Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondents Richard Elliott Templin, Jr., was qualified for licensure as a general lines agent and as a life and health insurance agent in Florida and represented the Okeechobee Insurance Agency, (OIA), located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is currently eligible for licensure as a general lines agent and as a health and life insurance agent in Florida. RAVEN MILLER In March, 1984, Raven Miller applied for and was issued automobile insurance by OIA. She contacted that agency among others and found that it quoted her the cheapest price for the coverage she wanted, coverage sufficient to protect her and the finance company from loss. During the application process, she signed several forms provided to her by the agent who briefly discussed her coverage with her but did not advise her it would include life insurance or accidental death insurance. When she initially went into the office to renew the policy, she asked for coverage on the vehicle but did not desire anything else. The employee with whom she talked indicated understanding of her desires and filled out the required paperwork for her without asking any other questions of her. When the paperwork was completed, Ms. Miller was told that the premium cost would be $347.00 for which she gave a check and received a receipt, plus $110.00 for a term life insurance policy. She was not told that that this latter coverage was separate from the automobile coverage. Ms. Miller filled out nothing during the application process. All the documents were filled out by the clerk. The application form was completely filled out except for her signature when she signed it. It reflected that uninsured motorist coverage was rejected but Ms. Miller was not asked by anyone at the agency if she desired that coverage. When she inquired about deductibles, she was advised there was a mandatory $250.00 deductible and though she is reflected to have rejected bodily injury coverage, this was not discussed with her, either. The only form that Ms. Miller filled out personally was the pink application to Fortune Insurance Company, (Fortune), on which she identified her "beneficiary." This form was not explained to her, however, nor was there any discussion with her of life insurance coverage. Ms. Miller, who works with the Post Office, has $140,000 in life insurance coverage through her job and had she known she was being offered additional life insurance coverage, would have rejected it. When Ms. Miller signed the summary of coverage form, it was completely filled out. The lady with whom she was dealing briefly went over the various items on it but did not discuss them with her or explained anything to her. The confirmation form which she signed was filled out prior to being given to her for signature. The explanation regarding it was brief and she was not advised that life insurance coverage was optional. The life insurance premium was not forwarded by OIA to the company. She did not receive a policy from either Fortune Life or ATA. At no time during her dealings with OIA did she meet or deal with Respondent and she does not know him nor would she recognize him. When she sold her car in March, 1985, Ms. Miller cancelled the policy in person at the agency at which time she was advised that her refund would come in the mail. Even after numerous contacts with the agency to inquire where the refund was, it was not given to her. At no time during her dealings with OIA was she aware of the fact that she was applying for an accidental death policy. All she asked for, all she wanted, and all she thought she was getting was auto insurance sufficient to cover her, her bank, and others with whom she might have an accident in the event of loss. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Miller signed an acknowledgment of explanation both at the time of the original policy and and the time of renewal, the explanation in both cases was extremely brief. She asked no questions to speak of and no information was volunteered. In short, at the time of renewal the agency merely renewed the prior coverage. They did not show her what they were comparing with. She assumes that the figures were the same as for the original policy and she assumed that whatever she got was a standard coverage and charge to every applicant. Ms. Miller was satisfied with the coverage she received and the package she purchased. Her complaint to the Department of Insurance related to the failure to receive her refund not to the sale of the insurance to her. In fact, at the time she filed her complaint, she did not even know that she had a life insurance policy. DENNIS AND ALETA NELSON Dennis Nelson, who has worked for the Post Office for approximately 10 years, on or about March 21, 1985 went to the OIA because, having spoken with Respondent over the phone, and having gotten a quote for "full coverage" on his automobiles from him, he liked the price. Mr. Nelson dealt with Respondent who took down the particulars on the cars to be covered, then went to his rate books, and quoted a price to Mr. Nelson which was satisfactory. In doing so, he laid out the explanation of coverage form and indicated what coverage the Nelsons would have. In the course of the application process, there was no discussion of the limits of liability insurance, uninsured motorist Coverage, deductibles, or life insurance. When the paperwork was completed, Mr. Nelson signed the applications for insurance given to him and a premium finance agreement. Respondent explained to Mr. Nelson the application for life insurance and gave him the impression that it was mandatory. It was made mandatory by the company that a customer buy the whole package, but it was not mandatory under the state requirements. The failure to make this distinction is misleading and deceptive. Mr. Nelson never received any policies from any of the companies from whom he was supposed to have received coverage, though he made his premium payments. By the same token, the company did not receive Nelson's premiums from the agency and, therefore, did not issue a policy. Approximately three months after the coverage went into effect, OIA notified the Nelsons that the cost of coverage on their Blazer would be raised by more than $200 for the year. Mr. Nelson made the initial inquiry call to the company writing this coverage but he was poorly treated by company representatives and got no information. Thereafter, Mrs. Nelson went to OIA's Okeechobee Boulevard office and spoke with Respondent who indicated he could not understand it either. Nonetheless, she paid a part of the increase, ($110.00), at the time in cash. The Nelsons checked with other companies and were quoted lower prices. Because OIA could not explain the raise, they went to the Petitioner's local office where they were told that the life insurance coverage they had purchased was not mandatory. As a result, they decided to cancel their coverage with OIA which Mrs. Nelson did in person. When she attempted to fill out the cancellation form, she was told by an agency employee that she could not cancel the life insurance portion only her husband could do that. Mr. Nelson thereafter attempted to reach the Respondent to discuss this situation with him but could never seem to get in touch with him. Mr. Nelson felt he got repeated run arounds from the employees at OIA and was repeatedly referred to the Lake Worth office. When they ultimately received the refund from OIA, it was dishonored and thereafter, the Nelsons were reimbursed for it in cash. ROBERT M. ANDERSON Mr. Anderson, an employee of Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Corporation in West Palm Beach, purchased automobile insurance from OIA in July, 1985. He selected that agency because they offered him the best price for the coverage which he had told them he wanted, which was "the minimum necessary to satisfy state and bank requirements." During the course of his negotiations with the agency, he dealt with an individual known to him as "Rich" but though Respondent looks familiar to him, he cannot identify Respondent as that individual. He advised the individual with whom he dealt what kind of car he had, (a Porche 911), his age, and that he wanted the best deal he could get. In response, the individual gave him a quotation for a 12 month policy which was too high for his budget. He asked for a quote on the rate for 6 months which was quoted to him as $1,816.00, for which he wrote a check. Mr. Anderson thereafter filled out an application package for coverage. The summary of coverage form was not discussed with him in detail. For example, the $2,000 deductible of PIP coverage was not discussed nor were any details or deductibles on other coverages. Accidental death coverage was not discussed with him nor did he request it. He recognizes his signature on certain documents and does not dispute having signed them. However, he does not recall any discussion about them nor does he recall signing a power of attorney form or even discussing the need to have one signed. There was no discussion with Mr. Anderson regarding life insurance coverage and in fact, he would have declined it had it been discussed because he was fully covered through his company's group policy. Mr. Anderson was not prevented from asking questions but did not do so because he did not know what questions to ask. He was given the opportunity to read the forms but did not review them in detail because he did not understand them then and does not understand them now. He did not, however, indicate that he did not understand. Because he had 9 points on his driver's record, he did not ask many questions. He was grateful to get any coverage and did not feel it was appropriate to take the time, as busy as Respondent appeared to be, to ask questions. It was his understanding that everything he got was a part of the "total package" that he requested. Mr. Anderson had no complaint about the coverage that he received. His complaint to the Petitioner was based on his failure to secure a prompt refund from the agency at the time he desired to cancel the coverage, and it was at this time, in discussing the matter with the Commissioner's office, that he first learned he had life and other undesired coverages as a part of his auto insurance package. He has, however, subsequently received the refund requested. All of the individuals referenced above received and paid for as a part of their insurance coverage, membership in an automobile motor club. On policies of this nature, the selling agency retains 90 percent of the premium and remits only 10 percent to the insurer. The motor club membership included a life insurance policy issued by Fortune Life. None of the persons involved with Respondent here knew they were buying either life insurance, accidental death insurance, or motor club membership. All had asked for "total" coverage, desiring thereby only that coverage necessary to operator a motor vehicle legally in this state. Neither life insurance, accidental death insurance, nor motor club coverage is a requirement of the state for the operation of a motor vehicle. It is not unlawful for an insurance agency to make those coverages a necessary part of a package and condition the issuance of liability, property damage, and PIP coverage upon the purchase of a total package including the other. What is improper, however, is a failure on the part of the agency to disclose that the life, accidental death, and motor club coverages are not a part of the insurance requirements of the state and the failure to disclose this is the nexus of the offense alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years and that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $2,500.00. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For Petitioner 1-4 Accepted and incorporated herein. 5-7 Accepted and incorporated herein. 8 Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-16 Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-18 Accepted and incorporated herein. 19 Accepted and incorporated herein. 20 Accepted but irrelevant. 21 Accepted and incorporated herein. 22 Accepted. 23-26 Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. 28 Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 Accepted but irrelevant. 30 Accepted and incorporated herein. 31&32 Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 Accepted and incorporated herein. 34 Rejected as unproven. Witness never identified Respondent as the individual with whom he dealt. In the remaining paragraph rulings, it is assumed only that Respondent was involved. 35&36 Accepted and incorporated herein. 37-39 Accepted and incorporated herein. 40&41 Accepted and incorporated herein. 42&43 Accepted. For Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted not as a Finding of Fact but as a recitation of the evidence, Accepted in substance. Paragraph is long and involved. See 3 above. See 3 above. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Office of Legal Services Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 David W. Spicer, Esquire Tammy J. Kissell, Esquire NCNB Tower, Suite 910 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2363 =================================================================
