The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of any violations of the Insurance Code, including Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been licensed as a general lines insurance agent, holding license number A129688. At all material times, Respondent has been the sole owner and director of America Security Insurance Agency, Inc., formerly known as America Auto Security Insurance Agency, Inc. (America Security). On April 1, 2000, Dionne Jacques purchased a motor vehicle from Sawgrass Ford in Fort Lauderdale. She did not own a vehicle at the time and testified that she purchased a model that was selected for her by someone at the dealership. In closing on the purchase, Ms. Jacques dealt extensively with a dealer employee named Herbert McKenzie. Ms. Jacques financed the motor vehicle purchase with Ford Credit. In the course of completing the required paperwork at the dealership, Mr. McKenzie referred Ms. Jacques to American Security for motor vehicle insurance. Mr. McKenzie mentioned that he dealt with someone named "AJ" at the insurance agency. According to Ms. Jacques, Mr. McKenzie informed Ms. Jacques that one year's insurance would cost $468 or $468.99. Mr. McKenzie did not testify, but Respondent testified that he spoke with Ms. Jacques on the telephone and explained the relevant features of the policies that were available to her. Although it is unclear who quoted the premium to Ms. Jacques, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. McKenzie did so. Ms. Jacques agreed to purchase the insurance and produced a credit card for the amount due. The testimony of Ms. Jacques suggests that she allowed Mr. McKenzie to charge her credit card for the insurance premium. However, the more definitive testimony of Respondent, which is credited, is that he took her credit card information over the telephone and arranged for the card debit. In return, according to Ms. Jacques, Mr. McKenzie gave her a document that she believed would document her coverage until she received an insurance policy in the mail in about 30 days. It is impossible to determine on this record that Mr. McKenzie attempted to bind coverage on behalf of the insurer. At no time prior to the purchase of the insurance did Respondent, Mr. McKenzie, or anyone else disclose to Ms. Jacques that she was purchasing other ancillary products besides insurance. Likewise, no one informed her that she was financing part of the annual insurance premium. For unclear reasons, Respondent did not obtain insurance coverage for Ms. Jacques until May 2000. At that time, he took the $468 that she had charged and, without her knowledge, applied only $143 of this sum toward the policy premium. Without Ms. Jacques' knowledge, Respondent, or someone at his direction, signed Ms. Jacques' name to a premium finance agreement, evidencing an unpaid premium balance of $504. At the same time, also without Ms. Jacques' knowledge, Respondent used $300 of the initial $468 that Ms. Jacques paid to purchase ancillary coverage that she had not agreed to purchase. This ancillary coverage included towing, supplemental medical coverage, replacement rental car, and emergency cash. These coverages supplemented a $647 personal injury protection policy containing no personal liability or uninsured motorist coverage. At no time has American Security designated a primary agent. By Immediate Final Order entered March 12, 1991, the Florida Department of Insurance, now known as Petitioner, ordered Respondent to cease and desist from the unlicensed sale of insurance. However, Respondent has made substantial restitution to Ms. Jacques, who suffered no significant financial injury as a result of Respondent's misdealings.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Gregg S. Marr Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Charles P. Randall Charles P. Randall, P.A. Bank of America Tower, Suite 500 150 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432-4832
Findings Of Fact THE INSURANCE AGENCY At all times material to the instant case, Lloyd Eldo Register was a licensed insurance agent in the State of Florida, licensed as an Ordinary Life, including Disability, General Lines and Disability Agent. The Respondent, Lloyd Eldo Register (hereinafter Register) at all times material herein, was the president, owner, and registered agent for Friendly Auto Insurance, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as Friendly Auto). In his capacity as president and registered agent, the Respondent, Register, was responsible for and exercised supervision and control over the employees and sales agents employed by Friendly Auto. At all times material herein, Respondent, Shirley Jean Hopkins was a licensed insurance agent and was employed by Friendly Auto to sell various types of auto insurance and coverages. Specifically, Shirley Hopkins was licensed as an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, General Lines Agent, and an Independent Adjuster. As an employee of Friendly Auto, she worked under the supervision and control of the Respondent, Lloyd Register. At the time of the various transactions which are the subject of this administrative proceeding, Florida law required personal injury protection (hereinafter PIP) insurance coverage for each owner of a motor vehicle in Florida. (See Section 627.733 and 627.736, Florida Statutes (1981)). Because it was necessary to show proof of such PIP coverage in order to purchase a license tag for an automobile, this type of insurance was and is commonly referred to as "tag insurance." Friendly Auto offered and sold PIP or tag insurance as well as other types of insurance, including motor club policies, which included as its primary benefit an accidental death benefit. The accidental death benefit (hereinafter referred to as ADB) which was sold by Friendly Auto, was one of the benefits under a motor club policy very similar to that sold by AAA (American Automobile Association). The motor club policies also included such benefits as theft reward, hit and run services, rental car discounts, credit card services, vacation travel arrangements, trip routing, and lost baggage service. The amount of premium paid and type of plan applied for determined the benefits to be received. During the period of the transactions in this action, the Respondent, Lloyd Register, had established a policy of not selling PIP alone. Customers were required to buy PIP coupled with a motor club policy. The reason for this policy was that the commission on minimum PIP coverage was too low to justify the cost of selling it alone. The commission on the motor club policies was as high as 80 percent of the premium charged. The sales agents were instructed by Mr. Register to not sell a customer PIP unless they also purchased the ADB policy. This policy was followed by the sales agents during 1981 and the first eight months of 1982. Customers, upon entering the Friendly Auto office, would indicate the kind of insurance they wanted and they were then given a quote by a sales agent for the coverage requested plus ADB. The cost of the ADD or ADB policy was added to the cost of the coverage requested without informing the purchaser and a single quote was given to the customer. If a customer inquired about the ADB coverage, they were told it was part of the coverage and that the requested coverage could not be purchased without the accidental death benefit. The customers were not informed by the salesperson nor the forms used in the transaction that they were being charged a separate and distinct premium for the ADB or that they could reject the ADB coverage. The basic PIP coverage also included a death benefit Although the Respondent, Lloyd Register, testified that in order to make a profit, it was necessary to sell the ADB with the minimum PIP coverage, the ADB was sold inn the same manner to persons purchasing PIP, as well as liability and collision coverage. The premium for the ADB ranged from $15 to $25. The decision as to which premium to charge was made by the employee of Friendly Auto and was not discussed with the customer. The sales agents had been instructed by the Respondent, Lloyd Register, to base premium charged for ADB on the customer's driving record. However, the premium charged only affected what motor club benefits would be received. No reason was given as to what effect a person's driving record had upon the premium or benefits or risk involved. After the customer was given the quote and agreed to purchase, the sales agent then filled out and gave to the customer several documents to be signed and initialed. The places to be initialed were marked by the sales agent with a red square, rubber stamped onto the appropriate points of the forms by the sales agent, and a check mark or "X" was placed next to where they were to sign. One of the documents was an application for the motor club or ADB. Respondents contend that by signing the application and the acknowledgement at the bottom of the liability coverages rejection form, the customers were made aware that they were purchasing a separate coverage for ADB. However, when inquiry was made by customers about the ADB, they were told it was part of the coverage and had to be purchased. They were not told a separate premium was involved or that it was a separate policy. The majority of the complaining witnesses in this case were not even aware they had purchased the motor club or ADB. Most of the complaining witnesses admitted they did not read the documents they were asked to sign. The sales agents did not pressure them to sign or hurry them in any way that prevented them from reading the documents. Most of the complaining witnesses had limited education, very little knowledge of insurance and basically relied upon the sales agent to give them the coverage they requested. No complaining witness requested ADB or motor club coverage. Anne Zugelder, office manager for Friendly Auto, and Shirley Hopkins testified generally regarding the procedures used, but neither person testified about the facts of the specific transactions in this case. Shortly after January 18, 1982, Mr. John A. Hoback, an investigator for the Department of Insurance, went to the offices of Friendly Auto where he reviewed approximately 35 to 40 files relating to customers who had purchased insurance from Friendly Auto. He discovered that many of these files contained the original policy for ADB coverage; the identification card on PIP coverage; and the original policy for PIP coverage. Some of these policies had been in the files for four, five, and six months. Specifically, Mr. Hoback examined the file of James Richard Johns and found the original copy of the auto policy issued by Fortune and the ADD policy issued by American Travelers Association. The auto policy had been issued on June 4, 1981. Mr. Hoback examined the file of Charles Meadows and found that the Fortune PIP policy had been issued on June 2, 1981, and the original was still in the file. The original ADD policy issued by American Travelers was also in the file. In the file of Phillip Johnson, Mr. Hoback found the original copy of the Fortune auto policy issued to Mr. Johnson on June 1, 1981, and also found the original ADD policy in the file. The file relating to Ruben Simpson was also examined and the original copies of the Fortune auto policy and the ADD policy were still in the file. These original policies were supposed to have been sent to the insureds by the agency upon receipt from the insurance company. The deposition of Mr. James T. Harrison, Jr., was admitted and considered. However, because Mr. Harrison's opinion was based upon incomplete facts in terms of the actual sales procedures used, his opinion relating to Respondents' meeting the standard of care in the industry was given no weight. FORMS In each of the purchases involved in this action, Friendly Auto's agents used several preprinted forms as part of each sale. These forms include primarily: (1) a quote sheet, (2) rejection of liability coverages form, (3) prenumbered receipts, and (4) motor club or ADB application. QUOTE SHEET The quote sheet is a small yellow form with spaces for entering information about the insured and the cars to be insured. The quote sheet in the Section titled "Type of Coverage" reflects "PIP, LIAB, COMP, COLL". These terms refer to personal injury protection, liability, comprehensive, and collision. Nowhere on the form does ADB or motor club coverage appear. There is a space at the bottom of the form for computations. LIABILITY COVERAGES REJECTION FORM The Rejection of Liability Coverages form is divided into four main parts. The top part of the form informed the customer that they had the right to purchase liability coverage and that they can also reject liability coverage. If the customer desired to reject liability coverage, there was a signature block where the customer signed rejecting such coverage. The second portion of the form dealt with PIP and had optional blocks to be checked in order to reflect the deductible desired. The deductible ranged from $250 to $8,000. There were also optional blocks to select the type of PIP coverage and at the bottom of this section was again a signature block. The third section dealt with uninsured motorist coverage and had a block where the customer entered the limits of coverage desired if they were purchasing uninsured motorist coverage. There was a block to be checked if the customer was rejecting uninsured motorist coverage. At the bottom of this section, was again a signature block. The last section referred to an accidental death benefit and contained the following language: I UNDERSTAND THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFIT THROUGH MY NATION MEMBERSHIP IS A SEPARATE ITEM, THAT PAYS IN ADDITION TO MY AUTO INSURANCE POLICY. I UNDERSTAND THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR THIS COVERAGE IS INCLUDED IN WITH MY DOWN PAYMENT. The above language was followed only by a signature block. There were no blocks to be checked or initialed rejecting or accepting the accidental death benefit. (this statement is referred to hereafter as the acknowledgement.) The Rejection of Liability Coverages form was used in all sales of automobile insurance at Friendly Auto. The reference in the acknowledgement above to "MY NATION MEMBERSHIP" refers to a company which provided an ADB policy prior to the time Friendly Auto began using American Travelers Association. Once Friendly Auto decided to stop using the Nation Company, the Respondent, Register, elected not to reprint the form. He also considered, but did not feel it necessary, to have the sales agents mark through Nation and pencil in American Travelers Association. Mr. Register felt that the American Travelers Association policy could be interpreted to be a "Nation membership" because it covered the insured anywhere in the nation. However, Mr. Register could not specifically recall having instructed his sales agents to give this explanation to the customers. Prior to July or August of 1982, Mr. Register had not instructed his employees to explain that the accidental death benefit referred to in the form was optional. Beginning in July or August, 1982, Mr. Register instructed his sales agents to begin telling customers the ADB was optional. This change occurred about the same time the law relating to the $8,000 deductible PIP changed and was due in part to "heat" which Friendly Auto had been getting from the Department of Insurance. RECEIPT The receipt form contained basic information blocks for date, amount, received from, and signature block for the sales agent of Friendly Auto. There was a line preceded by "In re:" which was used to reflect the coverages for which the premium was being paid. A copy of the receipt was kept in the Friendly Auto file on each customer. AMERICAN TRAVELERS ASSOCIATION APPLICATION The last of the four forms was a motor club application for "Travel/Accident Benefits including Accidental Death and Dismemberment Coverage." The form contained spaces for the name and address of the applicant and name and address of their beneficiary. Just above the signature block of the applicant, were spaces for the effective date, the expiration date, the plan, amount of ADD coverage, and the fee. (See Respondent's Exhibit 24.) An almost identical form was used when the ADB policy was written with Southern Management Company. THE SALES Each count of the First Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Lloyd Register, relates to a sale to a particular customer. Several of these same transactions were also the subject of the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Shirley Hopkins. The following facts are found as to both the counts of the First Amended Administrative Complaint against Lloyd Register and the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Shirley Hopkins: (the count number refers to the First Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 82-2048). COUNT I SALE TO BRENDA CONNER On October 9, 1981, Brenda Conner went to Friendly Auto to purchase PIP insurance. She informed the Respondent, Shirley Hopkins, that she wanted to purchase PIP only. No other coverages were explained to her, but there was some discussion about who she wanted as her beneficiary. She signed the documents she was requested to sign but did not read them. She thought she had paid for PIP only. Her receipt from Friendly Auto was for $37.00 and listed only PIP as the only coverage purchased. The receipt was signed by the Respondent, Shirley Hopkins. She never received a policy from American Travelers Association. She was charged $15.00 as part of the $37.00 premium for the American Travelers Association ADB policy. She received her policy for the PIP coverage. COUNT II SALE TO BRUCE T. EDWARDS On September 15, 1981, Bruce T. Edwards purchased insurance from Friendly Auto. Mr. Edwards was sold the insurance by Respondent, Shirley Hopkins. The receipt received by Mr. Edwards reflected a total premium of $43.00 and listed only "PIP" as the coverage purchased. Mr. Edwards was unaware that as part of the $43.00 premium, he purchased accidental death and dismemberment coverage (ADB) from American Travelers Association. The premium for the ADB was $20.00. Mr. Edwards signed but did not fill out the yellow ADB application form. Shirley Hopkins explained the PIP coverage but made no mention that he was purchasing a separate ADB insurance policy. He did not read the documents he signed, but merely initialed and signed the blocks Ms. Hopkins marked. He did not request ADB coverage and thought he was getting PIP only. He had no intention of buying any insurance other than PIP. Prior to Mr. Edwards going to Friendly Auto, his wife had called and obtained a quote of $43.00 for tag insurance. She specifically told the person on the phone that her husband wanted the cheapest coverage necessary to get a tag. COUNT III SALE TO PATRICIA EDWARDS On or about August 28, 1981, Patricia Edwards purchased insurance from Friendly Auto through its sales agent Shirley Hopkins. Patricia Edwards first called Friendly Auto and requested a quote for PIP coverage only. She also gave the person all the necessary information over the phone for the needed documentation. The person who actually went to Friendly Auto and purchased the insurance and signed the documents was Bruce Edwards, Patricia Edwards' husband. Patricia Edwards requested only minimum coverage needed to get her tag. She was given a quote of $37.00. The receipt given by Friendly Auto was signed by the Respondent, Shirley Hopkins, and reflected a $37.00 payment for PIP coverage only. The total payment of $37.00 included a $15.00 payment for an Accidental Death and Dismemberment (ADB) and travel benefits with Southern Management Company. Mr. Edwards signed the Accidental Death and Dismemberment application as well as the accident death benefits acknowledgement