not remitted to the company. Subsequent audits in November reflected an additional deficiency of $213.62, in December an additional deficiency of $178.84, and in February 1992, an additional deficiency of $43.48. By letters of November 18, 1991, November 21, 1991, December 2, 1991, December 13, 1991, and March 18, 1992, Independent Life made demand upon respondent to satisfy the deficiencies disclosed by the audits. Such letters reflected, however, varying amounts the company claimed to be due as a consequence of newly discovered deficiencies in ongoing audits, discussed supra, as well as varying credits accorded respondent. Such correspondence lends credence to respondent's testimony that he was unsure as to the exact sum owing Independent Life, and that he had, subsequent to his termination of employment, remitted funds to the company. Respondent did concede, however, that when he terminated his employment with Independent Life, his account had a deficiency of approximately $1,400. Regarding any deficiency that may have been owing Independent Life, the proof demonstrates that respondent did, over time, satisfy all outstanding obligations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of the violations set forth in the conclusions of law, and suspending his licenses and eligibility for licensure for a period of nine months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of October 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3885 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. To the extent supported by the proof, addressed in paragraph 1. 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 4. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 5. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 6 & 7, otherwise rejected as not supported by competent proof. 11. Rejected as a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Earle Anthony Bennett 12100 North West 11th Avenue Miami, Florida 33168 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what punishment should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent is now, and has been for approximately the past 20 years, licensed by Petitioner as a general lines insurance agent. On July 3, 1986, Petitioner received a complaint concerning Respondent from Elsa Garcia. Garcia reported that she had purchased automobile insurance through Dixie Insurance Brokers and had been given a temporary insurance binder bearing the signature of a "Paul J. Lovelace" reflecting that her coverage was to be effective March 11, 1985. According to Garcia, however, she had subsequently discovered, after having been involved in an automobile accident on March 23, 1985, that her insurance coverage had not taken effect until after the accident. Garcia's complaint was assigned to one of Petitioner's employees, Burton Powell, to review and investigate. As part of his investigation, Powell contacted Alan D. Kruger, Garcia's attorney. Kruger supplied Powell with Garcia's affidavit and other pertinent documents, including a copy of Garcia's automobile insurance application and the temporary insurance binder she had been given by Dixie Insurance Brokers. The application reflects that Garcia was seeking coverage for the period from April 2, 1985, to October 2, 1985. The binder, on the other hand, indicates that it was to be effective for one month commencing, not April 2, 1985, but March 11, 1985. Someone other than Respondent signed his name to both the application and the binder. 1/ On various occasions prior to December 18, 1987, Respondent was the general lines insurance agent of record for Dixie Insurance Brokers. 2/ On these occasions he never personally signed any insurance applications, nor did he otherwise play any role in the operation and control of the agency. By his own admission, he simply allowed the agency to use his license, without any restrictions imposed by him, in exchange for monetary consideration. In so doing, he willfully engaged in a scheme designed to circumvent the licensing requirements of the Florida Insurance Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order (1) dismissing Count I of the administrative complaint; (2) finding Respondent guilty of Count II of the administrative complaint; and (3) revoking Respondent's general lines insurance agent license for his having engaged in the conduct specified in Count II of the administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of November, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1989.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Respondent, an insurance agent, has complied with applicable continuing education requirements.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed life insurance and variable annuity insurance agent, holding license number A104253, and has held the license at all times material to this case. The Respondent is required to meet applicable continuing education requirements set forth by statute. Based on the type of license held by the Respondent, he must complete 28 hours of continuing education instruction during each reporting period. The instruction must be related to the type of insurance the Respondent is authorized to sell. During the reporting period from December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1997, the Respondent completed 28 hours of continuing education instruction; however, only 21 hours of the instruction are creditable to life and variable annuity insurance agents for purposes of complying with the continuing education requirement. Because seven of the Respondent’s 28 hours are not related to his licensure status, they are not applicable to his continuing education requirement; accordingly, the Respondent had a deficit of seven hours for the relevant reporting period. One of the courses completed by the Respondent was "LTC Strategies and Laws" (Course ID 30180) on November 25, 1997. Credit for this three-hour course is available only to licensed health insurance agents. The Respondent is not a licensed health insurance agent, and is not entitled to credit for this course. Another of the courses completed by the Respondent was "Senior Citizen Insurance" (Course ID 4301) on November 25, 1997. The credit for this eight-hour course is divided; four hours of credit is applicable to life insurance agents and four hours is applicable to health insurance agents. The Respondent is entitled only to the four hours of credit available to life insurance agents. By Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance dated June 15, 1999, the Respondent received notice that, according to the Department’s review of the records, he had not completed the continuing education requirement. The Notice included a number of resolution alternatives, ranging from the licensee’s correction of the records by providing additional information, to resolving the matter by payment of a fine and completion of the hours, to a licensee-initiated license termination. The Department sent the Preliminary Notice to all addresses of record on file for the Respondent. The Respondent did not respond to the June 15 Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance. On August 17, 1997, the Department issued a Final Notice of Non-Compliance, again advising that the continuing education requirement was unmet, again including options for resolving the deficiency, and advising of the right to request a formal administrative hearing. The Department sent the Final Notice by certified mail to the licensee’s permanent address of record. In response to the Final Notice, the Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing. The Respondent also sent additional information to the Department apparently unaware that some of the completed course hours were inapplicable to his licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order suspending the licensure of Lannie J. Gregory for not less than one month or until Lannie J. Gregory completes seven additional continuing education hours appropriate to his licensure, whichever is later, and imposing a fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lannie J. Gregory 2680 West Lake Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684-3120 Miguel Oxamendi, Senior Attorney Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1-7 of the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent is currently licensed in the State of Florida as a life and health (debit) agent, as well as a life and health agent. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of Insurance, the Petitioner, has jurisdiction over the insurance licenses and appointments of the Respondent. On August 26, 1983, the Respondent entered into an agent contractual agreement with Capital Security Life Insurance Company (Capital). The agent's contract required that the Respondent account for and remit to Capital all premiums collected and received on behalf of that company. On or about October 18, 1991, Capital terminated its appointment of the Respondent, as one of its agents. This had the effect of cancelling the agent contract of the Respondent. The Respondent was terminated because Capital had detected the fact that certain premium monies collected by the Respondent from policy holders had not been remitted over to Capital on a repetitive basis. On or about October 18, 1991, Capital conducted an audit of the account of the Respondent. It was thus shown through the subject audit and work papers in evidence, as well as the testimony of Mr. Reynolds for the Petitioner, that the account of the Respondent contained a proven deficiency in the sum of $812.41 in insurance premiums collected but not remitted to Capital. Other than protest that the deficiency was a mistake and the result of computer error or that the financial information resulting in that figure had been erroneously input into Capital's computer by Capital's office personnel in charge of accounting for such matters and monies, no cogent credible explanation for the failure to remit over that sum of money referenced above has been established. The testimony of Mr. Reynolds is accepted over that of the Respondent as more credible and worthy of belief. It has thus been established that the Respondent misappropriated and converted to his own use and benefit, and unlawfully withheld, premium monies rightfully belonging to Capital while engaged in the applicable and ordinary course of his business as an agent for Capital.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner agency finding that the Respondent, Willie Frank Dennis, is guilty of the violations set forth as and in the manner in the Conclusions of Law above and that, therefore, his licenses and eligibility for licensure be revoked pursuant to Sections 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 3rd day of November 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1222 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Willie Frank Dennis 1113 Kennard Street, Apartment No. 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