The Issue Did Mr. Carter violate sections 627.4554(4)(a), 627.4554(4)(c)2., 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2006, 2009, 2010); section 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2006, 2010); sections 626.9541(1)(k)2., 626.9541(1)(l), and 626.9521(2), Florida Statutes (2009, 2010); section 626.621(9), Florida Statutes (2010); and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B-215.210? If so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Legislature has vested the Department with the authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. § 20.121(2)(g) and (h)1.d., Fla. Stat. (2011). At all times material to his proceeding, Mr. Carter was licensed by the Department as a Florida life (including variable annuity) agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life insurance agent (2-16) and life and health agent (2-18). He has been appointed as an agent for several different life insurance companies, including Allianz, EquiTrust and Great American, but not RiverSource. Counts I through V--W.K. and J.K. 2006, J.K. and W.K., and the MasterDex 10 J.K. was born in 1937 in Madrid Spain, where she finished high school. Spanish is J.K.'s native tongue. She cannot write in English and does not speak or understand English well. When J.K. was 17, she met W.K., a member of the United States' armed services. They married in Spain. Six months after the marriage, the newlyweds moved to Brooklyn, New York, W.K.'s home. They later relocated to Florida. W. K. constructed a mall in New Port Richey containing 18 stores that included a restaurant and a frame shop. J.K. ran the frame shop. Wal-Mart eventually bought the mall. By 2006, J.K. and W.K. had accumulated approximately two million dollars in brokerage investments. Until the decline of his health and mental faculties in 2008, W.K. handled all financial matters for the couple. J.K. did not understand them or have any interest in them. In 2006, J.K. and W.K. met Mr. Carter, who began marketing annuities to them. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact, combined with the fact that W.K. had died several years before the hearing, limit the ability to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to J.K. and W.K. or what information or instructions they gave him. On July 25, 2006, W.K. applied for a MasterDex 10 annuity policy from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. He paid an initial premium of $603,470.34 for the policy. W.K. was 73 years old at the time. W.K. obtained the money to fund the policy from the couple's Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Carter knew this. As part of the annuity application process, Mr. Carter submitted an Allianz "Product Suitability Form" for W.K. Completion of the form is a prerequisite to processing the application and issuing the policy. The stated purpose of the form is "to confirm that your [the applicant's] annuity purchase suits your current financial situation and long-term goals." The form, signed by W.K. and Mr. Carter, stated that an annuity was the source of the funds for payment of the annuity's premium. This statement was not accurate. Mr. Carter knew that it was not accurate. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a willful deception by Mr. Carter with regard to the policy. Signing and submitting the application with the suitability form containing this known incorrect statement was a dishonest practice in his conduct of the business of insurance. The suitability form also indicated that W.K. expected the annuity to provide him a steady stream of income in six to nine years. Allianz accepted the application and issued the policy. Mr. Carter received a commission of $66,381.73. The MasterDex 10 is a complex financial product with many difficult to understand restrictions, conditions, interest options, bonuses, penalties, and limitations. The MasterDex 10 that W.K. and J.K. purchased paid interest linked to the performance of the Standard and Poors 500 stock market index. It also guaranteed interest of at least one percent. A "Nursing Home Benefit" was one of the options the MasterDex 10 provided. The "benefit" permitted the policy holder to receive payments of the full "annuitization" value of the policy over a period of five years or more if the holder was confined to a nursing home for 30 out of 35 consecutive days. The "annuitization value" is the maximum value that the policy can reach. It is the total of all payments that would be made to the holder if he either (1) let the premium and interest earned accumulate for a minimum of five contract years and then took ten years of interest only payments, followed by a lump sum payment of the annuitization value or (2) equal payments of principal and interest over ten or more years. Policy holders could make additional premium payments to increase the policy value. The policy also permitted limited withdrawals without penalty. After holding the policy for 12 months after the most recent premium payment, a holder could, without penalty, withdraw up to ten percent of the premium paid once a year until a maximum of 50 percent of the premium had been withdrawn. This meant that after one year passed, W.K. could make five annual withdrawals of $60,347.03. The policy also provided for loans on the annuity. In the years following this transaction, Mr. Carter maintained contact with W.K. and J.K. by periodically asking them to join him at a restaurant for lunch. Decline of W.K.'s Health While visiting his mother in Greece in 2008, W.K. fell and hit his head. Afterwards his health declined. On June 3, 2008, W.K. was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and determined to be unable to make sound financial and medical decisions. From June 2008, forward, J.K. was very worried about W.K.'s health, caring for him, and making him as comfortable as possible. On November 5, 2008, W.K., at Mr. Carter's suggestion, executed a Durable Power of Attorney, prepared for her by a lawyer, giving J.K. broad authority to act on his behalf in financial matters. At some point, W.K. was admitted to the Bear Creek Skilled Nursing Center and resided there for a period of time. On April 4, 2010, he was discharged from Bear Creek. W.K. resided in Bear Creek for a period of time. Although there is some hearsay evidence about when W.K. entered Bear Creek, the evidence does not corroborate direct evidence or hearsay evidence that would be admissible over objection in circuit court, sufficient to prove when W.K. entered Bear Creek. Consequently, the evidence does not establish the length of time that W.K. spent in the facility and does not establish that W.K. would have been eligible for the "Nursing Home Benefit" described in paragraph 16. After W.K. returned home in April, J.K. engaged an enterprise called "Granny Nannies" to provide caretakers at home. The services cost approximately $12,000 per month. During this period J.K.'s health also declined markedly. Among other things, she had appendicitis and breast cancer. Treatment of the cancer required chemotherapy, which left her in pain and exhausted. During this time Mr. Carter obtained a copy of the power of attorney executed by W.K. in favor of J.K. On June 18, 2010, the court appointed Paula Rego as guardian for W.K and J.K. with authority to act on their behalf in all matters affecting property rights. On November 26, 2010, W.K. died in hospice care after a short hospital stay. The Events of 2010 In December 2009, J.K. met with insurance sales agents and sisters Kimberly Trotter and Chandra Valdez. J.K. had responded to a mail solicitation by them. During the meeting, J.K. and Mss. Trotter and Valdez realized that J.K. knew them because J.K. and W.K. had rented space to the sisters' parents. Capitalizing on the connection and J.K.'s concerns about paying the monthly costs of care for W.K., Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez began providing financial advice and marketing annuity products that they sold. They advocated liquidating W.K.'s and J.K.'s existing annuities, including the MasterDex 10. In December 2009, Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez sold W.K. and J.K. two annuities with Great American for approximately $661,098. On January 28, 2010, W.K. authorized J.K. and Ms. Trotter to access policy information. In January 2010, Ms. Trotter attempted to liquidate the MasterDex 10 policy and transfer the funds to Great American. Allianz notified Mr. Carter of this in February 2010. He intervened to stop the transfer. On March 3, 2010, Allianz received another request to liquidate the MasterDex 10 from J.K. Allianz sent her what it calls a "conservation letter." The purpose of the letter is to "conserve" the business with the company. The letter also identified needed information, including a copy of J.K.'s power of attorney for W.K. On March 4, 2010, Allianz notified Mr. Carter of the liquidation request. He contacted J.K. and began a successful effort to obtain a letter asking to reverse the liquidation. On March 17, 2010, Ms. Trotter or Ms. Valdez again convinced J.K. to liquidate the MasterDex 10 funds and transfer them to Great American. Again Mr. Carter acted to stop the liquidation. On March 23, 2010, J.K. signed a letter written by Mr. Carter asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to RiverSource, a company that issued another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was. She only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. On March 26, 2010, J.K. submitted a liquidation request form for the MasterDex 10 signing it on behalf of herself and W.K. J.K. submitted the request at the urging of Ms. Trotter and/or Ms. Valdez. Allianz received the request on March 31, 2010. It began processing the full liquidation of the annuity policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent Allianz a letter saying that J.K. did not want to liquidate W.K.'s MasterDex 10 policy. The letter claimed that this was the second time that competing agents had tried to cancel the policy. Allianz reinstated the policy. On April 1, 2010, Mr. Carter sent a handwritten letter to Great American stating that J.K. did not want the MasterDex 10 policy canceled. The letter refers to having previously provided the power of attorney. Mr. Carter signed the letter. J.K. signed the letter on behalf of W.K. and herself. On April 7, 2010, Great American received a typewritten letter addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" stating that J.K. and W.K. wanted to transfer their funds to Great American since "December and January" and that J.K. did not see Mr. Carter on April 1 and did not sign a letter that he sent. On April 9, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote and sent a letter, signed by J.K. at his request, asking Great American to cancel the policies sold by Ms. Trotter and Ms. Valdez and waive all surrender charges. The letter states that J.K. is fighting cancer and that the agents forced her to sign the policy documents. Mr. Carter included with the letter a Withdrawal/Surrender Request Form completed by him and signed by J.K. On April 23, 2010, Mr. Carter wrote a letter to Allianz stating that J.K. needed more than ten percent of the value of the MasterDex 10 policy (the penalty-free withdrawal permitted) to provide the funds needed to take care of W.K. The letter states that W.K. and J.K. wished to change ownership of the policy to J.K. only and then to fully surrender the policy. Mr. Carter's letter is signed by J.K. on her behalf and on behalf of W.K. Mr. Carter enclosed forms with the same date, which he prepared for J.K.'s signature, requesting the change of ownership and liquidation. Allianz sent J.K. a letter, with a copy to Mr. Carter, on April 29, 2010, identifying alternatives to liquidating MasterDex 10 for getting the money needed to care for W.K. The Allianz letter also disclosed that liquidating the policy would result in a substantial loss of money. In part, the letter stated: We understand you wish to surrender your annuity policy. As we review your request, we want to be certain you are aware of all the alternatives that are available to you. This information can help you make an informed decision based on your best financial interests. It is possible for you to access a portion of your policy's value while your policy remains in deferral. This would allow its value to continue to grow tax-deferred, and still provide the cash you need. Your annuity may permit you to take a free withdrawal, policy loan, or partial surrender. Finally, it's important to realize exactly how much you will be giving up should you decide to fully surrender your policy. Your policy's current Accumulation Value is $751,566.07 and its Surrender Value is $585,014.49. By surrendering your policy now, you are giving up the difference between these two values [$166,551.58]. Any one of these options could provide you with needed cash while allowing you to receive your full accumulation value in cash after your policy's 10-year surrender charge period. The letter provided a ten-day period, called a conservation period, during which J.K. could withdraw her request to liquidate the policy. Mr. Carter called Allianz on April 30, 2010, and spoke to Amber Hendrickson. In the recording of the conversation, Mr. Carter sounds agitated and speaks forcefully. J.K. participated in the telephone call. She is quiet and deferential. In the call, J.K. waives the ten-day "conservation" period. Mr. Carter insists that Allianz process the surrender swiftly. Allianz processed the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 on April 30, 2010. It wired funds from the liquidated annuity to J.K.'s Regions Bank account the same day. On April 30, 2010, J.K. signed a check for $475,000 to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company to purchase an annuity. Mr. Carter wrote the check. Also on April 30, 2010, J.K. signed an EquiTrust annuity application completed by Mr. Carter. The form indicates that the policy is not replacing an existing annuity contract. This is not an accurate representation. On April 30, 2010, Mr. Carter also completed an Annuity Suitability Questionnaire for J.K. to sign and submit with the EquiTrust application. He indicated that J.K. had income from a pension. Mr. Carter knew that this was not accurate. Mr. Carter also indicated that J.K.'s income was adequate to cover all expenses, including medical. He knew this was not accurate because he was fully aware of the cost of W.K.'s caregivers and J.K.'s concern about them. The form, as completed by Mr. Carter, is misleading about the source of the funds for purchase of the annuity. He made the technically correct representation that the funds come from a checking account. But the funds were from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 and were placed in the checking account the same day the application was completed. The funds were actually from the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. The form also stated that the proposed annuity would not replace any product. Mr. Carter knew this was not accurate also. He knew that the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10, albeit in a lower amount, because J.K. kept some cash and lost a good deal of money in surrender costs. A letter Mr. Carter sent to EquiTrust on August 16, 2010, when it was investigating complaints about J.K.'s purchase of the annuity, demonstrates that he knew the EquiTrust annuity was replacing the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter's letter described the surrender and purchase this way: "An amount of $475,000 was placed into the EquiTrust Annuity (Market Power Bonus Index's Fixed account), the