at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form. The acknowledgement referred to "Accidental Death Benefit Through My Nation Membership" and not to an "Accidental Death and Dismemberment" coverage with Southern Management Company. (See Respondent's Exhibit 5.) Neither Bruce Edwards nor Patricia Edwards requested Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage and neither was aware that such coverage had been purchased. COUNT IV SALE TO ELIZABETH JONES On September 1, 1981, Elizabeth Jones purchased insurance from Friendly Auto. She first called and asked for a quote for PIP and liability insurance for a `71 Oldsmobile Delta 88. She was given a quote of $42.00 for PIP and liability. Ms. Jones then went to the office of Friendly Auto where she first talked with two different men and then Respondent, Shirley Hopkins. Shirley Hopkins informed her the premium would be $63.00 rather than $42.00. Ms. Jones had obtained quotes from several agencies for the PIP and liability in an attempt to obtain the needed coverage for no more than the 560.00 which she had available for insurance. Ms. Jones has a fifth grade education and had never purchased insurance before. She specifically told the sales people at Friendly Auto that she did not understand insurance. Because the cost was $63.00 rather than $42.00, Ms. Jones had to return home to obtain additional money. When she returned, Ms. Hopkins had the forms prepared and had marked with an the places where she needed to sign. The receipt from Friendly Auto reflects that Ms. Jones purchased "Liab. PIP. ADB" for a premium of $63.00. Ms. Jones signed the accidental death and dismemberment coverage application and the accidental death benefit acknowledgement at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverage form. Prior to returning home, Ms. Jones was told by one of the sales agents that she needed the accidental death benefit that could be willed to her daughter. Ms. Jones asked if that was included in the liability and PIP and did not recall whether the person replied or not. She was not aware nor did she understand that she was purchasing a separate travel and accidental death benefit policy and paying a separate premium. She did not read the documents before she signed them and relied upon Ms. Hopkins and the other two agents to give her the coverage she had requested. Ms. Jones did not receive her ADB policy. COUNT V SALE TO BARBARA BARBATO On September 21, 1981, Barbara Barbato purchased insurance from Respondent, Shirley Hopkins, at the Friendly Auto agency. Before going to the agency, Ms. Barbato called and obtained a quote for "full coverage" on her new Camero. She spoke with a gentleman named Mike. When she arrived at the agency, she informed Ms. Hopkins that she wanted full coverage on her Camero. Ms. Hopkins did not explain the various coverages to her. Ms. Barbato paid for the insurance and signed the documents without reading them. The Friendly Auto receipt received by Ms. Barbato was signed by Shirley Hopkins and reflected a payment of $138.00 for "Liab. and Coll. and Comp.". Ms. Barbato signed the ADD coverage application and the accidental death benefit acknowledgement at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form. She named her mother as beneficiary of the accidental death benefit and understood that benefit to be part of the auto insurance she was purchasing. She was not aware the accidental death benefit was separate and extra. She did not receive a policy for the ADB coverage with American Travelers Association. COUNT VI Count VI was voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner and no evidence was presented as to Count VI. COUNT VII Mary Beth Jones did not appear and testify and no other testimony was presented as to Count VII. COUNT VIII SALE TO JOANN BROOKS On September 1, 1981, Joann Brooks purchased insurance from Respondent, Shirley Hopkins, at the Friendly Auto Agency. Ms. Brooks is a farm laborer who completed the eleventh grade. Upon arriving at Friendly Auto, Ms. Brooks informed Ms. Hopkins that she wanted full coverage on her automobile. Ms. Brooks understood full coverage to include collision, liability, and PIP and she had no intention of purchasing any type of coverage other than these. Although Ms. Brooks received some explanation of the accidental death and dismemberment coverage, she signed the accidental death application form and named herself as beneficiary. Ms. Brooks thought the death benefit was part of the full coverage she requested. This was the first time she had purchased insurance and did not understand insurance matters. Ms. Brooks signed and initialed the documents she was given by Ms. Hopkins. She did not read them. The receipt Ms. Brooks received from Friendly Auto was signed by Shirley Hopkins and reflected that she paid $86.00 for "Liab. & Comp. & Coll.". COUNT IX SALE TO RUBEN SIMPSON On May 7, 1981, Ruben Simpson purchased auto insurance from Friendly Auto. Mr. Simpson is from Jamaica and does not read because of his very limited education. When he arrived at Friendly Auto, Mr. Simpson informed the sales agent that he wanted to buy PIP insurance in order to get his tag. Mr. Simpson could not recall the full details of the discussion but remembered giving them his mother's name as the person who would receive money if he were killed in an accident. Mr. Simpson signed his name where he was shown to sign. When he left the agency, Mr. Simpson believed he had purchased only the PIP insurance required to get his tag. Mr. Simpson signed the Southern Management Company Accidental Death and Dismemberment application and received a copy of it when he left the agency. (See Respondent's Exhibit No. 13.) The receipt given to Mr. Simpson at Friendly Auto reflects he paid $44.50 for "PIP ADB". The premium for the ADB was $22.50. At no time did Mr. Simpson request or agree to purchase anything other than tag insurance. Mr. Simpson signed the acknowledgement of the ADB at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form, but was unaware that he was paying a separate premium for a policy which was neither PIP nor required to obtain his tag. COUNT X Prior to taking evidence in the formal hearing, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Count X of the First Amended Administrative Complaint. No evidence was presented in support of Count X. COUNT XI On September 3, 1981, Mr. Ellison J. Eady, Jr., purchased insurance from Friendly Auto. Mr. Eady informed the sales agent at Friendly Auto that he wanted the necessary minimum insurance to get a tag for a new car he had purchased. The agent asked Mr. Eady some brief questions about his driving record and then gave him a quote for the price of the insurance he requested. The agent did not suggest any coverages in addition to what Mr. Eady had requested, but included the cost of an ADB policy in the quote he gave Mr. Eady. Mr. Eady agreed to the price quoted, and the agent then brought out several forms for Mr. Eady to fill out and sign. All Mr. Eady wanted was insurance for his tag and to his knowledge, that was all he purchased. At the time he purchased his insurance, Mr. Eady signed and received a copy of the American Travelers Association application form. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) He did not ask any questions about the form. Mr. Eady thought that the American Travelers Association coverage was part of the insurance he was purchasing. However, the agent did not specifically tell him it was part of the insurance he was purchasing. At the time he purchased his insurance, Mr. Eady already had a motor club policy with Montgomery Ward which provided similar services to the American Travelers coverage. Mr. Eady did not read the various forms he signed. The agent gave him a brief explanation of what each form was. Mr. Eady just relied upon what the agent told him. Mr. Eady had no knowledge of Florida insurance. When he left Friendly Auto, he thought the only thing he had purchased was the minimum required by the state. One of the documents he signed was the acknowledgement of the accidental death benefit at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form. (See Respondent's Exhibit 14.) Mr. Eady already had separate life insurance coverage. The agent did not explain the accidental death benefit to him. Mr. Eady did not request any coverage other than the state minimum to get his tag. The receipt given Mr. Eady reflected an $82.00 payment for "PIP. . . ADB. . . C&C". (See Respondent's Exhibit 14.) Fifteen dollars of the premium paid by Mr. Eady was for the American Travelers Association motor club policy. COUNT XII SALE TO MARY GOOD On March 17, 1981, Mr. Edward T. Good and his wife Mary Good purchased insurance at Friendly Auto. Mr. Good informed the sales agent at Friendly Auto that he wanted the cheapest insurance required by the state to get his license tag. The agent explained to him the other auto coverages he could obtain, but Mr. Good insisted that he only wanted minimum tag insurance. He was then given a lump sum quote by the agent. One of the forms Mr. Good signed was an ADB application for Southern Management Company. The agent explained that this would pay he or his wife money if they were killed in an auto accident. The agent did not explain that there was an extra charge for this benefit or that it was optional. Mr. and Mrs. Good understood the ADB coverage to be part of the PIP coverage they had requested. The receipt they were given at Friendly Auto reflected a payment of $37.00 but did not list the coverages purchased. (See Respondents' Exhibit 1.) When Mr. and Mrs. Good left Friendly Auto, they thought they had purchased only tag insurance. However, $15.00 of the $37.00 premium paid was for the ADB policy with Southern Management Company. COUNT XIII SALE TO ALICE LEAR DICKSON On or about September 3, 1981, Alice Lear Dickson (formerly Alice J. Lear) purchased auto insurance from a sales agent of Friendly Auto. Ms. Dickson called Friendly Auto to obtain quotes for full coverage for a newer automobile and minimum coverage for an older one. After obtaining these quotes, Ms. Dickson went to the office of Friendly Auto where she informed the sales agent on duty that she wanted full coverage insurance on two autos. She informed the sales agent she wanted fire, theft, windstorm, collision, liability, and uninsured motorist coverage. The sales agent also suggested a coverage for such things as towing charges. Ms. Dickson informed the agent she did not want that coverage because she already was a member of an auto club. In signing the various documents to purchase the insurance, Ms. Dickson was asked to sign a document designating a beneficiary of a life insurance benefit. She did not want this life insurance coverage, but was told by the sales agent that it was required and went along with her automobile policy and had to be purchased. In reliance upon this representation, Ms. Dickson accepted the coverage. Ms. Dickson paid a total premium of $144.03 for collision, liability, PIP, and accidental death benefit. Her receipt from Friendly Auto reflected the $144.03 was for "C&C, LIAB., PIP, ADB." (See Respondents' Exhibit 11.) The accidental death benefit purchased by Ms. Dickson was one of the travel and accident benefits provided in the American Travelers Association policy which cost Ms. Dickson $15 of the $144.03 premium she had paid. At the bottom of a Rejection of Liability Coverage form used by Friendly Auto, Ms. Dickson signed the acknowledgement relating to the ADB, but she was not aware that she could reject this coverage or that it was part of a separate motor club policy. Ms. Dickson did not desire to purchase a motor club policy and would not have purchased the motor club policy had she been aware that it was not required as an included coverage with the PIP coverage. COUNT XIV Prior to the taking of evidence at the formal hearing, the Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Count XIV of the First Amended Administrative Complaint and presented no testimony in support of that Count. COUNT XV SALE TO CHARLES MEADOWS On June 2, 1982, Charles Meadows purchased auto insurance from Friendly Auto. Mr. Meadows went to Friendly Auto to purchase PIP insurance, and upon arriving at Friendly Auto's office, he informed the sales agent he wanted only PIP insurance. When he left the Friendly Auto office, Mr. Meadows thought he had only purchased PIP. At the time he purchased his insurance, Mr. Meadows signed an American Travelers Association application. (See Respondents' Exhibit 2.) The only explanation he was given by the sales agent regarding this coverage was that if he were killed, someone would receive some money and he needed to designate who that would be. The amount of the fee charged for the American Travelers Association policy was not reflected in the appropriate block on the application form. He was not given any explanation regarding the price of this coverage. In purchasing the insurance, Mr. Meadows initialed and signed several forms. He did not read them before signing. Mr. Meadows does not read and write very well and has a problem understanding insurance policies. He completed the seventh grade in school. One of the forms signed by Mr. Meadows was the acknowledgement relating to the accidental death benefit at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form. The quote sheet used to give Mr. Meadows his quote of $48.00 makes no reference to any coverage other than PIP. PIP is circled on the form. The receipt Mr. Meadows received from Friendly Auto reflects a $48.00 premium for "PIP. . .ADB". The cost of the PIP coverage was $23.00 and the cost of the American Travelers Association policy was $25.00. Mr. Meadows never received a policy or certificate informing him of the coverages under the American Travelers Association policy. Mr. Meadows never intended to purchase any coverage other than PIP to obtain his tag. He never requested any coverage other than PIP. COUNT XVI SALE TO PHILLIP JOHNSON On July 1, 1982, Mr. Phillip Johnson purchased auto insurance from a sales agent at Friendly Auto. Mr. Johnson went to Friendly Auto to purchase tag insurance. He informed the sales agent that he wanted just the PIP or tag insurance. The agent then prepared the necessary forms and Mr. Johnson initialed and signed the documents where he was instructed by the agent to sign and initial. No explanation of the coverages was given by the agent. Mr. Johnson was asked to name a beneficiary and was given a pink copy of an American Travelers Association application which he had signed. That form reflects a $20.00 fee was charged for the American Travelers Association policy. The receipt which Mr. Meadows received at Friendly Auto reflects a $42.00 premium paid for "8,000 PIP". (See Respondents' Exhibit 3.) Mr. Johnson also signed the accidental death benefit acknowledgement at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form. Mr. Johnson felt when he left Friendly Auto that he had purchased only PIP insurance. Mr. Johnson completed the ninth grade in school and has difficulty reading and writing. COUNT XVII SALE TO JAMES RICHARD JOHNS On June 4, 1982, Mr. James Richard Johns purchased insurance from the Respondent, Shirley Hopkins at Friendly Auto. Mr. Johns told Shirley Hopkins he would like to purchase PIP insurance in order to get his tag for his car. Ms. Hopkins then gave him a quote for PIP and also a quote for liability coverage and she then gave him several forms to initial and sign. She gave no explanation regarding the forms and he did not read them before signing. Although Mr. Johns thought he was only purchasing PIP insurance, he was, in fact, sold PIP with an $8,000 deductible plus an American Travelers Association policy. The cost of the PIP coverage was $24.00 and the cost of the American Travelers Association policy was $25.00. Mr. Johns signed the American Travelers Association application and was given a copy of it. He also designated a beneficiary. At the time of purchase, Mr. Johns understood that the death benefit was part of the PIP insurance he was purchasing. No explanation was given by Ms. Hopkins regarding the American Travelers Association policy or coverage. Mr. Johns also signed the acknowledgement of the accidental death benefit at the bottom of the Rejection of Liability Coverages form. The receipt he received from Friendly Auto was for $50.23 paid for "PIP. . . ADB. . . 123(illegible)". When Mr. Johns left the Friendly Auto Agency, he felt he had purchased only PIP insurance. He did not receive an American Travelers Association policy and did not receive his Fortune Insurance policy for his PIP insurance until December of 1982 or January, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Lloyd Register, guilty of the violations as set forth above and that his insurance licenses be suspended for a period of one (1) year. That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Shirley Hopkins, guilty of the violations as set forth above and that her license be suspended for a period of 90 days and that she be required to pay a civil penalty of $500. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent’s insurance license held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes? Although Respondent was unlicensed at the time of the specific insurance transactions enumerated in the Administrative Complaint, she since has become licensed. It is the existing license of Respondent that Petitioner seeks to discipline in this action.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner was created in accordance with Section 20.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been conferred general power by the Legislature to regulate the insurance industry in Florida, in accordance with Section 624.307, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent was not licensed by Petitioner to transact insurance. (Pet. Ex. 2) Respondent was employed by Beck-De Pratter, Inc., a Florida Corporation, doing business as William Dye Insurance, Inc./Brentwood (hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”) from 1996 until 2004. Count I: Aaron Curtis On August 16, 2000, Aaron Curtis came into the Agency to re-new the insurance on his vehicle. Respondent took down the information necessary for Curtis to re-new his insurance. The company that had insured Curtis' vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Curtis' coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count II: Stacy Collier On October 7, 2002, Collier came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Collier to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Collier's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Collier's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count III: Ruby Hubbard On October 11, 2002, Ruby Hubbard came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Hubbard's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Hubbard's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count IV: Mary Kennedy On March 6, 2002, Mary Kennedy came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed the related vehicle inspection report. Count V: Charles Howard On September 10, 2001, Charles Howard came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed the related vehicle inspection report. Count VI: Not appointed as Customer Representative Petitioner’s official records reveal that Respondent was not appointed as customer representative by any insurance agency at the time the preceding transactions occurred. Respondent’s employer, John Beck, testified that he never appointed Respondent as a customer representative. Count VII: John Kennedy On March 2, 2001, John Kennedy came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the allegations contained in the administrative complaint against Respondent, Sharon G. Taylor. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jed Berman, Esquire Infantino and Berman Post Office Box 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact For Petitioner: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 For Respondent: Michael S. Moreland, Esquire Post Office Box 1992 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Whether the Respondent committed the alleged multiple violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Virginia Louise Williamson be found guilty of nine violations of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes, and nine violations of Section 626.21, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's licenses as General Lines Insurance Agent, Life Insurance Agent, and Health Insurance Agent and eligibility for licensure be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA D. DONNELLY 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 24th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4553 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #3 and #18. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #7 Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Improper Summary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. See HO #3. (Respondent's answer and prehearing statement.) Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. 8.-10. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #5. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Contrary to existing law. See White v. Allstate Insurance Company, 530 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). 13.-16. Accepted. 17.-28. Accepted. See HO #6. 29.-34. Accepted. See HO #7. 35.-36. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7. 37. - 43. Accepted. See HO #8. 44. Rejected. See HO #8. 45-50. Accepted. See HO #9. 51.-52. Accepted. 53.-64. Accepted. See HO #10 and #11. 65.-76. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. 77.-83. Accepted. See HO #14. 84.-91. Accepted. See HO #15. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Michael S. Moreland, Esquire Post Office Box 1992 Fort Myers, Florida 33992 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether petitioner should take action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Kenneth E. Schneider has been a general lines agent and so licensed by respondent, at all pertinent times. He has been doing business in Pensacola, Florida, as Friendly Auto Insurance of Pensacola, Inc. (Friendly). Mr. Schneider was "agent for Friendly," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, and he and his wife ran the office (T. 124) with the help of a clerical assistant. Respondent was the licensed agent who "waited on customers." (T. 125) At the time of the final hearing, he was licensed to represent Protective Casualty Insurance Company, and Allied Fidelity Insurance Company. Petitioner's Exhibit 20. Additionally, and "only during 1982," petitioner was licensed to represent Dixie Insurance Company, Kenilworth Insurance Company, Colonial Insurance Company of California, and Fortune Insurance Company. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19. When Mr. Schneider wrote policies for insurance companies other than those he was licensed to represent, he did so by agreement with "a managing general agency." (T. 141). Not all of these agreements he had with managing general agencies were in writing and the Department of Insurance was apprised of none of them. (T. 142, 143). Respondent "broker[ed] . . . business through a general agency in the State of Florida . . . [or] in Atlanta." (T. 141). Time Premium Company (TPC) of Hollywood, Florida, finances insurance premiums. TPC supplies Friendly (and other insurance agencies) with form contracts and blank drafts. Customers of Friendly wanting to borrow money to pay part of their insurance premiums sign a form contract filled in by a Friendly employee obligating the customer to repay TPC the portion of the premium it finances, on an installment basis. Among other things, the form contract provides: That in consideration of the payment by TIME to the respective insurance companies, or their agents, of the balance of the premiums upon the policies of insurance hereinbefore described, the assured agrees with TIME as follows: The assured hereby assigns to TIME as security for the total amount payable hereunder, any and all unearned return premiums and dividends which may become payable under the policies listed in the schedule and loss payments under said policies which reduce the unearned premiums. . . . 4. The assured hereby appoints TIME his attorney in fact to cancel and give notice of cancellation of said policies for non-payment of any amounts due hereunder, and said insurance companies are hereby authorized and directed, upon the demand or request of TIME, to cancel said policies and to pay TIME the unearned return premiums pursuant to the assignment contained in paragraph 1 about thereon without proof of default hereunder or breach thereof or of the amount owning hereunder. In the event that the unearned return premiums are not sufficient to pay the total amount due hereunder, the assured shall pay the deficiency with interest at the highest allowable rate. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. A Friendly employee consummates the loan by drawing on TPC and forwarding the draft to the insurance company (or agency) for whom Friendly is writing the insurance. In the event that a company fails to repay TPC, TPC causes the insurance coverage to be cancelled and applies return premiums against the outstanding indebtedness, including, when received, unearned commissions in Friendly's hands at the time of cancellation. TPC notifies Friendly of any shortfall, once it has received return premiums from the insurance companies (or agencies), and Friendly forwards all or part of its unearned commission to TPC, as appropriate. By print-out mailed four times monthly, TPC notifies Friendly of unearned commissions Friendly owes TPC. If return premiums, including unearned commissions, do not satisfy the debt, TPC duns the customer. Friendly is under an obligation to return to the customer any part of an unearned commission it does not owe to TPC or some other premium finance company. BARAHONA On November 29, 1982, Victor Barahona bought insurance from Friendly. Friendly wrote policy No. FAP508054 on Horizon Insurance Company (Horizon) on behalf of Guaranteed Insurance Underwriters (Guaranteed) for liability coverage; and, for comprehensive and collision coverage, policy No. SPP0401130 on Southern Insurance Company (Southern), on behalf of Florida General Agency. Mr. Barahona made a downpayment of $159.00 and Friendly effected a loan to him from TPC in the amount of $386.00 for the remainder of the combined premiums. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Barahona's obligation to TPC aggregated $437.60, which he was to repay in eight monthly installments of $54.70 each, the first being due on December 30, 1982. On January 6, 1983, TPC notified Mr. Barahona that it had not received an installment payment, and that the policies would be cancelled if the payment was not received within ten days. On January 17, 1983, TPC requested cancellation of both policies. Later TPC notified Mr. Barahona that the policies were cancelled effective February 25, 1983. As a result of the cancellation of the Barahona policies, TPC received a total of $311.63 in return premiums, $127.95 from Florida General Agency and $183.68 from Horizon or Guaranteed. As of September 2, 1983, Barahona still owed TPC $114.78, and TPC had not received any part of the unearned commission on Barahona's policies from Friendly, but it was not until August that TPC had received the last insurance company return premium. Some time thereafter it billed Friendly on the entire unearned commission. In July of 1984, Friendly paid TPC the money it owed TPC on account of the cancellation of the Barahona policies. TAYLOR December 6, 1982, Friendly wrote policy No. SPP0401329 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency and policy No. 389868 on Protective Casualty Insurance Company (Protective) on behalf of Specialty Insurance Underwriters (Specialty) for James M. Taylor. Mr. Taylor made a down payment of $97.00, and Friendly effected a loan to him from TPC in the amount of $226.00 for the remainder of the combined premiums. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Taylor's obligation to TPC aggregated $264.43, which he was to repay in eight equal monthly installments of $33.06, the first being due January 7, 1983. On January 12, 1983, TPC notified Mr. Taylor that it had not received an installment payment, and that the policies would be cancelled if the payment was not received within ten days. At TPC's behest, both policies were cancelled effective February 28, 1983, leaving an outstanding balance of $274.48. As a result of the cancellation of the Taylor policies, TPC received a total of $185.62 in return premiums, $88.02 from Florida General Agency and $97.60 from Protective in March of 1983. A notice of cancellation was sent to Friendly as well as to Protective and Southern, but Friendly did not pay the unearned commission it owed TPC until July of 1984. (T. 19). BIVINS On November 29, 1982, Friendly wrote policy No. 0401124 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency for Walter L. Bivins. Of the $159.00 total premium, Delores T. Bivins paid $99.00 as a cash downpayment, and Friendly effected a loan to her from TPC in the amount of $60.00 for the remainder of the premium. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Bivins' obligation to TPC aggregated $81.93, which he was to repay in three equal installments of $27.31, the first of which was due December 30, 1982. Delores T. Bivins mailed TPC a check for $30.31 ($27.31 plus a $3.00 late charge) dated December 31, 1982. TPC deposited this check, but it was returned unpaid. As a result TPC assessed a $10.00 delinquency charge, and an additional $10 charge, because the check was returned, and caused the cancellation of Mr. Bivins' policy, effective March 2, 1983, claiming a balance due of $104.93. TPC received a return premium from Southern or Florida General Agency later the same month. TPC received the $12.80 unearned commission Friendly owed it in July of 1984. GORECKI On January 6, 1983, Friendly wrote policy No. SPP0403316 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency and policy No. 031555 on Allied Fidelity Insurance Company on behalf of Specialty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. for James T. Gorecki. The combined premiums amounted to $481.00. Mr. Gorecki made a down payment of $144.00 and financed the remaining $337.00 through TPC. Friendly effected the loan from TPC. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Gorecki's total obligation to TPC aggregated $384.56, which he was to repay in eight equal monthly installments of $48.07, the first being due February 6, 1983. Mr. Gorecki sold his car and requested cancellation of both insurance policies in February of 1983. He executed documents at Friendly's office to effect the cancellation. Mr. Gorecki made no payment to TPC and TPC requested cancellation of both policies as a result, although at least one of them had already been cancelled. The Southern policy, No. SPP0403316, was cancelled March 3, 1983, and on March 17, 1983, a check for Southern's return premium, in the amount of $145.33, was sent to TPC, and TPC received it shortly thereafter. The return premium check for Allied Fidelity's policy No. 031555 reached TPC no later than May of 1983. (T. 26). On June 21, 1983, Mr. Gorecki's mother filled out an "insurance consumer service request" complaining that "[t]hey have been telling us since February they would send us a check for the unearned premium." After applying both return premium checks against Mr. Gorecki's indebtedness, a balance of $45.16 remained. TPC notified Friendly by written statement mailed June 23, 1983, that unearned commissions up to $45.16 should be forwarded to TPC. Unearned commissions in excess of $45.16, if any, should have been returned to Mr. Gorecki. (T. 41). BOURGEOIS On January 5, 1983, Friendly wrote policy No. SPP0403324 on Southern on behalf of Florida General Agency and policy No. 031572 on Allied Fidelity Insurance Company on behalf of American Underwriters, Inc. for Edward Bourgeois. The combined premiums amounted to $397.00. Mr. Bourgeois made a down payment of $119.00 and financed the remaining $278.00. Friendly effected the loan from TPC. Together with the finance charge and documentary stamps, Mr. Bourgeois' total obligation to TPC aggregated $320.64, which he was to repay An eight equal monthly installments of $40.08, the first being due February 8, 1983. Mr. Bourgeois made no payments to TPC and TPC caused the cancellation of both policies, effective March 29, 1983, as a result. Notice of cancellation went to both insurance companies and Friendly. On April 27, 1983, TPC received an insurance company return premium of $135.29 and the other insurance company return premium arrived in May of 1983. (T. 27). Friendly paid TPC the unearned commission in July of 1984. A YEAR BEHIND TPC deals with some four or five hundred insurance agencies in Florida. TPC normally receives unearned commissions from agencies within 45 to 60 days after billing, although a TPC employee testified that 90 days was "acceptable." (T. 30). TPC bills the agencies with a computer printout, representing an accumulation of accounts. Possibly one other agency has taken longer than a year to repay moneys owed under similar circumstances. (T. 29). When respondent Schneider fell behind in forwarding unearned commissions, TPC telephoned to discuss the problem. He began sending money to reduce his indebtedness and continues to do so. TPC "would like him to do better, but . . . [is] working with him on this." (T. 31-32). Respondent Schneider sent TPC checks for $800.00 on April 26, 1983, for $500.00 on July 21, 1983, for $400.00 on May 25, 1983, for $400.00 on June 15, 1983, and for $500.00 on July 21, 1983. At the time of the hearing, he was paying $3,000.00 a month "[a]gainst old accounts that . . . [TPC needs] money on on the unearned commissions," (T. 42) but TPC has "asked him to raise it to four or five." (T. 38). TPC applies money it gets from respondent to the oldest accounts first, and Mr. Schneider was aware of this. (T. 38). The money TPC received in 1983 was applied to "possibly `81 or `82 files." (T. 32). A TPC employee testified without contradiction that unearned commissions insurance agencies like Friendly owed it would be TPC's money in the hands of the agent. LE On September 9, 1982, Hang Thi Le purchased Allied Fidelity Insurance Company's policy No. 09-104802 from Friendly for automobile liability, property damage and personal injury protection coverage. She paid Friendly $123.00 on September 9, 1982. Friendly forwarded $104.55 to Allied Fidelity and retained the balance as its commission. On January 26, 1983, Ms. Le made a written request that coverage be cancelled, by executing a form which stated, "I have sold my car." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. Allied Fidelity Insurance Company cancelled the policy and, on April 22, 1985, mailed Friendly a check "in the amount of $532.10 with a notation on the bottom of the check indicating that this involved return premium[s] . . . for two policyholders, one being Hang Thi Le . . . indicating the amount of return [for Ms. Le] to be $50.15." (T. 51). Ms. Le was due a total return premium of $59.00, of which $8.85 was unearned commission still in respondent's hands. After she had telephoned Friendly three times and been told at least once that Mr. Schneider was not in, Ms. Le received a refund check in the amount of $50.15 dated July 21, 1983. The check bore the notation "returned premium" and was signed by respondent Schneider, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, but did not include the $8.85 respondent owed Ms. Le. In a separate transaction with Friendly, Ms. Le bought insurance and financed the premium. She "put a down payment and . . . ma[d]e a[nother] payment," (T. 69) before deciding to cancel her insurance and stop payment on a check. LOGOS On March 29, 1982, Edward T. Logos went to Friendly's office because he had seen an advertisement on the back of the Pensacola News-Journal's "TV Tab", to wit: [Graphic image of Petitioner's Exhibit 16, as displayed on page 16 of the original Recommended Order, has been omitted. To view this portion of this document, please contact the Clerk's Office.] Mr. Logos "told the lady [in Friendly's office that he] wanted to buy PIP and that's all. [He] assumed they were honorable enough that they would sell [him] what [he] asked for." (T. 91). He was quoted $52.00 and complained about the price. He had waited an hour and a half or two for his turn to buy insurance and signed multiple documents where a woman in respondent's employ had marked them with "x"s. Among the papers he signed was an application for membership in Nation Motor Club, Inc., even though he never asked to join and would have declined an offer to purchase a membership. He also signed the following document: [Graphic image of Petitioner's Exhibit 15, as displayed on pages 17-18 of the original Recommended Order, has been omitted. To view this portion of this document, please contact the Clerk's Office.] The premium for the PIP policy with its $8,000 deductible, was $17.00. The $35.00 difference between the PIP premium and what Mr. Logos paid was apparently the cost of the motor club membership. More than a month later Mr. Logos received his policy in the mail, along with papers indicating he was a member of the Nation Motor Club. Mr. Logos never asked to join Nation Motor Club and would not knowingly have paid to do so. He made inquiries, then complained to the Insurance Commissioner. Respondent refunded the entire $52.00 by check dated August 27, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner on October 6, 1997, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for regulating the business of insurance in the State of Florida. Section 624.307, Florida Statutes. This power extends to the licensing and discipline of insurance agents. Sections 626.291, .611, and .621, Florida Statutes. Howard Irvin Vogel ("Respondent") is, and was at all times material to this action, licensed as a general lines agent (2-20) and a health insurance agent (2-40); Respondent is also currently licensed as a Florida Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association representative (0-17). Respondent is, and was at the times material to this action, the president of Federal Auto Ins., Inc., 1/ ("Federal Insurance"), an incorporated general lines insurance agency located in Lake Worth, Florida. He is, and was at the times material to this action, the only officer of the corporation who is a licensed insurance agent. In 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, Respondent was a director of the corporation and its designated primary agent. Respondent is, and was at the times material to this action, also the only licensed insurance agent who has the authority to sign checks drawn on the Federal Insurance trust account. At the times material to this action, Federal Insurance employed at least two licensed insurance agents in addition to the Respondent. The Respondent regularly worked full-time in the Federal Insurance office during 1993, 1994, and 1995, and he was aware of the way in which the agents he employed sold insurance. All monies received by the agents were turned over to the agency, and the Respondent approved all refunds and signed all refund checks. The Respondent ran the day-to-day operations of the insurance agency and supervised the agents who worked there. At the times material to this action, it was the practice at Federal Insurance to impose a service charge for the