remaining balance of $110,038.75 was sent to her checking account, plus two other accounts valued at $50,000 that were closed, and a Jefferson National check that wasn't cashed for $3,500." Also, on April 23, 2010, J.K. signed, on behalf of herself and W.K., a Surrender/Withdrawal Request to RiverSource asking for the full withdrawal of the net accumulation value of their annuity contract with RiverSource. RiverSource sent J.K. a check for $26,430.07. It deducted $2,158.32 for a withdrawal charge and $295.98 for a "rider charge" from the full value of $28,884.37. On May 5, 2010, EquiTrust received J.K.'s policy application documents and check. EquiTrust required additional documents including a financial needs analysis form. Mr. Carter sought an exception to the requirement for a financial needs analysis form. He did not receive the exception. On May 6, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust the required financial needs analysis form. He completed the form for J.K., who was 72 at the time. J.K. also signed this form. The form repeats some of the incorrect statements of the previous forms. It is also includes additional incorrect statements. The instructions for the section about "Replacements" states, "complete if an existing life insurance policy or annuity contract will be used to fund this product." Mr. Carter checked "no" as the response to the question: "Is the agent assisting you with this annuity purchase the same agent on the life insurance policy or annuity contract being replaced?" This indicates he is aware that the policy replaces the MasterDex 10. The response was also a representation that he knew to be false, because he was the agent on the policy being replaced. Mr. Carter also indicated on the needs analysis form that the source of funds for the EquiTrust annuity purchase was "Stocks/Bonds/Mutual Funds." Mr. Carter knew that this representation was not correct. It was also inconsistent with the statement on the suitability questionnaire that the funds came from a checking account. On May 18, 2010, J.K. signed a letter, written by Mr. Carter, asking for William Pearson to be her new financial advisor. Mr. Carter sent the letter to Genworth, a company holding another annuity policy of J.K's. J.K. did not know who Mr. Pearson was and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter told her that it would help her save money. J.K. signed a letter, dated May 20, 2010, instructing EquiTrust to cancel the annuity she had with it. On May 23, 2010, Mr. Pearson submitted a form, signed by J.K., using the power of attorney, asking Genworth to liquidate an annuity held for W.K. On May 26, 2010, EquiTrust received the request to cancel J.K.'s policy and advised Mr. Carter. On May 31, 2010, Mr. Carter sent EquiTrust a letter saying that J.K. did not want to cancel and enclosed a letter he prepared, dated May 26, 2010, and signed by J.K. asking EquiTrust to withdraw the cancelation request. The letter also stated that an agent who provided her untruthful information initiated the request. On June 2, 2010, at Mr. Carter's urging, J.K. sent EquiTrust a letter saying she wanted to keep the EquiTrust policy. On June 2, 2010, Mr. Carter sent, by facsimile, a letter written by him and signed by J.K. asking Great American to make Peter Gotsis her annuity agent. J.K. did not know Peter Gotsis and only signed the letter because Mr. Carter asked her to. On June 29, 2010, EquiTrust received a check for an additional $90,302.19 premium for J.K.'s policy. In July 2010, with the assistance of employees at her bank and others, J.K. contacted an attorney. The attorney, Joan Hook, contacted Mr. Carter and the various companies with annuities. Due to the efforts of Ms. Hook, J.K.'s guardian, Ms. Rego, Ms. Karen Ortega of the Department, and others, the series of transactions were undone and J.K. returned to her position before the liquidation of the MasterDex 10 annuity. From December 2010 forward, it was clear to Mr. Carter or anyone else having regular dealings with J.K. that she is confused, uninformed about financial matters, compliant, reasoning poorly, and not capable of making sound decisions. J.K.'s testimony demonstrated that her memory was significantly impaired. That fact combined with the fact that W.K. died several years before the hearing, makes it impossible to determine what representations Mr. Carter made to W.K. and J.K. and to determine what information or instructions they gave him. Much of the evidence related to Counts I through V is hearsay evidence that would not be admissible over objection in a civil action. In addition, there is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of W.K. and J.K., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the various products promoted by Mr. Carter or of the liquidation of the MasterDex 10. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the Allianz and the EquiTrust annuities. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz and EquiTrust. Count VI--G.D. and K.D. G.D. lives in New Port Richey, Florida, where she moved from New York about 40 years ago. She was born on January 17, 1935, and has a ninth-grade education. G.D. had worked as a courier. Her investment experience consists of funding certificates of deposit (CDs), placing money in a mutual fund, and purchasing a Transamerica annuity. She is frugal and a conservative investor. G.D. is married to K.D. who was born April 12, 1927. Both are retired. G.D. met Mr. Carter in January 2010, when she responded to a postcard that he sent suggesting that he could save her money on taxes on social security payments. At that time, G.D. was 75 years old and K.D. was 83. G.D. was and is in bad health due to having suffered four strokes. She had difficulty speaking to Mr. Carter during his sales presentations. G.D. and K.D. disclosed to Mr. Carter that their total monthly family income, including social security and K.D.'s pension income, was approximately $2,400.00. They also disclosed that their assets included approximately $325,000.00 in CDs held with Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union. G.D. and K.D. each owned an annuity, one with Hartford and one with Transamerica, which they told Mr. Carter about. Together, the annuities had a value of approximately $85,000. G.D. and K.D. also had approximately $66,000 in a money market account. Mr. Carter convinced G.D. and K.D. to liquidate their CDs to purchase two Allianz annuities called a MasterDex 10 Plus. One required payment of a $38,219.39 premium. The other required payment of a $287,365.00 premium. The couple applied for the annuities for G.D., with K.D. as the beneficiary, because he was the older of the two. Mr. Carter completed the applications, which they signed. Part six of the applications is titled: "Replacement (this section must be completed)." It asks two questions. The first is: "Do you have existing life insurance or annuity contracts?" Mr. Carter checked "no" as an answer. This was not correct, and he knew it. The second question asks: "Will the annuity contract applied for replace or change existing contract or policies?" This Mr. Carter correctly answered "no." Section six also asks for the amount of coverage in force. Mr. Carter did not provide this information. Mr. Carter also completed the Florida Senior Consumer Suitability Form Questionnaire for G.D. and K.D., which they signed. The form accurately reflects the couple's net worth, liquid assets, and income. It reports correctly that they owned or had owned CDs, fixed annuities, and variable annuities. The completed form also accurately reflects the couple's desire for guaranteed income. The form discloses that the annuity must be owned a minimum of 15 years to receive its maximum value. The MasterDex 10 Plus annuity is a complicated financial product with a ten percent "bonus" that the buyer does not receive unless she holds the policy for 15 years. In fact, holding the policy for 15 years is the only way to get the full benefit of the policy. While money may be withdrawn earlier, that results in losses of the benefits and in some cases penalties. For instance, if a policy holder chooses to liquidate the policy, the value she receives is only 87.5 percent of the premium paid with one percent interest for the period held. These provisions have a substantial financial effect on the benefits of the annuity. For example, in the fifth year, the cash surrender value of the $38,219.49 premium policy is $36,027.00. About ten months after purchasing the annuities, G.D. and K.D. began having second thoughts about the purchase of the annuities. G.D. consulted with the financial advisor "Wayne" at her bank. G.D. later concluded that she had also misunderstood the interest rate. Mr. Carter had shown her sales material with the ten percent "bonus," which generated a high interest rate of 13.3 percent for one year. But G.D. did not understand that the interest rate only applied in one year, and the money was not immediately available. On November 17, 2010, G.D., with Wayne's help, composed a complaint letter to Allianz that summarized her complaints and requested that her premium payments be returned without fees. On November 28, 2010, Carter responded with a letter to Allianz defending his annuity sales. On December 17, 2010, Allianz's employee, Mary Lou Fleischacker, advised G.D. by letter that the "free look" period for cancelling the contracts had passed. But Fleischacker did request further information about the sales. By two letters dated January 10, 2011, Allianz advised G.D. that she would suffer over $80,000 in penalties if she canceled the contracts. G.D.'s efforts to terminate the annuities prompted Carter to come uninvited into G.D.'s home and insistently demand that G.D. telephone Allianz and cancel her attempt to rescind the contracts. He also asked her, without explanation, to wait one week before liquidating the policies. G.D. refused. Carter repeatedly telephoned G.D. and returned uninvited to the house several times making the same demand. G.D. refused to answer her door. Mr. Carter came to G.D.'s daughter's house uninvited one evening, told her that her mother was going to lose a lot of money, and revealed her mother's financial matters to her. Mr. Carter demanded that G.D.'s daughter deliver to her mother for signature a letter he wrote rescinding the liquidation requests. G.D.'s daughter agreed to get Carter to leave. G.D.'s daughter feared for her mother's safety because of Mr. Carter's harassing telephone calls to her and her mother. She urged her mother to call the police. G.D. called the police and a New Port Richey officer told Mr. Carter to cease the harassment, and then filed a report on January 13, 2011. Mr. Carter did not contact G.D. or her daughter after that. Eventually, with the assistance of Department Investigator Ortega, G.D. was able to obtain the return of her funds from Allianz. There is no expert testimony evaluating the facts of record and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of the life expectancy of G.D. and K.D., which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the liquidation of the CDs and purchase of the MasterDex 10 Plus annuities as promoted and sold by Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter willfully misrepresented information with regard to the applications for the MasterDex 10 Plus annuity. This was dishonest. In the process, Mr. Carter also demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. These willful misrepresentations were false material statements knowingly delivered to Allianz. Mr. Carter's repeated, persistent, and overbearing efforts to require G.D. to speak with him about the cancelation and withdraw it demonstrate a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance. Count VII--G.B. G.B. was born on January 14, 1930. She has a high school education. G.B. worked at and retired from Lucent Technology wiring telephone boards. She receives a small pension. Her husband, K.B., managed their financial affairs before he died ten years ago. Before K.B.'s death, the couple maintained investment accounts with Schwab. After K.B.'s death, Schwab employee, Barry Tallman, recommended that G.B. seek financial advice from Christopher Trombetta, CPA. She did so. Mr. Carter and a colleague, Christopher Drew, met with G.B. on June 29, 2010. She was 70 years old, timid, and easily confused. G.B. had responded to a promotional postcard she received from them purporting that the law governing taxes on social security income had changed and that they could lower her taxes. Mr. Carter was the person who presented G.B. information and persuaded her to purchase an annuity in the course of a meeting that lasted one to two hours. The evidence does not permit a determination of what representations and information Mr. Carter presented in his sales meeting with G.B. Her memory of the meeting was not distinct. She was confused about the meeting and did not remember facts precisely or explicitly. Mr. Carter completed applications for EquiTrust annuity products. G.B. signed the applications. Mr. Carter also completed financial needs analyses. G.B. signed them also. A box that asks if the applicant is aware that the annuity may be "a long-term contract with substantial penalties for early withdrawal" was checked "yes." The form also accurately represented that the source of funds for the annuity premium was stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. The other representations in the form were accurate. Mr. Carter persuaded G.B. to purchase two EquiTrust Market Power Plus annuities. G.B. signed two EquiTrust annuity contracts ending with 29F (E-29F) and 30F (E-30F). The initial premium for E-29F was $458,832.71. The initial premium for E-30F was $118,870.34. Both annuities were designed to provide G.B. with income in 2036. The funds for the premium came from the liquidation of her stock brokerage account. Both contracts had 20 percent surrender charges for the first two years of ownership. G.B. could not have surrendered the contract with its full financial benefits without a penalty until she was 95 years old. Mr. Carter delivered the annuity contracts to G.B. on August 6, 2010. The contracts provided G.B. the right to cancel the annuity by returning it within 15 days of the date she received it. Soon afterwards, Barry Tallman notified G.B. that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated. Transamerica Agent William Pearson had liquidated the accounts to transfer the money for purchase of the EquiTrust annuities. She was surprised. G.B. grew concerned about the annuities and consulted Mr. Trombetta and a financial advisor named Judith Gregory on September 20, 2010. With their assistance, G.B. wrote a complaint letter to EquiTrust asserting that Mr. Carter had assured her, among other things, that the annuities would protect her money should she enter a nursing home. G.B. wanted to cancel the annuities and have her full premium returned. G.B.'s letter to EquiTrust said, "I do not want any calls or visits from the agent or the agent's office." Mr. Carter learned of the effort to cancel the annuities. On November 15, 2010, at Mr. Carter's suggestion, he and Mr. Drew returned to G.B.'s home uninvited and unannounced. Mr. Carter insisted on entering and speaking to G.B. Mr. Carter began loudly and forcefully arguing with G.B. She telephoned Mr. Trombetta and asked that he speak to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter yelled at Mr. Trombetta. Mr. Trombetta credibly describes part of the conversation as follows: And before I could barely get that out, Rick exploded on me. He snapped and he started cursing up and down. F'n me up one side and down the other. And "you don't F'n know what you are talking about. You don't care about this person. You don't f'n know what you are doing;" and this and that. When G.B. returned to the telephone to speak with Mr. Trombetta, he advised her to call the police if Mr. Carter did not leave her house within five minutes. Mr. Carter and Mr. Drew left. EquiTrust eventually returned over $600,000 to G.B. There is no expert testimony evaluating and analyzing the suitability of the investments advocated by Mr. Carter. Also, there is no evidence of G.B.'s life expectancy which is an important factor in evaluating suitability of annuity products. Consequently, the record is inadequate for determining the reasonableness or suitability of the two annuities Mr. Carter sold G.B. Mr. Carter's conduct, in his unannounced visit to G.B. to try to persuade her to change her plans to liquidate the annuities and his conversation with Mr. Trombetta, demonstrated a lack of fitness to engage in the business of insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order revoking the licenses of Richard Edward Carter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance and insurance related activities in Florida. Petitioner is the agency responsible for regulating any licensed or unlicensed person or entity engaged in unfair insurance trade practices within the meaning of Section 626.951, Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent, Leroy Preston, is licensed to sell life and health insurance in Florida. The other Respondents are not licensed to transact insurance in Florida and are not otherwise licensed by Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 624 through 632, 634, 635, 637, 638, 641, 648, and 651 (the "Florida Insurance Code"). Respondent, American Family Benefits Group, Incorporated ("AFBG, Inc.") is a Florida corporation wholly owned by the four individual Respondents. Respondent, Roy L. Beach, is an officer and director of AFBG, Inc., and is an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida. Respondents, Preston, Kenneth King, and Robert King, are officers and directors of AFBG, Inc. The individual Respondents comprise American Family Benefits Group ("AFBG") and the board of directors for AFBG, Inc. (the "Board"). Background Respondents designed a marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. Promotional materials describing the benefits of membership were reviewed and approved by each member of the Board and mailed to thousands of prospective customers in 50 states. Memberships were offered to individuals at a price of $99 per membership. The benefits of membership included: life insurance up to $350,000 at no cost to members; a certificate of deposit of $5,000; a major bank credit card, regardless of credit history, secured by the certificate of deposit; non- qualifying mortgage loans; non-qualifying automobile leases; discounted long distance service; and discounted catalog prices. Respondents received approximately 140,000 applications for membership. Approximately 600 applications included payment of the $99 membership fee. Petitioner issued a Notice And Order To Show Cause on February 10, 1994. The marketing program for the sale of memberships in AFBG, Inc. was terminated by Respondents. Respondents returned the membership fee paid by approximately 300 applicants. On May 6, 1994, Petitioner issued an Amended Notice And Order To Show Cause ("Amended Notice"). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Sections 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a), (b), (h), (l), and (n). The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(a) by making misrepresentations for the purpose of effecting an assignment or pledge of insurance policies to secure a loan. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(b) by representing that insurance policies obtained on the life of members would be used to secure a loan that would fund membership benefits. Respondents allegedly violated Section 626.9541(1)(h) by offering the payment of money to induce customers to enter into an insurance contract. The Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(l) by inducing customers to pledge, assign, borrow on insurance policies, convert insurance policies, or to take out an insurance policy with another insurer ("twisting"). Finally, the Amended Notice charges that Respondents violated Section 626.9541(1)(n) by offering free insurance as an inducement for the purchase or sale or services directly or indirectly connected with real or personal property. Pledge Or Assignment To Effect A Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(a) Respondents knowingly issued and circulated a statement or sales presentation (the "promotional materials") that was a misrepresentation. The misrepresentation was made for the purposes of: effecting a pledge or assignment of an insurance policy; and effecting a loan against an insurance policy. Payment of the $99 membership fee did not entitle a new member to any of the benefits of membership. A new member was not required to elect any membership benefit, including the insurance benefits. Such a member could simply pay Respondents $99 and choose to receive none of the benefits of membership. A new member who wished to elect any of the benefits of membership was in substantially the same position as a new member who chose to receive no benefits. A new member who desired any one of the benefits of membership was first required to elect the insurance benefits. Insurance benefits entitled a new member to five universal life insurance policies on the life of the new member. Each policy was to be issued for $70,000. 2/ No life insurance policies were available unless a new member applied for and obtained all five policies and assigned four of the five policies to a bank. The bank must then make a loan in an amount and terms that were sufficient to fund all of the benefits of membership. 3/ A loan in the gross amount of $84,000 was needed to fund the benefits of membership. The net loan proceeds were to be used to purchase an annuity, a certificate of deposit to secure the credit card for the new member, pay Respondents a profit of $5,000, pay commissions and referral fees to independent parties up to $3,000, pay administrative costs, and fund the other benefits of membership. 4/ Respondents' pro forma projections of economic feasibility for the membership program showed an annual interest rate of six per cent, an amortization period of 20 years, and level periodic payments of principal and interest. Respondents' pro formal projections were based, in relevant part, on three assumptions. First, the insurance policies would be used as part of the collateral securing the loan needed to fund the benefits of membership. Second, Respondents were to be personally liable for each loan. Third, an annuity would secure the loan, pay the debt service on the loan, and pay the premiums for the insurance policies assigned to the lender. The insurance policies that new members were required to assign to the lender to secure the purported loan had no loan value. Respondents represented to prospective members that the life insurance policies were universal life policies. However, the policies were "skeleton" universal life policies that had de minimis cash value and no loan value. The loan to value ratio of any loan secured by the insurance policies would necessarily exceed 100 percent. Respondents' personal liability for loans to new members lacked economic substance. Capital contributions to AFBG, Inc. and Respondents' individual assets were inadequate to secure individual loans of $84,000 to 140,000 members. The annuity needed to pay the debt service on the loan and the insurance premiums on the policies securing the loan was not economically feasible. 5/ The membership fee of $99 was inadequate to pay the first year insurance premium on one $70,000 policy, much less the other four policies required to fund any of the benefits of membership. The economic reality of the membership program required a new member to pay Respondents $99 and to apply for and obtain five insurance policies from independent insurance agents. There was little or no probability of receiving any of the benefits of membership because the loan needed to fund those benefits had little or no economic reality. Thus, the membership program required a new member to pay $99 to Respondents for no benefits of membership. If $99 had been paid by all 140,000 applicants, Respondents would have received $13,860,000 in return for illusory promises of membership benefits. Insurance Policies To Secure Loan: Section 626.9541(1)(b) Respondents knowingly published, circulated, disseminated, and placed before the public an untrue statement concerning the business of insurance. Respondents represented that the universal life insurance policies obtained by individual members would be used as collateral to secure the loan needed to fund their insurance benefits. Respondents knew that the insurance policies were skeleton policies with little or no cash value and no loan value. The untrue statements issued by Respondents concerned the business of insurance. Respondents used economic incentives to induce prospective members to obtain life insurance policies. Without life insurance policies, new members were not entitled to any of the other benefits of membership including, a certificate of deposit, a credit card, non-qualifying mortgages, and non- qualifying car leases. The purchase and assignment of life insurance policies was an integral part of the business conducted by Respondents. The economic incentives used by Respondents were designed to effectuate a contract of insurance. Respondents effectuated approximately five contracts of insurance. The subsequent assignment of insurance policies to a lender also constituted the business of insurance. Those assignments constituted the transaction of matters subsequent to the insurance contract and arising out of the insurance contract. Unlawful Rebates: Section 626.9541(1)(h) 27. Respondents knowingly offered an indirect rebate of an insurance premium to prospective members as an inducement to enter into an insurance contract. Respondents' offer to pay the insurance premiums on members' insurance policies was a valuable consideration intended to induce new members to enter into insurance contracts. Twisting: Section 626.9541(1)(l) 28. Respondents knowingly made misleading representations with respect to insurance policies for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce new members to pledge, assign, borrow on, or convert an insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer. Respondents representations were misleading. 29. Respondents' representations led prospective members to believe that a pledge, assignment, or conversion of their insurance policies could be used to secure a loan needed to fund other membership benefits. The representation that a loan could be obtained by new members upon assignment of their insurance policies had no economic reality. Free Insurance: Section 626.9541(1)(n) Respondents offered to provide free insurance as an inducement for new members to purchase real or personal property. The benefits of membership included non-qualifying mortgages in real property, non-qualifying car leases, and non-qualifying bank credit cards. None of those benefits were available to new members unless they obtained life insurance policies and assigned those policies to a lender. The insurance policies were free to new members. There was no cost to new members. The insurance premiums were to be paid out of the annuity to be purchased from the net loan proceeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of all of the charges in the Amended Notice and ordering Respondents to permanently cease and desist the marketing of memberships in AFBG, Inc. It is further recommended that a fine of $4,000 should be imposed on each of the Respondents, not to exceed the aggregate amount of $20,000, and that the license of Respondent, Leroy Preston, should be suspended for 30 days. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1995.