preparation of certificates of insurance 2/ if a customer indicated he or she would need certificates prepared throughout the year. It was also the practice not to charge customers for the preparation of the first three certificates, but the agents employed there had the option, depending on the person and on the amount of the premium, of charging $5 for each certificate prepared in excess of the three free ones or of charging a flat fee of $100 per year. The charge was imposed to cover the costs of preparing the certificates. The agents employed by Federal Insurance were expected to explain the charge to the customer and to make it clear that the $100 was an additional charge and not part of the insurance premium. The fees received for the preparation of certificates of insurance were deposited in Federal Insurance's trust account. Some insurance agencies do not charge for the preparation of certificates of insurance on behalf of their customers. At the times material to this action, Federal Insurance sold automobile towing coverage provided by L.N.V., Inc., a Florida corporation whose directors since its incorporation in 1987 have been Howard and Alicia Vogel. L.N.V., Inc., reimburses its members for the expense of towing an insured vehicle if an accident occurs during the period the customer's automobile insurance policy is in effect. Federal Insurance had, at the times material to this action, a separate application for the towing coverage, which applicants for the coverage were required to sign. The agents employed by Federal Insurance were expected to explain the nature of the coverage and to make it clear to the customer that the charge for the towing coverage was separate from the premium charged for the underlying automobile insurance policy. The membership fees received for the towing coverage were deposited into a separate account for L.N.V., Inc. The Respondent is the only licensed insurance agent authorized to sign checks on this account. Michael Clark On December 19, 1993, Michael J. Clark went to the office of Federal Insurance to purchase a commercial general liability insurance policy and to renew his commercial automobile insurance policy. He met with Lee Vogel, who was a licensed general lines agent employed by Federal Insurance. Lee Vogel quoted Mr. Clark an annual premium of $776 for the renewal of his commercial automobile insurance policy for a vehicle used in his business, Eastern Electric. Mr. Clark applied for the policy, which was written by the Granada Insurance Company ("Granada"); $776 was the correct premium for the coverage Mr. Clark requested. Mr. Clark paid Federal Insurance a down payment of $330 and signed a Premium Finance Agreement and Disclosure Statement in order to obtain financing for the balance of the premium. When Mr. Clark signed the premium finance agreement, the portion identified as the Federal Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement had not been completed by Lee Vogel, so the form did not reflect the amount of the down payment. Mr. Clark and Lee Vogel used a worksheet when they were discussing the coverage and the cost of the policy. The worksheet Lee Vogel prepared during these discussions shows that he added $100 to the $776 premium for the commercial automobile insurance policy and stated a total of $876 on the worksheet. Mr. Clark signed the worksheet on which the $100 charge is shown, and he apparently did not question at that time the purpose of the additional $100 charge. Several weeks after he purchased the commercial automobile insurance policy, Mr. Clark received the documents and payment book from the premium finance company. These documents reflected that he had been credited with a down payment of only $230 rather than the $330 down payment Mr. Clark thought he had made on the policy. At the same time he purchased the commercial automobile insurance policy, Mr. Clark purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy. Lee Vogel quoted Mr. Clark a premium of $281 for a policy which would be written by the American Surety and Casualty Insurance Company ("American Surety"). Mr. Clark applied for this policy and paid Federal Insurance $381 as payment in full for the general liability policy. The worksheet prepared by Lee Vogel shows a $100 charge added to the $281 premium quoted to Mr. Clark. Although Mr. Clark claims that Lee Vogel did not explain the $100 charge to him, Mr. Clark did not question Lee Vogel about the additional $100 charge. He signed the worksheet and paid Federal Insurance $381 for the general liability coverage even though he was quoted $281 as the premium for the coverage. Lee Vogel added the $100 charge to the $776 and $281 premiums for the automobile and general liability policies as a service charge to cover the costs of preparing any certificates of insurance Mr. Clark might request during the policy year. According to Lee Vogel, customers are not charged for the preparation of certificates for commercial automobile insurance policies because certificates of insurance are not usually prepared for such policies. If they are, it is in conjunction with certificates of insurance prepared to confirm commercial general liability coverage. At the time he purchased the policy, Mr. Clark requested that four certificates of insurance be prepared, and, on December 20, 1993, Howard Vogel signed four certificates of insurance verifying that Eastern Electric had general liability coverage with American Surety. During the 1993-94 policy year, Federal Insurance prepared a total of seventeen certificates of insurance on behalf of Eastern Electric, which certified that Eastern Electric had general liability coverage with American Surety. Five of the seventeen certificates of insurance confirmed both that Eastern Electric had general liability coverage with American Surety and that Eastern Electric had automobile insurance coverage with Granada Insurance Company. No separate certificates of insurance were prepared by Federal Insurance for the commercial automobile insurance policy written by Granada Insurance Company. Mr. Clark testified that he was not informed of the $100 service charge added to the premiums for the commercial automobile insurance policy and the commercial general liability insurance policy. He was in a hurry when he purchased these policies, and, when Lee Vogel gave him two or three papers to sign, he signed the papers without really reading them. Except for his signature appearing on several of the certificates of insurance prepared by Federal Insurance for Eastern Electric, the Respondent's only direct involvement with Mr. Clark's case was a letter the Respondent wrote to the Department, dated June 20, 1994, in which he complained about the way in which the investigation of Mr. Clark's complaint was being handled. Cheryl Lee Andrews On February 23, 1994, Cheryl Andrews purchased a commercial general liability insurance policy for her husband's lawn care business, Tropic Green Lawn Care, through Federal Insurance. After having spoken with him on the telephone, Ms. Andrews met with Bryan Sanders, a licensed general lines insurance agent employed by Federal Insurance, who quoted Ms. Andrews a premium of $673 for a policy written by American Surety. The wholesale broker in this transaction, with whom Federal Insurance had a contract, was Amelia Underwriters, Inc. Ms. Andrews made a down payment of $271 on the policy, and she was given a receipt which indicated that she had paid a $271 payment on a "GL" policy with "Amelia." When she paid the down payment on the policy, Ms. Andrews also signed a Premium Finance Agreement to finance the remainder of the premium through Del Rio Discount Corp. When Ms. Andrews signed the premium finance agreement, the portion identified as the Federal Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement had not been completed by Mr. Sanders; the premium finance agreement contained only the number of payments, the amount of each payment, and the date the first payment was due. Soon after, Ms. Andrews spoke with the Respondent on the telephone and requested a copy of the premium finance agreement with a completed disclosure statement. The Respondent sent her a copy of the agreement by facsimile transmittal, but it was not legible. Ms. Andrews telephoned the Respondent again and requested that he send her a copy by mail. When she did not receive another copy from Federal Insurance, she contacted American Surety, which contacted Amelia Underwriters, and the underwriters provided a completed copy of the Premium Finance Agreement. The down payment identified in the agreement was $171. On the day she purchased the insurance policy, Mr. Sanders asked if she wanted any certificates of insurance. At that time, Ms. Andrews did not know what this was, and Mr. Sanders told her it was proof of insurance. She asked that he prepare one certificate of insurance for Tropic Green Lawn Care on February 23, 1994. A second certificate of insurance was prepared by Federal Insurance for Tropic Green Lawn Care on March 28, 1994. Mr. Sanders did not discuss with Ms. Andrews at any time a charge for preparation of certificates of insurance. When she questioned the Respondent during a telephone conversation about the additional $100 she had paid Federal Insurance, he told her that it was a charge for certificates of insurance and other service charges and that, if she wanted any information, she should ask in writing. She then wrote a letter to the Respondent, dated June 10, 1994, requesting a breakdown of these charges, but she did not receive a response. In a letter dated July 26, 1996, written to the Department, Mr. Sanders confirmed that Federal Insurance charged $100 Ms. Andrews for preparation of certificates of insurance. Tropic Green was reimbursed $100 by Federal Insurance by a check drawn on the Federal Insurance trust account and dated January 8, 1996. Virginia Davidson On August 17, 1994, Virginia Davidson applied for personal automobile insurance through Federal Insurance. She dealt with a woman whose name she does not remember and who has not been identified in these proceedings. The policy was to cover a 1985 Chrysler, and she told the woman that she wanted insurance only for a short time because she intended to sell the car in the near future. At the time of this transaction, Ms. Davidson was in her late sixties. Ms. Davidson was told she needed to buy a one-year policy, and she recalled being quoted a price of $386 for an automobile insurance policy written by Armor Insurance Company ("Armor"). She paid the $386 by check dated August 17, 1994, and made payable to Federal Insurance; she was given a receipt that indicated that she had paid in full the premium on the Armor automobile insurance policy for one year. In fact, the premium for this policy was initially computed as $281 on the Brokerage Auto Application form. Although Ms. Davidson signed the application form on which this quote appeared, her signature appeared only on the reverse of the application form, while the quote appeared on the front. Ms. Davidson does not recall that anyone on August 17, 1994, explained that the $386 quoted to her included a separate $100 charge for towing coverage to be provided by L.N.V., Inc. At the time she purchased the insurance policy, Ms. Davidson was a member of AAA and would not have knowingly purchased towing coverage. Ms. Davidson's signature appears on a separate application form which clearly displayed the terms "Towing Coverage" and "LNV Corp." The "membership fee" for this coverage was shown on the form as $100. Ms. Davidson was asked to sign a number of documents when she applied for the automobile insurance policy, and she does not recall signing the application form for towing coverage. In a notice from Armor dated September 16, 1994, Ms. Davidson was notified that she owed an additional premium of $116 on her automobile insurance policy. The additional premium was due as a result of Armor's investigation of Ms. Davidson's driving history. In a letter to Armor dated October 11, 1994, Ms. Davidson requested that the policy be cancelled and that she receive a refund of unearned premium. Armor sent Federal Insurance a check dated October 31, 1994, in the amount of $163.70, representing the unearned premium on Ms. Davidson's automobile insurance policy. Mr. Vogel signed a check to Ms. Davidson on the Federal Insurance trust account, dated November 11, 1994, for $163.70. Ms. Davidson did not receive this check, and a replacement check was prepared, dated December 5, 1994. Ms. Davidson does not recall receiving this check, and neither of these checks has cleared Federal Insurance's account. The Respondent refused to issue another replacement check unless Ms. Davidson waited six months for the checks to clear the bank or paid Federal Insurance the $25.00 fee charged by the bank to stop payment on the replacement check. During December 1994, the Respondent recalculated the amount of the refund owing Ms. Davidson, including for the first time the agency's unearned commission and a pro rata refund of the $100 fee for the towing coverage. The Respondent issued a check to Ms. Davidson, drawn on the Federal Insurance trust account and dated December 26, 1994, in the amount of $117.20. The check specified that it was for "cancellation in full" of Ms. Davidson's automobile insurance policy. Ms. Davidson did not cash this check because she disputed that it was the full amount of the refund owed to her. Armor subsequently issued a check to Ms. Davidson in the amount of $184.80, which included the $163.70 and an additional amount of unearned premium which Armor had neglected to include in its calculations. Ms. Davidson does not recall receiving this check. All of the checks were sent to Ms. Davidson at her correct address in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Respondent was involved in the transaction involving Ms. Davidson only after she cancelled her automobile insurance policy. The Respondent signed the refund checks issued in her name, and, after Ms. Davidson filed a complaint with the Department, he responded to the Department's inquiry regarding the refund due to her. After having reviewed the files of Mr. Clark, Ms. Andrews, and Ms. Davidson, the Respondent was satisfied with the way the agents employed by Federal Insurance transacted business with these individuals. Summary The evidence is uncontroverted that the employees of Federal Insurance are supervised on a daily basis by and are under the direct control of the Respondent. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Michael Clark was unaware that he was charged $100 in addition to the premiums quoted on the commercial automobile insurance policy and commercial general liability insurance policy he purchased through Federal Insurance. Although he may not have been told the purpose of the extra charge, Mr. Clark was quoted premiums of $776 and $281, respectively, for the insurance policies. The worksheet he signed clearly shows that $100 was added to each of these premiums; in fact, Mr. Clark paid $381 as payment in full for the commercial general liability insurance policy when he knew that the premium for the policy was $281. On the other hand, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Lee Vogel deducted a $100 service charge for certificates of insurance from Mr. Clark's down payment of $330 on the commercial automobile insurance policy even though this charge was not imposed on commercial automobile insurance policies because separate certificates of insurance are not prepared for such coverage. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Bryan Sanders did not inform Cheryl Andrews of the $100 service charge added to the premium for the general liability insurance policy she purchased for Tropic Green Lawn Care and to establish that Ms. Andrews could reasonably believe that the entire down payment of $271 would be applied to the insurance premium. However, the evidence is uncontroverted that, when she spoke to the Respondent by telephone, he told her that the charge was for preparation of certificates of insurance and other services. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that, even though she signed an application form for towing coverage to be provided by L.N.V. Corp., Ms. Davidson was not told of the purpose of the application, the nature of the coverage, or the $100 fee for the coverage. In fact, the receipt for $386 that she received from Federal Insurance did not make any reference at all to the towing coverage or to L.N.V. Corp. The evidence presented by the Department is, however, not sufficient to establish that the Respondent refused to refund the monies owing to Ms. Davidson; under the circumstances presented, it was not unreasonable for Federal Insurance to refuse to issue a second replacement check. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that the Respondent instituted the practice of charging a $100 service fee for the preparation of certificates of insurance for commercial general liability insurance purchased through Federal Insurance. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Federal Insurance was prohibited by agreement or contract from imposing a service charge for the preparation of certificates of insurance. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that the Respondent instituted a policy at Federal Insurance requiring customers to purchase towing coverage from L.N.V., Inc., as a condition of purchasing an automobile insurance policy or that the Respondent developed a sales scheme whereby the application for and explanation of the towing coverage was hidden. The evidence is sufficient to establish only one instance in which an unidentified person employed at Federal Insurance failed to disclose the particulars of the towing coverage. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish a pattern at Federal Insurance of agents failing to disclose the $100 service charge for preparing certificates of insurance, of agents imposing the service charge to policies for which no certificates of insurance are prepared in the normal course of business, or of failing to inform customers of the nature of and charge for ancillary coverage such as towing coverage. Finally, the evidence presented by the Department does not establish that the Respondent or the agents involved in the transactions at issue in this proceeding failed to remit any portion of the premiums owing to the insurance companies for the policies sold to Mr. Clark, Ms. Andrews, or Ms. Davidson. In the case of Mr. Clark and Ms. Andrews, the premiums quoted to them were correct and the premiums set forth on the premium finance agreements were correct; it is irrelevant in this respect that Mr. Clark and Ms. Andrews may have believed that their $330 and $271 down payments were to be applied solely to the premiums owed on the policies. Likewise, the full amount of the premium initially calculated for Ms. Davidson's automobile insurance policy was paid to the insurance company by Federal Insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order dismissing all three counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against Howard Irvin Vogel. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed insurance agent licensed in the State of Florida as a general lines agent. He was the primary agent of Emerald Coast Insurance Agencies, Inc. (Agency) for Pensacola, Florida. The agency at all times pertinent to the events and times treated in the Amended Administrative Complaint was a general lines insurance agency incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and licensing the entry of insurance agents into the profession of insurance and regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida, including the imposition of disciplinary measures. The Respondent had been an insurance agent, as of the time of the hearing, for approximately four years. During that time, he has typically written 50-60 applications for automobile insurance and related coverage per week. The owner of the Agency would not allow the Respondent to issue checks from the Respondent's own office. All processing of insurance application files was completed at the Tallahassee, Florida office. The files with client information for insurance applicants, whose business was initiated by the Respondent, was sent by UPS to the Tallahassee, Florida office on the morning following the taking of the applications. The forms, which the Respondent was required to have completed and asked customers to sign, were pre-printed and issued from the Tallahassee, Florida office. The Respondent had no part in the creation of these forms as to content, format, and the disclosures depicted on their face. The Respondent inquired of the Department's local office as to whether the forms comported with pertinent statutes and regulations, and the Department expressed no objection to them. Indeed, the forms in question do make disclosures of the coverage or products which the customer is purchasing and contain an acknowledgment, which the customer is required to sign, indicating that the coverage has been explained to the customer. In particular, the motor club product is depicted on the relevant form as being an optional product and that it has been explained to the customer, with a blank after that pertinent statement for the customer to sign an acknowledgment of that fact. The issue in this case does not involve whether the customer paid for such a product without executing any consent but, rather, whether the customer was misled or whether the products sold were actually, in fact, explained fully to them; whether they were misled in making a decision to buy such coverage in the belief that it was required in order to obtain the insurance they knew they needed. THE TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE No evidence was submitted as to Count I, concerning Cheryl Ginsterblum nor Count VIII, concerning Joseph Shelton. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made and these counts should be dismissed. Pam Shivers of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance coverage for her 1988 Dodge Caravan. Because the van was still financed with a lender, "full coverage" was required, that is, she needed personal injury protection (PIP), property damage (PD) coverage, comprehensive risk coverage, and collision damage coverage. On March 8, 1993, she went to the Respondent's Agency, and the Respondent handled the requested insurance transaction. She requested "full coverage", and the transaction was handled while she was standing at the counter, in just a few minutes. PIP and PD insurance was placed with Security Insurance Company of Hartford (Security). Comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Florida International Indemnity Company (FIIC). The premium for Security was $350.00, and the premium for FIIC was $399.00. The purchase of this coverage was financed so that Ms. Shivers would not have to pay the entire $749.00 premium for all of the coverage at one time. In return for the premium financing arrangement, a $187.00 down payment was required for the insurance coverage. During the transaction, Ms. Shivers was quickly presented with approximately six documents to sign. Included in those documents was a document containing a disclosure that the motor club product which she purchased was optional, that is, not required by law; that she had been offered to purchase automobile insurance by the Agency without an optional motor club and chose to purchase that optional coverage of her own free will at an additional cost of $150.00; that she examined the benefits being offered, and that it was her decision to request enrollment as a member of the motor club association. It is true that Ms. Shivers signed these acknowledgments and disclosures, which on their face, would indicate that she had been informed about the nature of the motor club product or coverage and its cost, including the fact that it was not required by law and was optional. In fact, however, her apparent consent was not an actual, knowing and informed consent. She was presented with the six documents to sign hurriedly, with the places to sign simply marked for her to make quick signatures. She did not, in the course of the transaction, have significant time to read the documents or reflect on what she was signing, what her signatures obligated her for, and what specific products she was purchasing. She was not, in actual fact, informed that she was purchasing a motor club membership. She did not request that product, and the Respondent did not give her any actual explanation about it. She was not informed that she had any choice in whether or not to take that product. She later discovered that the product was optional and that it was, therefore, not an integral, unseverable part of the insurance coverage she did want to purchase. Moreover, Ms. Shivers was confused about the $749.00 premium quote and the amount she was actually required to pay. Her confusion involved the $749.00 premium for insurance quoted to her because of the fact that she was actually required to pay an $899.00 purported "premium". The receipt issued at the end of the purchase transaction indicated a total "premium" of $899.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of the insurance was $749.00. The additional $150.00 was for a motor club membership which was hidden in the receipt amount and what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $337.00 quoted to her was also deceptive because actually, only $187.00 of that was the down payment on the actual insurance coverage premium. This is shown by the premium finance agreement in evidence. The Respondent had concealed the cost of the motor club membership within what was purported to be the total insurance premium amount reflected on the receipt and included the entire $150.00 charge for that membership within the down payment, simply and misleadingly calling the down payment of $337.00 as the down payment on insurance coverage. Thereafter, on March 21, 1993, Ms. Shivers went back to the Agency to cancel her insurance, related to the fact that her vehicle had been involved in an accident. Upon doing that, she left thinking that her insurance had been effectively cancelled. Later, she received notices from the premium finance company but was told by the Respondent to ignore them. On May 7, 1993, however, the Respondent informed her that she had to come back to the Agency and fill out a cancellation request. Thus, 47 days after she had attempted to cancel her coverage, her request was finally processed by the Agency. In the meantime, she was apparently being charged for premiums on the coverage she thought she had cancelled. Thus, from January 21, 1994, the premium finance company turned an amount it claimed was due of $43.26 over to its attorney for collection purposes, which impinged on Ms. Shivers' credit standing. She had already paid the Respondent $190.00 in premiums under the premium financing agreement, with her down payment, but did not receive any returned unearned premium representing the period after she thought she had cancelled her policy but, instead, was billed the additional $43.26 directly due to the Respondent's 47-day delay in processing her cancellation request. Count III In June, 1993, Laura O'Donohue of Pensacola, Florida, purchased her first vehicle, a 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier. The automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle, gave her a card for the Respondent's insurance agency. Therefore, never having established a relationship with an insurance agency, she went to that Agency to purchase insurance. Her mother, Lynn O'Donohue, accompanied her to the Agency. Before coming to the Agency while at the automobile dealership, she had received a quote for the insurance she wanted from the Agency. When she arrived at the Agency, she informed Donald Grubb, an employee of the Agency and the Respondent, that she just wanted "basic coverage". This was the first time she had purchased insurance, and she relied entirely for her decisions regarding that upon the representations of the Respondent and his colleague. Therefore, in a transaction, which took approximately 20 minutes, the Respondent and/or Mr. Grubb assisted her in filling out the paperwork required to place the insurance coverage she requested. During the course of the brief insurance purchase transaction, Ms. O'Donohue learned that she would be required to pay a higher premium amount than the quote she had received from the Agency while she was at the automobile dealership earlier that day. This is consistent with the Agency's custom and practice, established by former agent, James Self's, testimony to the effect that motor club coverage was typically added to the normal insurance coverage requested by customers, which resulted in higher purported "premium" quotes and charges than had initially been quoted to the customer, typically by telephone, before a customer came to the Agency office. When Ms. O'Donohue and her mother arrived at the Agency after having received the lower quote earlier, they were thus not prepared to pay the higher amount of the so-called premium. Ms. O'Donohue did not need a motor club because, through her mother, she was covered by AAA Motor Club for towing and other benefits. She had no knowledge that she had purchased a motor club product from the Respondent. All of the documents were presented to her, in response to her request for just basic insurance coverage, in the context that this was what the law required her to have and what she needed. She totally relied, as did her mother, upon the representations of the Respondent and his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, concerning what the law required and what she needed in the way of insurance coverage. The testimony of Ms. O'Donohue's mother, Lynn O'Donohue, confirms the fact that they had no intent to purchase towing coverage or "auto club" because they already had a membership with AAA and wanted to pay nothing extra other than the basic insurance coverage. The Respondent or his agent or employee, Mr. Grubb, indicated, as shown on page 91 of the transcript, that "towing was all part of it", that is, they meant that the basic insurance package sought by Ms. O'Donohue included towing as part of its coverage. In fact, that was not the case, and the motor club product was clearly optional, at extra cost, and not legally required. Ms. O'Donohue purchased it unknowingly, based upon the representations and business practice used by the Respondent in connection with her transaction, in spite of the presence of her signatures on the disclosure portion of the application documents for the reasons referenced with regard to the Shivers transaction. The insurance requested was placed with two insurance companies. The PIP and PD were issued by Security at a premium of $223.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with General Insurance Company (General) at a premium of $411.00. Thus, the premiums for actual insurance coverage, which is all Ms. O'Donohue wanted, totaled $634.00. That was financed by the ETI Premium Finance Company (ETI) on periodic installment payments, with a required down payment of $127.00. The Respondent, however, required Ms. O'Donohue to make a down payment of $277.00 on a purported total premium due of $784.00. This amount, unbeknownst to Ms. O'Donohue, happened to include a motor club purchase (Atlantic Travel Association), which cost $150.00, thus, the difference between the $634.00 actual insurance premium and the $784.00 purported premium due. The $150.00 fee for motor club benefits was concealed in the "total premium" amount falsely represented to the customer by the Respondent. The deceptive and misleading nature of this transaction is further pointed out by the form of the receipt issued to Ms. O'Donohue upon consummating the transaction. That receipt indicates that the "total premium" is $784.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $634.00, as referenced above, and the additional $150.00 of that purported total premium amount was the motor club fee. Likewise, the down payment quoted to her of $277.00 was deceptive because only $127.00 of that was applied to the actual insurance coverage. The remaining amount was the motor club fee which the agent collected in its entirety at the beginning of the transaction, as part of the down payment, while the insurance premiums, in excess of the $127.00 actual down payment for insurance, were financed through ETI. The Respondent did this because, by collecting all of the motor club fee in a lump sum at the outset of the transaction, he could get his entire commission immediately. His motor club sales commission was at a considerably higher rate than the commission he earned on the sale of insurance itself. In fact, his commission was 90 percent of the $150.00 motor club fee. Since Ms. O'Donohue did not have the entire $277.00 at the time of the transaction, because she had been relying on the lower quote for the insurance given to her over the telephone, she only paid $200.00 down payment at the time of the transaction, with a balance owed of $79.00, as reflected on her receipt. Her mother had reservations concerning the purchase of this insurance from the Respondent and told her daughter that she thought that because the insurance she purchased involved financing the premium, she could save money by going to GEICO insurance company. Therefore, the following day, she went to GEICO and secured new coverage at a lower premium rate and then called the Respondent's Agency to confirm that she could cancel her policy, with no penalty. They replied that she could cancel her policy just so long as she brought them proof that she had secured new insurance, since the law presently does not allow them to cancel the coverage until they are shown proof that the insured has obtained other coverage. Ms. O'Donohue, therefore, went to GEICO, purchased new insurance for her vehicle, and then brought proof to the Agency and requested that the Respondent cancel her insurance. This request was made on June 19, 1993. At that time, she requested a refund of the $200.00 down payment which she had made two days before and was assured that she would receive it within 60 days. In fact, she never received a refund and continued to receive past-due and delinquency notices from ETI, the premium finance company. She notified the Agency of this problem on numerous occasions to no satisfaction. Due to ETI's belief that her coverage was still in force and that they were still owed the premium payments, her credit was endangered. This was all directly related to the Respondent's failure to properly and timely process her cancellation request. On June 20, 1993, Terre Thompson of Pensacola, Florida, also went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for her 1993 GEO Metro automobile. The Respondent met her at the automobile dealership, where she purchased the vehicle. He had already prepared documents for the purchase of insurance to be underwritten by Security and General, along with a premium financing agreement and other documents. He had marked X's where Ms. Thompson was supposed to sign all contracts and disclosure forms. The Respondent filled out all of the information on the documents and merely told her, in effect, to "sign here, here and here". The transaction was conducted very quickly and with little or no explanation of coverage or benefits. Although Ms. Thompson needed full coverage for her vehicle, because it was financed, she did not want towing and rental benefits. The Respondent, however, gave her to understand that it was required in the coverage package she purchased. Accordingly, on June 20, 1993, she made a down payment of $100.00, with an additional amount due of $51.00 by June 27, 1993. Although the receipt was dated June 20, 1993, Ms. Thompson did not actually receive it until June 27, 1993, when she returned to the Respondent's Agency to pay the $51.00 owed. The receipt falsely depicts that the "total premium" was $834.00. Actually, the cost of the insurance was only $754.00. The additional $80.00 was for a motor club product, although the $80.00 was buried in and represented to be part of the total insurance premium for the transaction. The down payment of $231.00 quoted, likewise, was deceptive because only $151.00 of that was actually applied to insurance coverage, which was all of the coverage that Ms. Thompson had requested. The Respondent collected the $100.00 on June 20, 1993 and entered into a financing arrangement with the customer, Ms. Thompson, for the $51.00 to be paid on June 27, 1993. In fact, this was only enough to cover the down payment for the actual insurance coverage because the Respondent forgot to include the fee for the motor club coverage on the "front end" or in the down payment, as was his normal practice. This is why Ms. Thompson became upset when she learned she owed an additional $71.00 when she returned on June 27, 1993, when she thought she had only owed approximately $60.00. In any event, the receipt finally received by her reflected payments of $100.00, $60.00, and $71.00, which totals $231.00. This amount includes the $151.00 down payment for actual insurance coverage and the remaining $80.00 for motor club membership, which Ms. Thompson did not know she had purchased at the time and did not desire to purchase. Indeed, Ms. Thompson, and the other customers referenced in the Amended Administrative Complaint, who testified, signed the disclosure in the standard package of documents presented to them by the Respondent. It indicated that they acknowledged that the motor club benefit or the "nations safe driver" medical benefit was an optional coverage, not required by law and that, after explanation of it, they had elected to purchase it. In fact, they signed those documents, albeit imprudently, without actual knowledge that they were obtaining that coverage and without explanation that it was not legally required. No disclosure was made to them that the purported "total premium" amount actually included payment for the motor club benefit, which was not actually part of the insurance premium and which, at least in the case of those customers with AAA memberships, was totally unnecessary. Timothy Malden of Jacksonville, Florida, purchased a vehicle on or about August 31, 1993. He needed full coverage because the vehicle was financed, that is, he needed PIP, PD, comprehensive coverage, and collision coverage. He went to the Respondent's Agency on that date to purchase coverage on his 1986 Pontiac Fiero. During the course of the transaction, handled by the Respondent, Mr. Malden was asked if he had motor club coverage or benefits and he told the Respondent that he had AAA membership and showed the Respondent his AAA card. The Respondent and Mr. Malden entered into a transaction to sell Mr. Malden insurance. The transaction involved approximately seven different documents and took a total of about 15 to 20 minutes. Mr. Malden merely signed the documents. The Respondent told him that he just needed his signature on the documents and the Respondent did not explain the coverage. The procedure seemed rushed or hurried to Mr. Malden. Although Mr. Malden signed the disclosure (inadvertently, because apparently he did not read it) stating, in effect, that the motor club coverage was optional, not required and that after having it explained to him, he had decided to purchase it, he, in fact, did not know at the time that he had purchased the motor club coverage and it had not been explained to him. Moreover, as stated above, he had explained to the Respondent that he did not need it because he already had AAA motor club coverage. Nevertheless, the Respondent, knowing that Mr. Malden had AAA, still sold him the motor club coverage with the Atlantic Travel Association for an additional fee of $150.00. Mr. Malden made no informed consent to purchase that benefit. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with Security at a premium of $395.00. The comprehensive and collision coverage was placed with Continental American Insurance Company (Continental) for a premium of $525.00. The total premium for "insurance" was $920.00, with a $230.00 down payment. The premiums were financed by ETI. Mr. Malden, however, was required to pay a "down payment" of $380.00. The receipt issued to him reveals a "total premium" of $1,070.00. The actual cost of insurance was only $920.00. The additional $150.00 was for motor club coverage, and the charge for that was hidden in what was represented on the receipt as "total premium". Likewise, the down payment of $380.00 was deceptive in nature because only $230.00 of it was actually a down payment for insurance coverage. The remainder of it, as explained above with regard to the other customers, was actually full payment for the unnecessary, unwanted motor club benefit. On March 8, 1994, Karen Sigler of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Agency to purchase automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymough Voyager. She stated to the Respondent that she only wanted the minimum automobile insurance required by Florida law. She told the Respondent that she needed new insurance because her previous insurance company had gone out of business. The Respondent handled the transaction for her and she specified that she wanted only that coverage which the State of Florida required. Ms. Sigler had been originally quoted a $324.00 premium amount. When she actually entered into the insurance transaction, however, an additional $65.00 was added on to that amount because the Respondent sold her an additional "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc." enrollment. This is not an insurance product but, rather, is a form of supplemental medical benefit. Ms. Sigler had not requested this and did not understand the nature of it, believing that it was unnecessary because she was already qualified as a "safe driver" based upon her driver's record. She was given no explanation as to what that enrollment form, and benefit was nor that there was an extra charge for it. Even as reflected on the enrollment form, Ms. Sigler merely thought that the Nations Safe Drivers membership was a part of the required insurance purchase package. This is not true, in fact, since only PIP and PD coverages are required by law. Ms. Sigler was thus sold a product she did not request, which was not required by law and which was not explained to her. The entire transaction took approximately one- half hour. The receipt issued to Ms. Sigler shows that the "total premium" was $324.00. In fact, however, the actual cost of insurance was a $259.00 premium. The additional $65.00 of the $324.00 amount was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership, which was hidden in what was represented as a "total premium". Moreover, the down payment she paid of $98.00 was deceptive because only a part of it was applied to automobile insurance coverage and the remainder was the fee for the Nations Safe Drivers membership. The Respondent's business practice in this regard resultingly misled Ms. Sigler into believing that Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. was required by State law and that it was an insurance product, which it was not. Here, again, in spite of the disclosure she signed and the documents that she was hurriedly urged to execute by the Respondent, the clear and convincing evidence shows that she did not actually, knowingly consent to purchase the extra non-insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's business practice, the way he represented the nature of her insurance coverage and in the manner in which he conducted the transaction did not involve an actual explanation of the non-insurance product he misled her into purchasing. Thus, there was no informed consent to purchase that product. Rosa Johnson went to the Respondent's Agency on March 21, 1994. She wanted to purchase the "minimum" automobile insurance required by State law for her 1971 Plymouth. She dealt with the Respondent and another gentleman who worked under the Respondent's direction and control. She told them she only wanted the basic, legally-required coverage. PIP and PD coverage was issued through Security. Ms. Johnson was also sold the Nations Safe Drivers product. This product was not actually explained to her, in spite of the fact that she may have signed a written disclosure that it had been, including the fact that it was an optional benefit and not part of the legally-required insurance coverage. She did not request this product nor was it explained to her so that its meaning and coverage was understood by her. Upon conclusion of the transaction, Ms. Johnson had purchased PIP and PD coverage from Security for a premium of $248.00, plus an unrequested enrollment in Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. for a fee of $35.00. All of this amount was financed by ETI. Here, again, as with the other customers, the receipt furnished to Ms. Johnson indicates a total "premium" of $283.00. The actual cost of insurance or true premium was $248.00. The additional $35.00 of the $283.00 amount was the cost of the Nations Safe Drivers, Inc. product, which was hidden in what was represented to her on the receipt as the "total premium". Likewise, the purported down payment of $85.00 was deceptive in the manner in which it was presented and required of Ms. Johnson, because only part of it was applied to insurance coverage, the remainder being the $35.00 fee for the added non- insurance product referenced above. The Respondent's authority to bind coverage with Security Insurance Company had been terminated on March 14, 1994 due to excessive late submissions of insurance applications to the carrier. The problem was later alleviated and his authority to bind insurance for Security was restored by that company. However, during the period of time his binding authority had been terminated, the Respondent kept taking applications and binding policies. This caused the insureds to believe that they had coverage when, in fact, they did not, because the carrier, Security, through its managing agent, U.S. Underwriters, did not, for a period of time, allow the Respondent to obligate that company for coverage. Accordingly, in due course, Ms. Johnson was notified by U.S. Underwriters, on behalf of Security, that she had no coverage. She became upset and filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner because she had understood that as soon as the transaction with the Respondent was completed, her coverage had been bound and timely filed and processed with the underwriting insurance carrier. Charles Meadows of Gulf Breeze, Florida, required insurance on his 1986 Chrysler LeBaron. He wanted to purchase the minimum amount of legally- required coverage and went to the Respondent's Agency for that purpose on May 17, 1994. He needed the minimum amount of legally-required insurance so that he could obtain a tag for his automobile from the county tag office. He was in a hurry because he had taken leave from work and needed to get his insurance transaction consummated, as well as to obtain his automobile tag before 4:30 p.m. He conferred with a lady who was employed by the Respondent at the Agency who handled his transaction. She completed all of the documents, spread them across the counter, and marked and told him the places to sign to effect the binder of the coverage that day. The transaction occurred quickly, lasting only approximately 15 minutes. He received no effective explanation of any of the coverages. Rather, he relied on her representations that he was getting what he had asked for, that is, the minimum legally-required Florida insurance coverage. The coverage he obtained was placed with Security as to the PIP and PD coverage. The premium for that coverage was $321.00. The total premium quoted to him was $421.00, which included a $100.00 membership in the Gulf Coast Travel Association, a motor or travel club. Mr. Meadows was not aware that he had this extra amount of coverage or membership until he conferred with Mr. Spencer of the Department at a later time, who informed him of such. If he had known that the agreements he was signing during the hurried, unexplained transaction with the Respondent's employee included the motor club coverage, he would have declined it because his wife already had coverage with AAA for towing and related benefits. Mr. Meadows made a down payment of $190.00 on May 17, 1994. The receipt issued to him revealed a "total premium" of $421.00. The actual cost of insurance was $321.00, with the additional $100.00 being for the motor club, although the total amount was represented as "total premium". Additionally, the down payment of $190.00, which he paid, was deceptive in that only $90.00 was actually applied to insurance coverage and the remaining $100.00 was the total up-front fee for the motor club coverage, although it was represented to Mr. Meadows as being the $190.00 down payment on the insurance premium itself. Later, Mr. Meadows learned that he had the motor club benefits which he did not want or need and so he demanded a refund of his money from the Respondent. He spoke to the Respondent personally about this but did not receive immediate satisfaction. There was a substantial delay in receiving his refund after the Respondent told him that he would receive one. The Respondent justified this by stating to him that it had to come from "another office" and that it would not come from his Agency itself. Dorothy Weber of Pensacola, Florida, required automobile insurance for her 1986 Chevrolet Blazer and a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice. She went to the Respondent's Agency on June 15, 1994 and indicated to one of his employees that she was interested in the cheapest coverage available. She wanted nothing extra, except that required by law. She received very little explanation of the coverages and benefits, other than in response to questions she asked. The transaction of insurance was conducted in a similar manner to those referenced earlier in these Findings of Fact. The PIP and PD coverage was placed with the Florida Joint Underwriting Association. It carried a premium of $787.00. Despite Ms. Weber's request for only the minimum, legally-required insurance, she was also sold a motor club (Gulf Coast Travel Association) unbeknownst to her at the time at an additional fee of $150.00. In spite of the fact that Ms. Weber signed the disclosure concerning the optional nature of the motor club and related fee and so forth, as described in further detail in the above Findings of Fact, in actual fact, it was not explained to her. The fact that the fee for it was separate from the insurance premium for the insurance coverage was not explained to her and she effectively was not informed that she was purchasing that product. During the transaction, she was informed that if her vehicle broke down, she could obtain wrecker service. Nothing was mentioned to her, however, about Gulf Coast Travel Association or that the $150.00 was an extra fee. She merely had all of the forms presented to her in rapid fashion and was asked to sign them. The explanation simply was that the "total policy" cost $937.00, and there was a down payment of $318.00 supposedly for premium only. The entire transaction took approximately one-half hour. Later, Ms. Weber discovered that she had been misinformed and complained to the Department and the Respondent's Agency, specifically indicating that she had not been informed that the $150.00 for the motor club was separate nor that she had purchased motor club coverage. The receipt furnished to Ms. Weber concerning the amounts she paid to secure her coverage is misleading. It indicates a total premium of $937.00, when the actual cost of the insurance was $787.00. The additional $150.00 was for the undisclosed motor club coverage hidden in what was represented on the receipt as a "total premium". The down payment of $308.00 was deceptive or misleading in that only $158.00 of it was actually a down payment on insurance coverage. Barry and Deeana Walker of Pensacola, Florida, needed automobile insurance for a 1990 Plymouth Laser. They wanted the cheapest coverage legally required and available to them. The Respondent dealt with the Walkers and was their agent of record. Mr. Walker remembers nothing being mentioned about a motor club, but Mrs. Walker remembers that the agent mentioned "Nations Safe Drivers, Inc."; however, she specifically informed him that she did not want it. In fact, Nations Safe Drivers is a non-insurance membership plan which includes a medical supplement coverage benefit. It is not a motor club. The PIP and PD and bodily injury coverages were placed with Underwriters Guaranty Insurance Company (UGIC) for a premium of $641.00. The premium was originally financed by Underwriters Financial. Also executed on May 4, 1994 was another premium finance agreement with ETI. It provided for an insurance premium of $441.00 for a policy issued by UGIC and the financing of a Nations Safe Drivers enrollment for $100.00. This document was not signed by the Walkers. On May 4, 1994, the Walkers paid $150.00 by check and were required to pay an additional $143.00 by May 20, 1994. The $143.00 was paid; and subsequently, the Walkers received a notice of additional premium of $190.00 due and they paid an additional down payment of $76.00. The Walkers made payments on the ETI premium financing agreement up until October, 1994, even though it had never actually been signed. They made down payments of $369.00 and monthly payments totaling $333.63, for a total of $702.63. Sometime in October of 1994, they received a letter from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Drivers Licenses in Tallahassee, Florida, stating that Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended because his insurance had been cancelled, effective July 16, 1994. The Walkers had received a notice from the insurance company of cancellation (because apparently that company would not insure co-owned vehicles) and had gone to the Respondent to see what to do about that problem. The Respondent told them to fill out a form which he gave them and that everything would be taken care of. They filled out the form at his behest so as to indicate that Mr. Walker's father, the co-owner, would not be a driver of the vehicle. Accepting the Respondent's representation, they believed that that would take care of the cancellation of coverage problem, and they continued to make their monthly payments on their premium financing agreement until October of 1994 based upon what the Respondent told them. In fact, the coverage was cancelled effective July 16, 1994; and soon thereafter, Mr. Walker's driver's license was suspended due to failure to carry valid insurance on his automobile. If the Respondent had acted with promptness in correcting the underwriting error, upon being apprised of the situation by the Walkers, the lapse in coverage and suspension of the driver's license need not have occurred and the payments on the original coverage need not have been made until October 11, 1994, when new coverage was finally obtained by the Respondent at the Walkers' behest. Although, on November 11, 1994, ETI credited the Respondent and the Walkers for $169.41 of unearned premium, the damage had already been done by that point in terms of the lapse of coverage and the suspension of Mr. Walker's driver's license, with attendant financial risk and inconvenience to Mr. Walker. Moreover, the receipt issued to the Walkers in the original insurance transaction indicates a total premium of $741.00. As in the other situations, the actual insurance cost was $641.00, and the additional $100.00 was for the Nations Safe Drivers non-insurance medical payment product, wrapped up in what was represented as "total premium". The down payment of $293.00 was similarly misleading because only $193.00 of that applied to actual insurance coverage. The Respondent received his fee of $100.00 for the added-on product mentioned above entirely out of the up-front, down payment amount. Thus, the Respondent received the entire fee for the Nations Safe Drivers product within a purported "premium receipt" amount described to the customer as an insurance down payment. On January 26, 1995, Ms. Betty Cook of Walnut Hill, Florida, needed to purchase insurance for her 1994 Thunderbird and her 1993 Chevrolet C1500 pickup truck. She went to the Respondent's Agency to accomplish her insurance renewal transaction. A lady by the name of Sonya handled the transaction for her that day. The Cooks' insurance was placed with UGIC for a premium of $1,123.00. The premium was financed through Underwriters Financial of Florida, Inc. The transaction was initiated on January 26, 1995 but ultimately concluded on January 28, 1995, after Mrs. Cook had received and signed all of the paperwork. Mrs. Cook made a premium down payment of $339.00 and mailed her first payment when it was due. She thereupon was sent a notice stating that no policy existed. She called the Agency to see what was wrong and someone at the Agency indicated to her that it would taken care of immediately. A lienholder on the pickup truck sent a notice to her that they had not been notified that the insurance had been renewed. Mrs. Cook became very concerned and the Respondent offered to refund her premium; however, three months had evidently elapsed since she first renewed her insurance or thought she had. Thus, Mrs. Cook, without knowing at the time, was driving her automobiles without insurance coverage for approximately a three-month period. Mrs. Cook contacted the Department and got her insurance reinstated and placed with another servicing agent. The policy was issued by UGIC, without requiring the payment of a premium down payment by the Respondent. The Respondent had still not forwarded the $339.00 down payment originally received from Mrs. Cook as of April 19, 1995. This lapse or failure to forward the insurance down payment obviously resulted in the coverage never being bound with the company. Therefore, the company had not issued and had no record of coverage for Mrs. Cook's vehicles. The agent for this company was required to account for and promptly forward insurance premium down payments, such as this, to the insurer he represented and on behalf of the insured he also represented in the transaction. Christopher Camus of Pensacola, Florida, went to the Respondent's Agency to purchase insurance for a 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass. He went to the agency on August 25, 1993, and the Respondent placed his coverage with Security. The total premium was quoted as $274.00. Mr. Camus signed an application on that date and paid the full amount to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to forward the application and premium to the insurance carrier, and the policy of insurance was not actually issued until November 30, 1993. Mr. Camus was thus left without coverage for approximately two months. He made repeated telephone calls to the Agency to no avail. Agency personnel maintained that the problem was occurring with the insurance company itself and was not the fault of the Respondent's Agency. The Respondent deposited Mr. Camus' check in August of 1993, but the application for his insurance was never received by Security until December 23, 1993. The Respondent thus did not promptly and appropriately handle the insurance premium funds in question and forward the application so as