Findings Of Fact James Edward Snapp is licensed by the Department of Insurance as an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, Dental Agent and Disability Agent and was so licensed at all times in 1981 and 1982 in his dealings with Mrs. Mabel McCarthy and Mr. George Guertin. In July 1981 Respondent went to the apartment of Mabel McCarthy, a 79- year-old widow, and talked to her about insurance. His visit was unsolicited and Mrs. McCarthy initially told him she had adequate coverage with her Medicare, Medicaid and Blue Cross. Respondent discussed the issuance of a "gold" card which provided better coverage than she was presently receiving. They also discussed her $1,000 life insurance policy for which she had designated the Haven School in Miami as beneficiary. When she indicated she would also like to leave something to another school in Palm Beach County, Respondent suggested she cancel the $1,000 policy and take out two $5,000 policies and make each school beneficiary of one policy. Following Respondent's assertions to Mrs. McCarthy regarding her taking out different insurance policies, Mrs. McCarthy gave Respondent her check on 26 July 1981 in the amount of $1,100 made payable to Accident & Health Agency, the agent for whom Respondent worked. Mrs. McCarthy understood this to be the premium payment for the life insurance and hospitalization insurance policies. Respondent told Mrs. McCarthy the cash surrender value of her life insurance policy should be about $900. When she wrote Mutual of Omaha about the cash surrender value, she was advised it was nearer $700 and the company questioned her reasons for cancelling the policy. This aroused Mrs. McCarthy's suspicions and she called the Insurance Commissioner's branch office to inquire about Respondent. Up until this time she had full confidence in Respondent. In the application for health insurance for Mrs. McCarthy which Respondent subsequently submitted 12 July 1981 to American Sun Life Insurance Company, he checked the "no" square to the question "Is the insurance applied for intended to replace any insurance presently in force?" knowing he had suggested to Mrs. McCarthy this policy would replace her Blue Cross insurance policy. The total premium on these policies, one providing for medical expenses and the other providing for nursing home care, is $530. American Sun Life Insurance Company does not sell life insurance. On 28 July 1981 Respondent again visited Mrs. McCarthy, obtained her check in the amount of $380 made payable to Accident & Health Agency, and submitted an application to American Sun Life Insurance Company on behalf of Mrs. McCarthy which provides hospital and medical benefits. On this application he also checked the "no" square to the question about replacing existing insurance. The annual premium for this policy was $370. Mrs. McCarthy also gave Respondent a check in the amount of $500 payable to Accident & Health Agency for additional policies. Before this check had been cleared, Mrs. McCarthy received the first policies Respondent had sold her and realized they were no different from her prior coverage, no "gold" card was included and neither was a life insurance policy. Upon receipt of these policies on 11 August 1981 Mrs. McCarthy stopped payment on the $500 check and again called the Insurance Commissioner's office. When the Insurance Commissioner contacted American Sun Life Insurance Company with Mrs. McCarthy's complaint, they refunded $900 to Mrs. McCarthy for the policies they had issued. Those policies were for the maximum coverage Sun Life provides. The three policies issued by Orange State Life Insurance for various health care benefits were those applied for when the $500 check was written by Mrs. McCarthy and these policies were cancelled when payment was stopped on that check. The total premium for these policies was $449.99 plus a $26 policy fee. Respondent obtained the name of George Guertin as a potential client and called him for an appointment to discuss insurance. Upon arrival 18 January 1982 shortly after the phone call, Respondent looked at two policies Guertin showed him covering Medicare Supplemental payments on Guertin and his wife. These policies were issued by Tara Life Insurance Company. Respondent told Guertin that the agent who sold him these policies had charged top price and he could get these policies for him at a lower premium. The premium paid on the policy issued to George Guertin was $482 and the premium on the policy issued to Alma Guertin was $445. Respondent was not authorized to solicit policies for Tara. Guertin gave Respondent his check payable to J. Snapp in the amount of $540 to renew the two policies with Tara Life Insurance Company. Guertin also gave Respondent his life insurance policy issued on John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company to inquire about the cash surrender value. This policy was later returned to Guertin without change. Respondent's testimony that the $540 was for services he was to provide the Guertins in preparing Medicare claims and that the Guertins understood this at the time the check was signed, is not credible. George Guertin was born in Canada in 1903 but has lived in the United States for 65 years. Although he went to school in Canada through the eighth grade, he does not read English. George's brother Eme apparently lived with the Guertins and was disabled. Respondent offered to take Eme to the Veteran's Administration to get his disability pension increased. He was paid $250 for this service and for taking Eme to the VA on other occasions. Guertin testified that the signature on Exhibit 12 was not his signature and that on Exhibit 13 was not his wife's signature. Respondent testified that these "contracts" were signed by George Guertin and Alma Guertin in his presence. Regardless of the validity of the signatures, these "contracts" provide that compensation [of Respondent] shall be determined by mutual agreement. There was no mutuality of agreement that the $540 paid by Guertin to Respondent was for services to be rendered by Respondent in completing Medicare forms. When Guertin was advised by Tara Life Insurance Company that his policies were about to lapse for nonpayment of premiums, he realized Respondent had not renewed these policies as he was told Respondent would do, he complained to the Insurance Commissioner's office, and he sent premium payments to Tara. Respondent suffered injuries while serving in the Marine Corps in Korea. He was discharged with a 35 percent disability rating in 1955 and since that time he has been treated from time to time in VA facilities. He has had several heart attacks, five according to Respondent's testimony, and takes a wide variety of medication. In his testimony Respondent admitted that he only sold insurance and left the doing of the paperwork associated with these policies to the agency for whom he works. He does not keep records of his insurance transactions because he has a "real tough time" doing so. He leaves those chores to the agency.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners, as beneficiaries of their deceased father's life insurance policy, are entitled to a payment of $7,500 in addition to the $2,500 benefit already paid. As set forth more fully herein, since Florida's statutory and rule framework do not require that notice provided to the Division of Retirement be shared with the Division of State Group Insurance, Petitioners did not demonstrate that they are entitled to the additional benefit.
Findings Of Fact The Division of State Group Insurance (DSGI) is an administrative unit located within the Department of Management Services (DMS), and pursuant to Section 110.123(3), Florida Statutes, is designated as the agency responsible for the administration of the State Group Insurance Program (Program). The life insurance program at issue in these proceedings is a part of the Program. DMS has contracted with Northgate Arinso, formerly Convergys, Inc., to provide human resources management services, including assisting in the administration of employee benefits. Convergys primarily performs these tasks through an online system known as "People First." The term "employee benefits" refers to insurance, but not to retirement benefits. People First became the system of record for DSGI benefits data, including addresses, on January 1, 2005. Petitioners Martha L. Kenerson and David R. Kenerson, Jr., are the daughter and son of David R. Kenerson (Mr. Kenerson), a retired employee of the State of Florida, and the beneficiaries of the life insurance that was provided through the Program. Mr. Kenerson died a resident at 156 56th Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida, on March 31, 2009. Since Mr. Kenerson's retirement, the State of Florida, through DSGI, has maintained a Group Life Insurance Policy (the Policy) covering the individual lives of its former employees who elected to be covered. The Policy is a benefit available to retirees of the State of Florida which Mr. Kenerson, as a retiree, accepted. The Insured, Mr. Kenerson, was entitled to inclusion in the group of State of Florida retirees who were covered under the Policy that was offered by the State of Florida to its retirees. Mr. Kenerson received a pension for life from the State of Florida. Beginning January 1, 2000, and subsequently, the life insurance coverage was $10,000. It was changed beginning in Plan Year 2007, as to all retirees, due to DSGI's determination of the impending loss of the Advanced Premium Account. As to Mr. Kenerson, it was reduced from $10,000 to $2,500 beginning in Plan Year 2007 for the following reasons: He defaulted in responding to the Open Enrollment Notice; Neither Mr. Kenerson nor anyone on his behalf submitted any notification of election pursuant to such Open Enrollment Notice; and DSGI determined that it was necessary to change the coverage for death benefits because of such impending loss of the Advanced Premium Account. On April 10, 2009, Minnesota Life Insurance Company claims examiner Latrice S. Tillman contacted Petitioner Martha L. Kenerson regarding the death of Mr. Kenerson, asking for the death certificate of the Insured and the Preference Beneficiary Statements from both Petitioners. On April 17, 2009, Petitioners filed the appropriate documents with the Minnesota Life Insurance Company as beneficiaries of Mr. Kenerson's life insurance policy. On May 20, 2009, Petitioners each received a check in the amount of $1,257.59, constituting $1,250 of insurance proceeds (totaling $2,500) and the balance of interest on the $2,500 insurance proceeds. On May 24, 2009, Petitioner Martha L. Kenerson wrote a letter to DSGI requesting an appeal. On June 9, 2009, Ms. Kenerson received a letter dated July 9, 2009, from Michelle Robleto, the Director of DSGI, denying Petitioners' Level II Appeal and informing Petitioners of their right to request a hearing. On June 26, 2009, Ms. Kenerson timely petitioned for an evidentiary hearing regarding Mr. Kenerson's policy. Approximately 29,391 State of Florida retirees were covered under the Policy in Class A (i.e., with initial $10,000 coverage excluding Classes having such initial coverage) at the time when Respondent sent the Change Notice of the proposed changes in coverage that applied also to Mr. Kenerson's Policy. Approximately 5,921 State of Florida retirees were covered under Class A of the Policy and elected, in response to the Change Notice, to increase the premium in order to retain the coverage at $10,000. None of the State of Florida retirees in Class A under the Policy who failed to respond in writing to the Change Notice was contacted by Respondent prior to the effective date of coverage change. Respondent never attempted to call retirees regarding their wishes as to the Change Notice. Respondent has no proof that it spoke with the Insured to explain the proposed change of coverage and/or premium in January 2007. Respondent did not mail the Open Enrollment Notices to retirees by a method that required affirmative identification of the recipient, such as by certified return receipt or other postal proof of delivery. The premiums for the Policy were paid by the State of Florida from Mr. Kenerson's pension as a deduction from the payment of the gross pension payments. From at least January 1, 2003, to the end of the Open Enrollment Period for Plan Year 2007, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) never communicated to Respondent the address that DFS was using for Mr. Kenerson. DFS has a separate and independent data base from that used by Respondent. At no time did DMS send to the Insured c/o Petitioner David R. Kenerson, Jr., any Open Enrollment Notice for any plan year before the 2008 plan year relating to the terms of the Policy. As administrator of the Policy, it is and has been DMS's responsibility to maintain a database of addresses for contacting retirees who are eligible for coverage under the Policy. In August 2002, DMS contracted with Convergys as a third party service provider to perform administrative functions, including the maintenance of the retirees "address of record" database for insurance purposes and for recordkeeping relating to retirees whose lives were insured under the Policy. With respect to the July 31, 2006, mailing to retirees, DMS retained direct control of the stuffing, sending, and addressing of the letters, as well as the collection of mail that was returned as undeliverable. In 2004, DMS delivered to Convergys a copy of the retiree address of record contained in the Cooperative Personnel Employment System (COPES), previously maintained only by DMS. Tom Lockridge, Respondent's Benefits Team Manager in 2005, noted his confusion with how many different databases exist that cover retirees of the State of Florida. He was aware that DSGI and the Division of Retirement Services (DRS) each has its own databases. Retirees entitled to enroll in the Policy managed by DSGI are also entitled to pension eligibility or other post- retirement activities managed by DMS, DRS, or the State University System. Since the inception of the DMS website, www.myflorida.com, two separate databases, the People First database and the DRS database, have been maintained. At all times since 2000, Mr. Kenerson was listed as a retiree of the State of Florida in the databases of DSGI and DRS. During the Open Enrollment period for Plan Year 2007 for the Policy, DMS records maintained by Convergys in the "address of record" database showed that Mr. Kenerson lived at 1737 Brightwaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida. DMS, through its agent Convergys, sent the Open Enrollment Notice for Plan Year 2007 for the Policy to Mr. Kenerson at the Brightwaters Boulevard address. In 2001, Mr. Kenerson sent to DRS, but not to DSGI, a written notice of change of address showing his new address as 156 56th Street South, Villa 37, St. Petersburg, Florida. DMS never received an affirmative notice from Mr. Kenerson electing to either adopt the $2,500 coverage; increase to $10,000 in coverage; or terminate his enrollment altogether. In connection with the Open Enrollment notice, DMS contract with Convergys did not require Convergys to seek data from other Florida agencies or divisions to update the database of retirees' addresses and contact information. In connection with the Open Enrollment notice, DMS records management policies did not require DMS personnel to obtain data from other Florida agencies or divisions to update the DMS database of retirees' addresses and contact information. In designing the offered choices on the Open Enrollment notice, DMS allocated $6.33 per month from the Advance Premium Account to subsidize each retiree's premium for Plan Year 2007. Approximately 80 percent of the then-current retirees elected, or were deemed to have elected by default, to reduce their coverage from $10,000 to $2,500 as a result of the Open Enrollment process conducted by DMS. As of October 2006, 24,488 retirees elected the $2,500 life insurance policy for Plan Year 2007, while 4,769 retirees elected the $10,000 coverage. The Open Enrollment notice did not explain why those electing the $10,000 in coverage were required to pay almost eight times the amount of premium charged for $2,500 of coverage ($35.79 per month versus $4.20 per month). A "positive enrollment" means an individual must affirmatively elect each and every benefit or a certain type of benefit. A "passive enrollment" is where, by taking no action, the individual continues to have the same benefit level as previously. Respondent used the "passive enrollment" system for Plan Year 2008, when the life benefit premium changed due to the fact that Convergys would have charged a significant fee (seven figures) to conduct a "positive enrollment." DMS elected not to incur the additional expense. Since the state has designated People First as the system of record for its retirees relating to their benefits and information regarding Open Enrollment, any changes in address are made through the People First system. The agreement between DMS and Convergys does not require Convergys to communicate with other agencies regarding updating of the address of record database for retirees. Convergys, as the contractor to DMS, routinely destroys mail returned as undeliverable after 90 days. Neither DMS nor Convergys maintains a list of "bad addresses," those to which mail has been returned as undeliverable. DMS told Convergys not to synchronize their address database with the Florida Retirement System (FRS) database. DMS was aware that there were retirees who sent address changes to DRS and not to People First. DMS was aware that its address of record database for retirees contained at least some addresses that were not current for some customers. DMS was aware that some number of Open Enrollment packages was returned every year as undeliverable due to incorrect addresses. DMS does not maintain a record of returned Open Enrollment packages. DMS has adopted no rules to record the names and addresses of retirees whose Open Enrollment packages have been returned as undeliverable. DMS has adopted no rules to compare or synchronize the DMS address of record used for Open Enrollment packages with other databases maintained by DMS, DFS, the Florida Department of Revenue, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, local voter registration, or any other State of Florida address lists. DMS has adopted no rules to update the address of record database used by DMS for notices to retirees relating to group term life insurance policies such as the one at issue here. DMS has adopted no rules to create, preserve, or update records, and to destroy names of retirees whose notices are returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable due to no forwarding address. The ultimate custodian of the State of Florida database containing addresses of record for retirees' insurance benefits is Convergys, Inc. At all times from January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2009, the FRS, administered by DMS, has maintained a database of State of Florida retirees that includes their address records in connection with pension and retirement income and expense matters. This FRS database is separate from the address of record database maintained by Convergys/People First for the same period. The letter dated July 31, 2006, relating to the 2007 plan year, advised State of Florida retirees that they could change their election of life insurance benefit up to and including January 19, 2007. Mike Waller, an employee of DSGI, maintains benefits data for People First/DSGI. In July 2006, Mr. Waller was asked to prepare a file containing the names and addresses of all retirees who were covered by life insurance. He created a file used in a mail merge program to send all retirees a copy of the July 31, 2006, letter. In preparing the file containing the mailing addresses of retirees covered by life insurance in July 2006, Mr. Waller used the addresses of record from the benefits data he maintained. The DSGI address of record for Mr. Kenerson in July 2006 was 1737 Brightwaters Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida 33704, and was included in the mailing addresses file. Mr. Waller prepared the file and delivered it to Dick Barnum and Thomas Lockridge on July 3, 2006. Thomas Lockridge delivered the file to Laura Cutchen, another employee of DSGI. DSGI contracted with Pitney Bowes, a mailing system company, to mail the July 31, 2006, letter to all State of Florida retirees. After obtaining copies of the letter from the DSGI print shop, Ms. Cutchen delivered the letters and the file containing the names and addresses of the retirees to Pitney Bowes to assemble. The letters were assembled by Pitney Bowes and delivered to the U.S. Post Office, accompanied by Ms. Cutchen, and the State of Florida first class mailing permit had been applied to each envelope. The letter dated July 31, 2006, was mailed to Mr. Kenerson at the Brightwaters address, by first class mail, using the State of Florida permit for DSGI. The return address on the envelope containing the July 31, 2006, letter was DSGI, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 215, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0949. Any letters returned to DSGI as undeliverable were processed by Janice Lowe, an employee of DSGI. Each letter returned to DSGI was handled in one of two ways: If the envelope showed a different address on the yellow sticker applied by the U.S. Postal Service, the letter was re-mailed to that address; or If the returned envelope did not provide a different address, a manual search of the database of DRS was made; a copy of the print screen showing the address in the DRS database was made, if different from the address on the database of DSGI; and the original envelope and letter were placed in another envelope and mailed to the address from the DRS database. A copy of each DRS print screen that was accessed by Ms. Lowe was printed and inserted in alphabetical order in a binder. There was a DRS print screen for every person whose letter was returned and for which there was not another address. The absence of a DRS print screen indicates that the initial letter was not returned. No DRS print screen exists for Mr. Kenerson, an indication that the letter to him dated July 31, 2006, was not returned to DSGI. Prior to Convergys assuming responsibility for the administration of benefits, DSGI maintained benefits information in COPES. When Convergys assumed responsibility for the management of benefits on January 1, 2005, the benefits information from COPES was imported into the Convergys/People First system. People First and DRS do not share databases and each maintains its own database of names and addresses. In addition to the letter discussed at length above, each year, DSGI must hold an "Open Enrollment" period for the health program. Open Enrollment is the period designated by DMS during which time eligible persons, not just State of Florida retirees, may enroll or change coverage in any state insurance program. Prior to Open Enrollment each year, DSGI provides employees and retirees a package that explains the benefits and options that are available for the next plan year. The 2006 Open Enrollment period for the 2007 plan year ran from September 19, 2006, through October 18, 2006. During Open Enrollment for Plan Year 2007, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending Open Enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. People First mailed Mr. Kenerson's Open Enrollment package to the Brightwaters Boulevard address on September 3, 2006. The mailing of Open Enrollment packages is noted on the Open Enrollment screen by the Item Code "FSAE." The Open Enrollment packages, like the July 31, 2006, letter to retirees, were mailed by People First through the U.S. Post Office, first class prepaid postage. The Open Enrollment package mailed to Mr. Kenerson on September 3, 2006, contained Mr. Kenerson's Benefits Statement; a letter from John Mathews, former Director of DSGI; Information of Note; a Privacy Notice; a Notice Regarding Prescription Coverage; and the 2007 Benefits Guide. The Information of Note included a detailed description of the reduction in life insurance benefits from $10,000 to $2,500 unless an affirmative election was made to pay a higher premium. Neither Mr. Kenerson nor anyone on his behalf affirmatively elected to continue $10,000 in life insurance coverage during the enrollment period in 2006 for Plan Year 2007. Because the $10,000 life insurance option was not affirmatively made by the Insured or anyone on his behalf, upon his death, Respondent determined that he was entitled to $2,500 in death benefit. For those retirees who did not make a timely election pursuant to the Open Enrollment notice sent in 2006 for Plan Year 2007, the death benefit automatically became $2,500, effective January 1, 2007, for a monthly premium of $4.20. As of Open Enrollment 2005, the People First Service Center was charged with the responsibility of sending Open Enrollment packages to State of Florida retirees and other employees. The letter contained in the Open Enrollment package for 2006 for Plan Year 2007 stated as follows: The State conducts a "passive enrollment." If you want to keep the same insurance and benefits plans indicated, you do not have to do anything. Your Flexible Spending Account will be continued at the same annual amounts if no charges are made during Open Enrollment. The reverse side of this letter contains important information regarding changes, new offerings, and reminders regarding processes necessary to ensure a successful enrollment. Please review these items of note. Included in the Open Enrollment package was an "Information of Note" which set forth the reduction in life insurance benefit as well as the amounts to be charged for either the $2,500 or $10,000 benefit. Prior to January 1, 2007, funds in the Advanced Premium Account were applied to payment of costs of life insurance premiums under the policy for retirees. Once the funds in the Advanced Premium Account were depleted, the monthly premium for the $10,000 policy increased significantly to $35.79. DSGI has consistently mailed Open Enrollment packages, including Benefits Guides, to the addresses of record for all retirees, including Mr. Kenerson. Prior to May 1999, Mr. Kenerson actually resided at the Brightwaters Boulevard address, which had been his address of record since at least 1988. DSGI had mailed all correspondence to that address for Mr. Kenerson. In the past, DSGI had mailed, from time to time, newsletters to retirees. These newsletters were mailed to the addresses of record for the retirees. The newsletter for January-March 1999 contains the telephone number and address for DSGI and the following notice under the heading "Reminder Tidbits": "Notify both the Division of Retirement and the Division of State Group Insurance in writing if your mailing address changes." The newsletter for July-September 1999 contained the following: "Q. What if I do not receive my Open Enrollment package? A. If you do not receive the Open Enrollment package by September 17, contact the Division of State Group Insurance. You should also confirm your mailing address when you call." Prior to Mr. Kenerson moving from the Brightwaters Boulevard address, notices mailed to him there included notification that retirees were required to update any changes in address with DSGI. Throughout the years, the Benefits Guides that are included in the Open Enrollment packages have informed all program participants of their responsibility to maintain a current address with DSGI. Even if Mr. Kenerson had changed his address with DRS, such update would not have been provided to DSGI. Neither DSGI nor DRS notifies the other of receipt of a change of address. A change of address with one division of DMS does not automatically change the address in another since the two divisions have separate databases. Within DMS there is no centralized database of records containing addresses of record for all DMS functions. Retirees and active employees of the State of Florida are not required to have one address of record for all functions and services received through DMS. In fact, many State of Florida employees have different addresses for different DMS division functions. DSGI and DRS serve different functions and do not share databases. DRS consists of all retirees who participate in FRS, including local governments. The total number of individual participants is over 300,000. The synchronization of databases would be an expensive undertaking and no funding has been provided to synchronize DSGI with DRS or any other state agency or public entity. No evidence demonstrated that Mr. Kenerson informed DSGI in any way that he desired to maintain his $10,000 life insurance benefit, or that DSGI assumed or accepted that responsibility.