to promptly bind the coverage for the customer. Indeed, it is noteworthy that this company revoked the Respondent's authority to bind coverage for customers on March 14, 1994 due to an excessive amount of such late submissions of insurance applications and premiums. In 1993, of the 1,299 applications taken by the Respondent and his Agency, only 58 percent reached the insurer's office within the required time period. In summary, the evidence presented in this case indicates that the Respondent engaged in the general business practice of selling ancillary products to insureds without truly obtaining "informed consent" of those insureds. The pattern running through the testimony of the above-described witnesses, none of whom were shown to have any motive to falsify their testimony, was that, although they signed the various disclosures on the insurance underwriting or binding documents, indicating that they understood that the ancillary products were optional, were not insurance, and were not required to be purchased. They did not receive any significant explanation of the optional nature of those products concerning the advisability of their purchase (particularly as to those customers who had AAA coverage), nor the extra cost attributable to those products. Each insured witness consistently maintained that he or she had not read the numerous documents presented to them. Certainly, they should have, in an abundance of caution, read the documents and attempted to understand them. Their failure to do so, however, does not absolve the Respondent of his duty to specifically explain to each customer the exact nature of the coverage being offered, whether or not it was legally optional, particularly, as to those customers who stated definitely that they only wanted the bare minimum coverage required by law, and the fact that it was optional at an extra cost, and was not included in the basic insurance coverage being sold. It is clear from these witnesses' testimony that none had requested motor club benefits or any other ancillary product and yet, in effect, these were automatically added to the policies involved in this proceeding in each transaction and were clearly not explained to the customers. The general business practice of the Respondent involved in the sale of the motor club and ancillary products belies the existence of "informed consent" on the part of the customers. Mr. James Self is a former agent for the Respondent, who testified regarding the Respondent's business practices. He was trained by the Respondent and worked for the Agency from August, 1993 to June, 1994. The Agency had a policy of giving telephone quotes for insurance premiums, without including the amount represented by motor club or other add-on optional products. The Agency would then add such products to the insurance package when the customer came in to purchase insurance. According to Mr. Self, any sort of explanation or disclosure of these add-on products to the customer would be merely to the effect that the insurance "quote" included towing or rental. There was little else explained about it. In many of the situations with witnesses in this case, the insureds only requested the minimum coverage and, therefore, no optional or ancillary products were justified without full explanation to the customer. Mr. Self described how the Respondent specifically trained him in "clubbing", which meant adding motor club coverage to the insurance coverage requested by customers. The Respondent's own testimony shows the economic necessity for the pervasive sale of such motor club benefits to as many customers as possible, when he stated: It's really the only way to exist . . . Q: So you're telling me that the only way for you to exist is to sell motor clubs? A: Financially, it's -- really for most businesses in this market it's the only way to be able to survive. Transcript, page 175. The Respondent further acknowledged the pecuniary interest he had in selling travel or motor clubs since he described his average commission as being 90 percent of the fee for writing that coverage, which is higher than the commission on insurance products. Moreover, he recovered all of that money from the down payment the customers were making, supposedly for their insurance coverages. Therefore, his incentive was multiplied because he was getting the high commission percentage rate, plus he was getting all of it in cash on the initial portion of the transaction, the down payment. Mr. Self also explained that salesmen would never tell the insured exactly how much the motor club cost. On occasions, when Mr. Self would try to partially disclose the motor club, the Respondent would tell him to "hurry up", that he was taking too much time in effecting the transaction. It was Mr. Self's experience that approximately 99 percent of the customers coming into the Agency for insurance left having purchased motor club benefits. Eventually, Mr. Self was terminated because he did not sell enough motor club products. The overall gravamen of his testimony shows that he attempted to make some disclosure or explanation of the motor club and other ancillary products but was discouraged from doing so by the Respondent, with the implication being that this ultimately resulted in his termination from employment with the Respondent's Agency. The evidence thus establishes that, for the most part, the insureds in question did not really know what "minimum coverage" or "full coverage" really consisted of when they came in to purchase such insurance. In making this lay description of the coverage they desired, they then relied on the agent, the Respondent or his employees, to sell them coverage which comported with their wishes and needs, since they were not schooled in the insurance business and related laws themselves. Since they were not so schooled, they almost totally relied on any explanation given to them by the Respondent or his agents or employees. In spite of the signing of the disclosure documents referenced in the above Findings of Fact, the reality of the situation, as a continuing, consistent pattern throughout the testimony adduced from these insureds, and from Mr. Self, reveals that no regular business practice of obtaining an informed consent from customers, such as these, was carried out by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Daniel Lee Alison, be found guilty of the violations set forth and discussed above, that his license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida be revoked for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $9,000.00, within a time to be set by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-2690 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-35. Accepted, except to the extent that they do not comport with the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on these subject matters to which they are subordinate. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and because of the editorial comment. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected, as to the editorial comment. 39-40. Rejected, as being subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-44. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as subordinate and somewhat contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive to the issues presented for resolution in this case. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 19-25. Accepted, but not themselves materially dispositive to the resolution of the issues presented to the Administrative Law Judge. 26. Accepted. 27-29. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 30-32. Accepted. 33-36. Accepted, in part, but rejected, as to the overall material import and as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-43. Rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as immaterial. 44. Accepted, as technically correct, but witness Self, a former employee and a witness who purchased insurance, did establish in his testimony that purchase of an ancillary product was a pre-condition to premium financing by Agency policy. 45-47. Accepted, in part, but otherwise rejected, as subordinate to the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact on this subject matter. 48. Accepted. 49-52. Accepted, but not in and of themselves dispositive of the material issues presented concerning this witness' transaction(s). Rejected, as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael K. McCormick, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley & Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Bill Nelson Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Florence Mounts Williams (Williams or respondent), was licensed as an insurance agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department or petitioner). When the events herein occurred, Williams was an officer and director of Mr. Auto Insurance of Okeechobee, Inc. (Mr. Auto), an incorporated general lines insurance agency located in Okeechobee, Florida. She was also an officer and director of Florida Insurance Agency, Inc. (FIA), an insurance agency doing business in the same city. Respondent sold insurance to the public through both businesses. Williams is charged with violating the Florida Insurance Code while dealing with nine customers during the period between 1984 and 1986. These business transactions were made either through Mr. Auto or FIA, and, with certain exceptions, generally relate to Williams accepting a premium for a policy and then failing to procure a policy for the customer, or falling to refund the premium after the customer cancelled the policy. Some of these customers eventually filed complaints with the Department, and after an investigation was conducted, the administrative complaint, as amended, was issued. That prompted this proceeding. The State of the Industry and Williams in 1984-86 Before discussing the specific charges, it is appropriate to describe the industry conditions and practices as they existed in 1984-86. These were established without contradiction by expert witness Beverly. It is within this broad framework that Williams operated when the transactions in question occurred. The expert's bottom line conclusion, after reviewing the nine customers' files, was that no impropriety had occurred. The agent-customer interface normally begins when a customer visits an insurance agent to purchase a policy. The agent will generally get a rate quotation by telephone from a managing general agent (MGA) who brokers policies on behalf of various insurance companies. An MGA may more accurately be described as a branch office of the insurance company under contract. If the rate quoted by the MGA to the agent is acceptable to a customer, the agent has the applicant complete an application and pay the quoted premium, or at least make a down payment on the same. The application and premium are then forwarded by the agent to the MGA for risk review to determine if the applicant meets underwriting requirements. At the same time, the agent will issue a binder to the customer which evidences temporary coverage until the application is accepted or rejected by the insurance company. In the event coverage is later declined, industry practice dictates that the agent obtain coverage with another company as soon as possible since the agent has the responsibility to maintain coverage on a customer. However, what constitutes a reasonable period of time to do so was not disclosed. In obtaining new coverage, the agent need not have the customer execute a new application since the validity of the original application is not affected. The customer should, however, be notified at the earliest convenient time that coverage is with a different company. In some cases, a customer may choose to finance his premium through a premium finance company. If he does, the finance company pays the entire premium to the MGA or insurer when application is made, and the customer pays the amount owed (plus a finance charge) to the finance company through installment payments over an agreed period of time. If for some reason an application is not accepted by the insurer, it is the responsibility of the MGA or insurer to so notify the premium finance company and return the money. The finance company must then refund any money paid by the insured. When the events herein occurred, it was established through expert testimony that the Florida insurance marketplace was in a "chaotic" condition and could be described as a "zoo." During this time, a small agent such as Williams might find herself doing business with as many as fifteen different MGAs, each with a different set of rules. Thus, it was common for an agent to be confused as to her binding authority with a particular MGA and whether the proper amount of coverage was obtained. Moreover, because of the chaotic marketplace, it became increasingly difficult to find companies who would write coverage on certain types of policies. It was further established that in 1984-1986 the MGAs were "overflowed with work" thereby causing delays of up to "months" for an agent to learn from an MGA if the risk had been accepted and a policy issued. Applications and checks were also lost or misplaced by the MGA and carrier during this time period. Consequently, the agent would think that coverage had been obtained, and so advise the customer, but would later learn that the application had been rejected, or the company had no record of one ever being filed. There were also lengthy delays in MGAs and insurance companies returning unearned premiums to the agent for repayment to the customers. According to industry practice, once a refund is received by an agent, checks to customers would typically be issued only once a month. In Williams' case, she made refunds on the twenty-fifth day of each month. A further prohibition on an agent is that a refund can be paid to a customer only after the agent receives the refund check from the insurance company or MGA. In other words, refunds from an agent's own funds are prohibited. As a result of this confusion, the number of occasions when an agent was cited for an error or omission (E&O) went up "astronomically." Indeed, industry statistics tell us that one in six insurance agents has a claim filed against his E&O policy for failure to provide coverage as promised. For this reason, no reasonable agent, including Williams, would do business without an E&O policy. When the policies in question were sold, Williams had approximately 4,000 active and inactive files in her office. Her office help was mainly persons with no prior training in insurance, and who only stayed on the job for a matter of weeks or months. Consequently, there was some confusion and disarray in her two offices. Even so, Williams was responsible for the conduct of her employees. At the same time, however, it was not unreasonable for Williams to assume that, due to the overload of work on the MOAs, an agent could expect no action on an application to be taken by an MGA or carrier for many months, and that applications and checks might be misplaced or lost. Count I This count involves an allegation that Williams violated nine sections of the Insurance Code in conjunction with the sale of a boat insurance policy to David and Margaret Copeland on September 19, 1984. The evidence reflects that Margaret Copeland applied for insurance on her boat with Mr. Auto on or about September 19, 1984. Copeland had previously been turned down for insurance by several other local agents. After Williams received a telephonic quote of $168 per year from an MGA, and relayed this advice to Copeland, Copeland gave a $30 check as a down payment on her policy. The remaining premium was paid by two partial payments made on October 6 and November 7, 1984, respectively. Copeland was issued a binder to evidence her insurance coverage, and a receipt for the $30 down payment. The binder indicated that Barnett Bank was the loss payee and that coverage was with "Professional." In actuality, "Professional" was Professional Underwriters Insurance Agency, Inc. (Professional), an MOA in Altamonte Springs for various insurance companies doing business in the state. According to Williams, the application and check were forwarded to Professional shortly after the application was executed. Because the boat was being financed with Barnett Bank, and the lender required evidence of insurance, Copeland instructed Mr. Auto to furnish a copy of the policy to the bank. A copy of the binder was furnished by Williams to the bank on November 19, 1984, and again on December 7, 1984. However, after Margaret Copeland did not receive a copy of a policy, she contacted Mr. Auto on several occasions to obtain a copy but was given "excuses" why one had not been issued. At this point Williams simply believed Professional was "dragging its feet" since past experience had taught her Professional typically took three to four months to forward a copy of the policy. Nonetheless, in response to Copeland's requests, Williams wrote Professional on December 3, 1984, asking that it "please check on the (Copelands') boat policy which was written 9-19-84" because the lienholder needed a copy. Professional did not respond to Williams' request. After no policy was received, Margaret Copeland contacted Professional's office in Altamonte Springs by telephone and learned no policy had been issued by that firm. The Copelands then requested Mr. Auto to cancel their policy on March 12, 1985, and demanded a full refund of their premium. After having the Copelands execute a notice of cancellation, the same was forwarded by Williams to Professional with a note reading "Karen, check this out and see what is happening," together with a copy of her previous request that Professional check on the whereabouts of the policy. Again, Professional did not respond to this inquiry. Williams then telephoned Professional and spoke to its office manager seeking advice on the amount of refund due the Copelands. She was told to make a proration. On May 19, 1985, Williams offered David Copeland a partial refund ($89) of his premium but he declined. This amount of refund was based on Williams' belief that coverage existed from September 18, 1984, when she received a quotation, until March 12, 1985, or for approximately six months, and $59 represented the remaining unearned premium. Given the climate of the industry at that time, it was reasonable for Williams to make such an assumption. After Copeland declined her offer, Williams wrote Professional seeking further assistance and stating that "Insured was in here today, wanted his refund. I tried to prorate it and give it to him." Again, Williams received no formal reply from the MGA. To date, a policy has not been produced. Williams eventually refunded the entire premium to the Copelands in February 1987. Through testimony from a Professional representative, it was established that Williams had no binding authority with Professional except on homeowners and dwelling fire policies. On all others, including the type the Copelands desired, it was necessary for the agent to first telephone Professional and receive a "telephone bind" from a Professional representative. In a letter to petitioner dated August 7, 1985, Professional acknowledged that there was "a possibility this risk may have been quoted," but it could find no record of an application having been filed or verification of coverage bound through a binder number or cashed check. It did acknowledge receiving the Copelands' request to cancel their policy in March 1985. If a binder had been authorized, it would have been recorded in a binder book with a number assigned to that binder unless the company lost the policy or otherwise inadvertently failed to record this information. The representative also confirmed that Professional routinely brokered this type of policy in 1984, and that it binds several thousand policies per year. Given this volume of work, the representative acknowledged it was possible that Williams or an employee of her firm may have been given a telephone quote for the Copeland policy, or that the application could have been misplaced. C. Count III On June 19, 1985, William C. Norton, a retired railroad conductor, went to Mr. Auto to purchase an insurance policy for two automobiles. After being quoted an annual premium of $315 by an MGA (Jergen & Roberts), Williams gave this advice to Norton who then gave her a check in that amount. Norton was given a receipt and a binder to evidence his coverage. The binder reflected Norton's application had been placed with "Foremost," which is Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost) in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Williams forwarded the application to the MGA but it was later returned unbound because of several traffic violations by Norton. She then "shopped" the application around and was able to procure a policy from Orion Insurance Company (Orion) through Standard Underwriters, an MGA, at an estimated cost of $528.70 instead of the previously quoted rate of $315 per year. It should be noted that during this period of time, Norton was covered through binders executed by Williams. After Williams paid the amount ($528.70) due the MGA, a policy number (PA-102390) was issued. However, through "neglect" Williams never billed Norton for the difference between the originally quoted premium and the $528. After Orion reviewed Norton's driving record, it increased the annual premium to $622. When Williams received a bill for $622 per year, she sent Norton a notice on October 24, 1985, requesting an additional $144. 