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order dismissing the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martha Lynne Kenerson, Esquire Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10170 William B. Bierce, Esquire Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920 New York, New York 10170 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue This issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is responsible for payment of certain state employee health insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1986, Ms. Phyllis McCluskey-Titus became employed at Florida State University ("FSU"). She and her husband, John, moved to Tallahassee from outside Florida, so that she could accept her employment. At the time Ms. McCluskey-Titus became employed, Mr. Titus had not yet accepted employment. She appropriately enrolled in the state health insurance plan. Mr. Titus was listed as, and had coverage as, a dependent on her family coverage. In August, 1986, Mr. Titus accepted employment at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center ("TMRMC"). Although TMRMC offered an employee health insurance benefit, Mr. Titus retained his coverage on his wife's plan, because the couple believed the state plan's benefits to be more beneficial. Enrollment in the state health insurance plan requires the payment of premiums. Such premiums are generally paid through joint contributions, by the employee (through payroll deduction) and by the state. However, where spouses are both state employees, and one spouse is listed as an eligible dependent on the other spouse's family coverage, the state makes the full health insurance premium contribution (the "spouse plan"). In August, 1988, Mr. Titus became employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"). Both FSU (Ms. McCluskey-Titus's employer) and DHRS are state agencies. Therefore, upon Mr. Titus' employment at DHRS, the couple became eligible for the spouse plan. On August 24, 1988, Ms. McCluskey-Titus went to her personnel office and completed the necessary forms to qualify for the spouse plan. At the time of his employment, Mr. Titus received a package of materials from DHRS. Included in the materials was a five page document entitled "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INFORMATION PACKAGE". The document outlines various insurance benefits and lists premiums related to coverages. On the first page of the information document, under the heading "PREMIUMS (full-time employees)" is the following statement: "If you and your spouse are both employed with State Agencies, please contact the Personnel office for information on the Spouse Program. If you are eligible, the State will pay up to 100% of your premium". Believing that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient, Mr. Titus did not contact his personnel office for information. On the third page of the information document, is a form which was to be completed and returned to the DHRS personnel office. Contained on the form is the following statement: "If your spouse is employed with a State Agency in a Career Service position, please contact the Personnel office to request an application for the Spouse Program". Ms. McCluskey-Titus was not employed in a Career Service position. Mr. Titus believed that his wife's completion of the appropriate form at the FSU personnel office was sufficient. He did not obtain or submit an application for the program. Neither form provided to Mr. Titus stated that both spouses were required to submit separate documentation. There is no evidence that either Mr. or Ms. Titus were informed, by either employer or the Respondent, that the failure to complete separate documentation would preclude enrollment in the spouse program and could result in an assessment of unpaid premiums. After Ms. McCluskey-Titus submitted the form to the FSU personnel office, the state discontinued deducting her contribution to the health insurance premium from her check. The couple believed that, since no premium deduction was being withheld, the spouse plan enrollment had been completed. In February, 1989, Mr. Titus was informed that, because he had not completed the appropriate form at the DHRS office, the couple was ineligible for the spouse plan. The Respondent requires that both spouses complete separate documentation in order to enroll in the spouse plan. He completed the form and by March 1, 1989, their coverage in the spouse plan became effective. The Respondent is now attempting to assess Ms. McCluskey-Titus for the $83.46 monthly family coverage premiums which were not deducted from her pay during the five month period preceding Mr. Titus' completion of the appropriate form. The total amount claimed by Respondent is $417.30. The evidence indicates that, but for Mr. Titus' failure to complete and submit the form, the couple would have been entitled to participate in the spouse plan and no premium contribution would be owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration, Division of State Employees' Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing the assessment against the Petitioner for additional insurance premiums in the total amount of $417.30. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4943 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified, except for last sentence, rejected, argument, not appropriate finding of fact. Statement that prescription drug claims were covered is rejected, not supported by evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. Nature of communication between the respective personnel offices, rejected, not supported by evidence. Respondent Accepted. Rejected, not supported by evidence. 3-4. Accepted as modified. However, requirement that both spouses must submit forms, not supported by evidence. Accepted as to amount, rejected as to indicating that Petitioner was responsible for payment, not supported by evidence. Rejected. Paragraph 2E(2) of the Petition does not state that Mr. Titus failed to read the document, but states only that he took no action. Rejected, not supported by evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis McCluskey-Titus 2353 Skyland Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Administration Room 438, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was an Ordinary Life, including Disability Agent, and a Disability Agent licensed by the State of Florida. During this period, Respondent was licensed to sell life and health insurance policies for National States Insurance Company, American Guaranty Life Insurance Company, and Old Southern Life Insurance Company. Respondent was employed as an agent by Diversified Health Services, an insurance agency whose office is located in St. Petersburg, Florida. At no time material hereto was Respondent employed by any agency of the State of Florida. As indicated above, there remain viable in the Administrative Complaint ten counts charging Respondent with various violations of provisions of the Florida Insurance Code. For purposes of clarity, the findings of fact with regard to each of those remaining counts will be set forth separately. COUNT I On February 12, 1983, Respondent visited Lucille Shock at her home in Bradenton, Florida. Mrs. Shock had earlier purchased a Medicare supplement policy from National States Insurance Company through another agent, but had decided to cancel that policy. Respondent visited Mrs. Shock's home in response to her notice of cancellation in hopes of persuading her to reinstate coverage. In paragraph three of Count I of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mrs. Shock that he was ". . . authorized by the Florida Department of Insurance to investigate the Diversified Health Agency" when, in fact, he was not employed by any state agency. While it is true that Respondent was not at the time of his visit to Mrs. Shock employed by any state agency, the record in this cause is insufficient to establish the foregoing allegation of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent denies having made any c representation to Mrs. Shock that he was employed by the State of Florida. Further, Mrs. Shock's testimony in this regard is inconsistent and conflicting. In a February 21, 1983, letter to a representative of the Florida Department of Insurance, Mrs. Shock stated that at the time of his visit to her home the Respondent represented that he ". . . was an investigator for the Diversified Health Agency. . . . At final hearing, Mrs. Shock testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for the "insurance department," but also, on cross-examination, testified that Respondent told her that he was an investigator for Diversified Health. Despite these inconsistencies, it is clear from the record in this proceeding that before the end of Respondent's visit with Mrs. Shock on February 12, 1983, she knew that Respondent was an insurance agent for National States Insurance Company. Because of the inconsistencies in Mrs. Shock's testimony, it is specifically concluded that her testimony concerning Respondent's representation about his employment is unreliable. Other than Mrs. Shock's testimony, there is no other record basis to establish that Respondent represented himself to be an employee of the Department of Insurance as alleged in Count I. Respondent is also charged in paragraph five of Count I of the Administrative Complaint with having "falsely represented the financial condition of several insurance companies licensed to do business in Florida as part of your sales presentation to induce Mrs. Shock to buy insurance policies from you." The record in this cause establishes that Respondent and Mrs. Shock discussed several insurance companies, including Vulcan Insurance Company, Tara Life Insurance Company, and Bankers Life during their visit on February 12, 1983. Respondent reviewed with Mrs. Shock data contained in certain A. M. Best Company reports concerning these insurance companies.Respondent advised Mrs. Shock that Vulcan Insurance Company was "a rather shaky company" and that Tara Life Insurance Company had been experiencing "financial problems." There is, however, nothing of record in this proceeding to establish either that these companies are licensed in Florida or that the representations made by Respondent to Mrs. Shock concerning these insurance companies were false. Accordingly, the allegations contained in paragraph five of Count I have not been established. COUNT II On or about February 10, 1983, Respondent visited Koy B. Cook at his home in Port Orange, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mr. Cook was to dissuade Mr. Cook from cancelling a policy with National States Insurance Company whichir. Cook had previously bought from another agent. After buying the National States policy initially, Mr. Cook had attempted to cancel a preexisting policy with Bankers Life Insurance Company, but had been advised by that company that the policy could not be cancelled. Mr. Cook determined that he could not afford duplicated coverage, so he contacted National States Insurance Company and advised them of his desire to cancel his National States policy. Be was advised, in writing, by National States, that his policy had been cancelled and that his premium had been returned to the insurance agency which had sold him the policy for refund. Sometime prior to January 12, 1983, Respondent contacted Mr. Cook by telephone, identified himself by name, and arranged an appointment to visit with Mr. Cook in his home. Mr. Cook understood from the conversation with Respondent that the purpose of their appointment was to return Mr. Cook's refund check from his cancelled National States policy. Immediately prior to Respondent's arrival at Mr. Cook's home, Mr. Cook had been asleep. When Respondent arrived at Mr. Cook's door, Mr. Cook was still in a "daze," having just awakened. This fact is of significance, because at various times in his testimony Mr. Cook testified that Respondent identified himself as . . . an adjuster with Bill Gunter out of Tallahassee, or . . . an adjuster for the insurance company out of Tallahassee." Mr. Cook also testified that Respondent showed him some identification which bore a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter. This photograph was apparently attached to a document, the contents of which were unknown to Mr. Cook. Respondent denies having represented that he was an employee of the Department of Insurance. During the course of their conversation, Mr. Cook advised Respondent that he preferred the coverage offered under the National States policy to that of the Bankers Life policy, but simply could not afford duplicate coverage. Respondent and Mr. Cook discussed the amount of unearned premium outstanding on the Bankers Life policy as compared to the cost of reinstating the National States policy. Mr. Cook had originally paid $630 for the issuance of the National States policy. Respondent returned to Mr. Cook a check in that amount during the course of their visit. Further, by offering to reinstate the National States policy for a $526 annual premium, Respondent demonstrated to Mr. Cook that he would save approximately the amount that remained in unearned premiums on the Bankers Life policy. Mr. Cook agreed to this proposal, Respondent completed an application form, and Mr. Cook gave Respondent a check for approximately $526 to reinstate the National States policy, with the understand- ing that the National States and Bankers Life policies would overlap for some period of time. Upon leaving Mr. Cook's house, Respondent gave Mr. Cook one of his business cards, which identi- fied Respondent as an agent of National States Insurance Company. In Count II of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having told Mr. Cook that he was an "insurance adjuster working out of Tallahassee" and that he "worked for the Florida Department of Insurance. Respondent is further charged with having told Mr. Cook that he "had a refund check for a cancelled Bankers Life policy when in fact the] had no such check." The testimony of Mr. Cook and Respondent on the issues alleged in Count II are diametrically oooosed. Viewing the transaction between Mr. Cook and Respondent in its totality, it is concluded that Respondent's version of the transaction is the more credible. Mr. Cook's testimony concerning Respondent's representations about his employment status contained several contradictions and inconsistencies. In addition, it is clear that Mr. Cook expected to receive a refund check from National States Insurance Comoany, that Mr. Palesky contacted him by telephone prior to his February 10 visit to advise him that he had his refund check, and that Respondent conducted himself during the entire transaction in a manner which clearly identified him as an insurance salesman. Finally, Respondent furnished Mr. Cook with a business card during the course of their meeting which clearly showed Respondent to be an agent of National States Insurance Company. It is also clear that Mr. Cook was aware during this entire transaction that his Bankers Life policy had not been cancelled, and that as a result of his transaction with Respondent he would be carrying policies with National States and Bankers Life which afforded duclicate coverage, and that he was advised of this fact by Respondent. These facts are clearly inconsistent with Mr. Cook's testimony that Respondent advised him that he had a refund for a cancelled Bankers Life policy in his possession. COUNT IV On or about March 2, 1982, Respondent visited Marjorie Brubaker in her home in Bradenton, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to Mrs. Brubaker was to dissuade