2/ When he refused, the policy was cancelled by the company for nonpayment in February 1986. By this time, Norton had gone to another company to obtain coverage. He had also requested from Williams a copy of his policy on four or five occasions but one was never produced. Norton also demanded a full refund of his money even though he had been covered by binders and a policy from June 1985 until February 1986, and was not entitled to a refund. When Williams refused, Norton filed an action in small claims court in February 1986, and won an uncontested judgment for $315. Williams stated she did not contest the matter because of several stressful events then occurring (e.g., a divorce and an employee theft) and the expense of hiring legal counsel. Mobile Home Division of Florida (MHD) is an MGA in Fort Lauderdale that reviews applications for automobile insurance with Foremost (and others), and determines if the applicant meets Foremost's underwriting requirements. It is one of five MGAs in the State representing Foremost. A representative of MHD reviewed his firm's records, and found no evidence of having received the Norton application. However, this was not surprising since Williams had not used MHD to obtain Norton's policy. Count VI Terryl J. Wisener is a college student with numerous traffic violations on his record. Because of this, he was forced to obtain automobile insurance through the Florida Joint Underwriters Association (FJUA), a small group of companies who write policies for high risk drivers such as Wisener. Insurance agents are "assigned" to one of the companies writing policies, even though they are not a regular agent of that company. Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) happened to be a servicing carrier for FJUA in 1986, and Williams accordingly filed FJUA applications with that carrier when seeking insurance for high-risk customers. Under then existing rules, Williams could temporarily "bind" Allstate by writing a binder on a policy, but approval of the application and issuance of permanent coverage rested with Allstate. Until the application was rejected by Allstate, the driver was insured through the binder. During this same time period, it was "commonplace" for an FJUA carrier to return an application because of an "insignificant error" to avoid having to write a policy on a high-risk customer. On December 30, 1985, Wisener purchased a six-month automobile insurance policy through Williams. When the policy was due to expire on June 30, 1986, he returned seeking a renewal. Williams attempted to place the liability coverage with Allstate and the physical damage coverage through "Coastal," an MGA for Adriatic Insurance Company. She was quoted premiums of $996.70 and $814.70, respectively, for the two policies. After accepting a down payment of $552 from Wisener, she issued a binder and mailed the application to Allstate and Coastal with drafts for the entire premiums due. Because Wisener's Chevrolet Camaro was an eight-cylinder automobile, Coastal rejected the application in October 1986. Williams then attempted to replace the physical damage coverage with Allstate in November 1986. By virtue of Williams' binding authority, Wisener had coverage with Allstate until it rejected his application. The application, along with about fifty or sixty others, was eventually rejected by Allstate on February 27, 1987, because of a lack of "information." Until this occurred, Williams properly assumed that Wisener was covered and that Allstate was reviewing his application. In the meantime, and apparently without advising Williams, Wisener decided in October 1986 to purchase a policy through his parents' Allstate insurance agent in Port St. Lucie. He did so because he "believed" he had no insurance. However, he never made inquiry with Williams to confirm or deny this, or asked for a refund of his money. A representative of Allstate searched his firm's records and could find no evidence that a policy was ever written for Wisener through Williams. The company does acknowledge that it received Wisener's application and that it eventually returned the same "unbound" almost four months later. It gave no explanation for the delay. Although Wisener had not received a refund as of the time of hearing, this responsibility rests with Allstate (and not Williams) since it has never refunded to Williams the money paid by her for Wisener's policy. Count VII This count concerns a mobile home insurance policy purchased by Samuel and Mary Jo Moore in June 1985 from FIA. On June 25, 1985, Mary Jo Moore made application to renew her insurance policy on the mobile home. The policy had been in force for some ten years. Moore paid Williams $118 by check which was deposited and cashed by Williams. A check for $23 was also paid at a later date due to a premium increase. Williams issued Moore a binder evidencing coverage with Mobile Home Insurance Association (MHIA), an MGA in Gainesville, Florida. Shortly afterward, Williams learned from the MGA that the Moores' previous carrier, American Pioneer, had gone bankrupt and that there was a limited market for the Moores' application. Williams thereafter forwarded the application to another MGA, Jerger & Sons, Inc. (Jerger), in early August 1985. Temporary coverage was eventually issued by Jerger on August 23, 1985. However, the application was deemed to be incomplete because information regarding the number of spaces in the Moores' trailer park was lacking. This was not surprising since the Moores lived on private property and not in a trailer park. The application was returned to Williams with a reminder that unless the missing information was submitted to Jerger by September 6, 1985, coverage would be terminated. When no information was filed by that date, Jerger cancelled its coverage and returned the unbound policy on September 12, 1985. The Moores were not notified of this lapse in coverage. By allowing the coverage to lapse, and not notifying the Moores, Williams was negligent in her duties as an agent. After Jerger returned the application to Williams in late August 1985, Williams attempted to get the Moores to furnish photographs of the trailer site, and to sign the new application. Because both worked at jobs during business hours, Williams claimed she was unable to reach them prior to September 6, 1985. Williams continued her efforts to place the insurance and eventually filed the application with Foremost in March 1986. Although Williams concedes a lapse in coverage did occur, there is no evidence that this was an intentional or debilitate act on her part. After having the application returned twice, coverage was finally obtained for $201 in July 1986, or almost a year after the Moores first approached her concerning a renewal of their policy. This policy is effective through July 1987. Williams paid out of her own funds the difference between the original premium ($141) and the $201. In view of the original premium being applied to the 1986-87 premium, the Moores are not due a refund. On October 31, 1985, a tornado struck in the Okeechobee area causing damage to the Moores' trailer. The Moores contacted respondent who, at her own expense, had an adjuster from Vero Beach survey the damage in November. The adjuster learned no coverage was in force. The Moores then contacted respondent who, for some reason, had Jerger search for a policy. As might be expected, none was found, and Jerger would not agree to cover the loss. Williams instructed the Copelands to proceed against her E&O carrier for payment of their claim. At the time of final hearing, the claim had not yet been resolved. Count VIII On or about February 19, 1986, William A. McClellan, a retiree, purchased an automobile insurance policy from FIA. He paid $201 by check to Williams and received from her a receipt and binder evidencing coverage with "AIB" (Associated Insurance Brokers), the MGA for Balboa Insurance Company in Newport Beach, California. After the application was forwarded to AIB, it was initially returned because the agency check was drawn on insufficient funds. Thereafter, the check was made good (with no lapse in coverage) and Williams subsequently received a bill from Balboa for $247, or $46 more than she had previously quoted McClellan. When McClellan was presented the bill for an additional premium on May 1, 1986, McClellan told Williams to cancel his policy and to refund the unearned premium. She relayed this request to AIB and coverage was cancelled effective June 13, 1986. Thereafter, McClellan visited Williams' office at least seven or eight times seeking his refund, but was always told it was still being processed. This was a correct representation by Williams since AIB was less than diligent in processing a refund check. McClellan also filed a complaint with petitioner. Upon inquiry by petitioner, Williams advised the Department that McClellan would be paid as soon as AIB issued her a check. On or about July 29, 1986, AIB finally cut a check in the amount of $91.22 payable to Williams, and eventually issued a second check in the amount of $25.38 on October 1, 1986. The delay in issuing the checks was attributable to AIB and not Williams. After Williams received the first check, she offered McClellan a partial refund of $91.22 but he declined the offer. On October 10, 1986, or the day after Williams received the second check by mail, a representative of AIB flew by private plane to Okeechobee and obtained $133 in cash from Williams, who by then had received the second check from AIB. 3/ The representative paid McClellan the same day. Count IX On or about March 16, 1985, Luther B. Starnes purchased an insurance policy for his two automobiles from Mr. Auto for which he paid $473 by four installments over the next few months. After Williams received a telephone bind, Starnes was issued a binder evidencing insurance with a company called "Integrity." He also received a "Florida Vehicle Identification Card" evidencing PIP and liability coverage on his vehicles. In this case, Williams placed the coverage by telephone with AIB, the MGA for Integrity, which authorized her to temporarily bind the coverage. The application and check were thereafter sent by Williams to the MGA. After not receiving a policy by the fall of 1985, Starnes telephoned a district office of Integrity and learned his name was not on its computer. However, he did not contact Williams after that, or ask for a refund of his premium. Despite the accusation that Williams had no basis to believe that a policy had ever been issued by Integrity, an AIB representative confirmed at hearing that Starnes' application and premium had been received by AIB, and that AIB had issued a policy number covering Starnes. Indeed, respondent's exhibit 10 reflects that Integrity cashed the check, and simultaneously placed a sticker on the check which read "Integrity Insurance Co. Private Passenger Auto 100-FAB- 0206809." This indicated that AIB had assigned a policy number on behalf of Integrity and that Starnes' coverage was in effect. Indeed, Williams properly relied upon her cancelled check in believing that Starnes was insured. Moreover, it was appropriate for Starnes to pay for this coverage until Integrity formally rejected his application. Although Starnes never received a copy of a policy, the responsibility to issue one rested upon MGA or Integrity, but not Williams. Count X On or about July 11, 1986, David and Carolyn Douglas purchased an insurance policy for two trucks owned by David. The policy cost $1300 per year and Carolyn paid Williams this amount by check. A binder was given to Carolyn reflecting coverage through Dana Roerig and Associates (Roerig), an MGA in St. Petersburg for Canal Insurance Company (Canal). Under the MGA's then existing policy, it was necessary for Williams to forward the application to Roerig and request a rate quotation. After receipt of the application Roerig would normally telephone the agent, quote a rate, and then bind if the rate was acceptable. In this case, the quoted rate was unsatisfactory, and Roerig returned the application unbound on August 10, 1986. Williams then attempted to place the coverage through an MGA in Lakeland (E&S Agency). However, Williams was quoted a rate on September 25 which she knew was too expensive. After obtaining the second excessive quote, Williams immediately bound coverage with Allstate and forwarded the Douglas application to that carrier with an agency check on September 25, 1986. Because Allstate accepted only money orders or cashiers checks, and the application was undated, the application and check were returned by Allstate to Williams on October 7. Williams then sent Allstate a dated application and a money order in the amount of $1500, or $200 more than the original Douglas policy required. Although Allstate did not formally issue a policy, it assigned the Douglas application a policy number on December 15, 1986, and simultaneously issued a refund check for $121 to Douglas, since the policy cost $1,179 and not $1,300 as had been originally quoted to Carolyn Douglas. Therefore, at that point the coverage remained in effect. On December 23 Allstate issued another refund check to Douglas in the amount of $776 and advised it was cancelling coverage effective February 6, 1987. Allstate later returned the remainder of the $1,300 owed David and Carolyn Douglas. Therefore, even though they had coverage for some six months through various binders and the policy itself, the Douglases paid no premium. Although Carolyn Douglas made several attempts to obtain a copy of the policy, Williams could not produce one since the two MGAs and Allstate had held the application almost continuously for six months. It is noted that Allstate has never repaid Williams the $1500 sent by her with the Douglas application in October, 1986. Count XI Francis Carr is a locktender on Lake Okeechobee whose duties require him to open and close the locks. The job is subject to bids, and all bidders must have evidence of general liability insurance. Desiring to submit a bid, Carr purchased a one-year general liability policy from Mr. Auto on September 20, 1985, and paid Williams $540.75 for the coverage. Carr received a copy of a policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) on a later date. On April 15, 1986, Carr asked that his policy be cancelled. This was done the next day. Carr was due a $181 refund as unearned premium. Through no fault of Williams, the refund check was not issued by Scottsdale until October 21, 1986, or some six months later. Williams later endorsed the check without recourse to a local dress shop. In July 1986, Carr again bid on the locktender job, and, through his wife, made application on July 7 for a new policy so that he could submit a bid. Although the annual premium had now increased to approximately $1,500 per year, Mrs. Carr paid only a $215 down payment. Under this type of policy, Carr was responsible for thirty-five percent of the entire year's premium even if he cancelled the policy after one day. Therefore, the policy had a minimum cost of $525 regardless of its term. Because he had not paid this minimum amount, Williams applied Carr's $181 refund check from the prior year to the minimum amount owed. This was consistent with the industry practice of agents applying credit refunds to new policies of this nature. She also paid $85 from her own funds in early October 1986 to meet the thirty-five percent threshold amount. By then, however, Carr had instructed another employee to cancel his policy since his bid had not been accepted. When he didn't get a refund from the prior year, Carr filed a complaint with petitioner. However, Carr is not entitled to a refund from either year since he still owes Williams $85 for the 1986-87 policy, even after the 1985-86 refund is applied to the second policy. I. Count XII Frank I. Henry and Margaret J. Henry (no relation) lived together in a rented mobile home in 1984. Margaret purchased a policy on the mobile home contents from Mr. Auto in July 1984. She paid Williams a $40 premium, and then made three payments of $47.28 each to Envoy Finance Corporation (Envoy), a Deerfield Beach finance company which financed the balance of the amount owed. Margaret received a binder from Williams reflecting coverage with Mobile Homes Division (MHD), an MGA in Fort Lauderdale Envoy submitted a check for $118.50 to MHD on July 16, 1984, reflecting full payment for the policy. After forwarding the application to MHD, Williams assumed Henry had coverage through American Fidelity Company (AFC), a company which later went out of business that fall. According to MHD, however, the application should have been returned to Williams a few days after it was received because it had no insurance company writing those types of policies. Williams denied receiving the application, and MHD had no record of the application being returned. Williams' version is corroborated by the fact that MHD never advised Envoy that the policy had been returned, something MHD should have done if coverage was rejected. Moreover, MHD has never refunded the $118.50 paid by Envoy in July 1984. According to uncontradicted expert testimony, it is the responsibility of the MGA or carrier to advise the finance company of a coverage denial, and to make a refund to the finance company, which then makes a refund to the customer. Therefore, MHD or AFC, but not Williams, is at fault for not refunding Henry's money. Around April 20, 1985, Frank's mobile home was damaged by a fire. His claim was rejected by MHD since it had no record of coverage. Prior to this time, no request for a copy of the policy had been made by Henry, and Williams properly assumed that Henry's coverage was in effect. Williams has since notified her E&O carrier of a possible liability. As of the time of hearing, Henry's claim was still unpaid and he has not received a refund of his premium from MHD, AFC or Envoy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of a single violation of Subsection 626.621(6), Florida Statutes (1985), and that all other charges be dismissed. Respondent should be given a reprimand for this violation. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of May 1987.