her from cancelling an insurance policy with National States Insurance Company which she had previously purchased through another agent and had subsequently cancelled. Mrs. Brubaker testified that, upon arrival at her home, Respondent represented to her that he was an "investigator for the state" or a "state investigator," looking into her cancellation of her policy with National States Insurance Company. Respondent denies having made that representation. The record is clear, however, that shortly after entering Mrs. Brubaker's home, Respondent showed Mrs. Brubaker materials which clearly identified him as an agent of National States Insurance Company, and that Mrs. Brubaker clearly understood within minutes after his entering her home that he was, in fact, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, it is specifically found that Respondent's testimony concerning his employment status is more credible. If, as is clear from the record, Respondent intended to sell insurance to Mrs. Brubaker, there is little logic to his having represented himself as a state employee at the door to her home, and within minutes clearly divulging to her that that was indeed not the case. Petitioner also alleges in the Administrative Complaint that Respondent displayed a photograph of Insurance Commissioner Bill Gunter to Mrs. Brubaker to establish his position as an investigator for the state. Mrs. Brubaker, however, was unable to identify the person in the photograph displayed to her by Respondent, other than to assert that the person in the photograph was not the Respondent, but instead a clean-shaven person with light hair and fair, reddish complexion. Those facts, standing alone, are insufficient to establish that the person in the photograph was, in fact, Mr. Gunter. Respondent is alleged in paragraph twenty of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint of having ". . . . falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in this state in order to induce Mrs. Brubaker to purchase' new insurance policies from you." The only evidence in the record on this issue is Mrs. Brubaker's testimony that Respondent told her that Blue Cross-Blue Shield would soon cease to be the Medicare carrier in Florida, and that there existed a substantial possibility that National States Insurance Company would be designated as the new Medicare carrier in Florida. The record in this cause is absolutely devoid of any evidence that that representation, even if it had been made, was false. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish facts to support the allegations that Respondent has falsely represented the status of Medicare coverage in Florida. Finally, paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent falsely told Mrs. Brubaker that her present insurer, Orange State Life Insurance Company, was cancelling its Medicare Supplement policies. . . . It is undisputed that Mrs. Brubaker, at the time she was visited by Respondent, had insurance coverage through Orange State Life Insurance Company. Mrs. Brubaker, it is clear from the record, was under the impression that her policy with Orange State Life Insurance Company was a Medicare supplement policy. Respondent testified that her policy was not a Medicare supplement policy, and, in fact, bore a statement across the top of the policy to the effect that the policy was not a Medicare supplement policy. Petitioner offered no evidence to rebut Respondent's testimony in this regard, and neither party sought to introduce the policy into evidence. The only evidence offered by Petitioner to support the allegation that Respondent's representation that Orange State Life Insurance Company was cancelling its Medicare supplement policv was the fact that Mrs. Brubaker had continued to pay premiums on her policy after the representation was made by Respondent without receiving notice of any cancellation. However, any inference that might be drawn from continued payment of premiums fails if, in fact, the policy held by Mrs. Brubaker was not a Medicare supplement policy. Neither party having offered competent evidence to establish that Mrs. Brubaker's Orange State Life Insurance Company policy was in fact a Medicare supplement policy, the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-one of Count IV of the Administrative Complaint are deemed to be without factual support. COUNT VI In Count VI f the Administrative Complaint, it is alleged that Respondent visited the home of Leila Mueller on October 18, 1979. It is further alleged that at that time Respondent told Mrs. Mueller that he was ". . . from Medicare and that [Respondent] had called at one of [Mrs. Mueller's] neighbor's homes to explain the changes in Medicare coverage." It is further alleged that Respondent ". . . misrepresented [his] actual employment in order to induce Mrs. Mueller to buy insurance policies. The record in this cause establishes that on or about October 18, 1979, Mrs. Mueller was visited in her home by two insurance salesmen whom she believed to be in some way affiliated with Medicare. Mrs. Mueller did not recall the names of either of the two men, was not asked to physically identify the Respondent, and could not recall which of the two men led her to believe that they were affiliated with "Medicare." Mrs. Mueller inquired about whether there existed any written material that she could review to decide whether to purchase insurance coverage. One of the men furnished her a brochure which had the name "Palesky" on it. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to establish that Respondent was ever in the home of Mrs. Mueller or that he in any fashion ever represented to her or to anyone else that he was a representative of Medicare. The only testi- mony in this record that in any way connects Respondent with Mrs. Mueller was her testimony that she was given a brochure, which was not introduced into evidence, containing Respondent's name. This fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish the factual allegations contained in Count VI of the Adminis- trative Complaint. COUNT XI On or about March 21, 1982, Respondent visited William F. and Winifred M. Bell in their home in Sarasota, Florida. The purpose of Respondent's visit to the Bells was to sell them a Medicare supplement policy. The Bells had previously purchased a policy from Union Fidelity Insurance Company. During the course of Respondent's visit with the Bells, Respondent advised them that Union Fidelity was "not a good company" and that the policy they had with Union Fidelity was "not a good policy." In addition, Respondent advised the Bells that if anything happened to Mr. Bell that Mrs. Bell would not be insured within two months after Mr. Bell's death. Paragraph fifty-five of Count XI of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent told the Bells ". . . that their present insurance coverage was no good" and that if Mr. Bell died, Mrs. Bell would not be insured when in fact [Respondent] knew that both of those statements were false." The record in this cause contains no evidence that the representations set forth above made by Respondent to the Bells were false. The Bells' insurance policy was not received into evidence because Petitioner failed to respond fully to Respondent's Request for Production of Documents, and had further failed to fully exchange exhibits with Respondent, including a copy of the Bells' policy, as required by the Pre-hearing Order entered by the Hearing Officer approximately two months prior to the date set for final hearing in this cause. Accordingly, there are no facts to substantiate the allegations contained in Count XI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XII On or about February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Louise S. Donovan at her home in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in response to her cancellation of a previous policy purchased from National States Insurance Company from another agent on or about November 17, 1982. Soon thereafter, she cancelled that policy but on December 22, 1982, reinstated the policy after having available coverages explained to her by the other agent. Sometime thereafter she again can- called the National States policy. By letter dated January 17, 1983, from the home office of National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Donovan was advised that her refund-check had been returned to her agency for refund to her. On February 4, 1983, Respondent visited Mrs. Donovan in her home. Under direct examination, Mrs. Donovan testified as follows concerning that visit: Q So, you showed [the January 27, 1983] letter to Mr. Palesky; and, how did he respond to the letter? A He said sort of -- it's a little vague now after all these months -- that, oh, well, they didn't pay any attention to those things, or some- thing like that, and that the company would not refund any money on the policy. Q Be made the statement to you that the company was not going to refund? A The company would not -- now, I believe his interpretation of that, but it wasn t clear to me, was that there was a certain clause in that policy that I was not satisfied with and that he would not reissue the same policy under the same conditions. Well, I'm a lay person. I don't know all these fine points. And, I under- stood that he meant that the company would not refund any money to me at all... During the course of their discussions, Mrs. Donovan advised Respondent that she had cancel led the policy because she did not have nursing home coverage. Respondent explained to her that, under those circumstances she would have to either add nursing home coverage to the policy she had cancelled, which he was not sure that he could do for her because the so-called "RS 100 feature" was in the process of being discontinued, or she could take out a separate nursing home policy. Resnondent advised her that in order to keep the RS 100 feature she would have to reinstate the policy which she had cancelled, and take out a separate nursing home policy at a later date. This is the option which Respondent recommended to Mrs. Donovan, and the option that she ultimately chose. Accordingly, Mrs. Donovan opted to fill out an application reinstating the cancelled policy. She had originally paid $659 for the policy she took out on December 22, 982, but premium rates had increased since that time. The application filled out by Mrs. Donovan on February 4, 1983, reflects the premium rate increased to $691. Mrs. Donovan testified that she did not recall endorsing a refund check in the amount of $659 from National States Insurance Company and allowing Respondent to submit the endorsed check to National States along with the application dated February 4, 1983. Respondent testified that she did, in fact, endorse that check, which he forwarded to National States Insurance Company with the February 4, 1983, application. According to Respondent's testimony, which is uncontradicted, he submitted the $659 check to National States, notwithstanding the fact that the premium rate had increased to $691, with the understanding that the company had the option of either reinstating the policy for $659 or insisting upon the increased premium rate. Thereafter, Mrs. Donovan again decided to cancel the coverage she received as a result of the February 4, 1983, application submitted through Respondent. Mrs. Donovan signed a sworn statement on March 30, 1983, which provided, in part, as follows: Mr. Palesky has shown me the com- plaint filed against him by the Department of Insurance. I totally disagree with the accusa- tions in the complaint. My only problem with Mr. Pale sky was a misunderstanding concerning the fact that the RS 100 rider could not be refunded and reissued (as it was being discontinued) [sic] I thought he meant the entire policy could not be refunded. . . . Count XII of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent ". . . refused to return [premium] money to Mrs. Donovan. . ., and that ". . . as a result of your refusal Mrs. Donovan felt pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium." Further, Count XII alleges that ". . . the new policy was written for a higher premium, that [Resoondent] signed a receipt acknowledging receipt of the higher premium, and that Mrs. Donovan gave [Respondent] no money during [the] visit [of] February 4, 1983." The evidence in this cause does not establish that Respondent refused to return premium money to Mrs. Donovan, nor does the evidence establish that Mrs. Donovan was pressured into applying for a new policy at a higher premium. Finally, the evidence in this cause establishes that Respondent attempted to have National States Insurance Company reinstate Mrs. Donovan's coverage at the premium originally paid in December of 1982, notwithstanding a premium increase that had occurred in the interim, a procedure which has not been shown by the record in this cause to be in any way improper. COUNT XV On or about January 24, 1983, Kenneth E. Fritz bought a National States Insurance Company policy from an agent other than Respondent. On or about February 12, 1983, Mr. Fritz cancelled that policy and asked for a full refund. Mr. Fritz subsequently received a letter dated March 11, 1983, from National States Insurance Company acknowledging his request for cancellation, and advising him that a full refund of his premium was being sent to the agency office which had sold the policy to him, with instructions to deliver the refund to him. On or about March 24, 1983, Respondent visited Mr. Fritz in his home in Largo, Florida, with Mr. Fritz' refund check. In paragraph eighty-eight of Count XV of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with having ". told Mr. Fritz that [Respondent was] an `investigator with Florida' and that [Respondent] pointed to an emblem on [Respondent's] jacket which gave [Mr. Fritz] the idea [Respondent was] employed by the State of Florida' when in fact [Respondent was] not and are not employed by the Florida Deoartment of Insurance in any capacity." It is further alleged that Resoondent made this representation to influence Mr. Fritz to buy insurance policies, and that Mr. Fritz did not realize that Respondent was not a government employee until reading a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, concerning the emergency suspension of Respondent's licensed. Respondent denies ever having represented to Mr. Fritz that he was an employee of the State of Florida. Indeed, Mr. Fritz testified on this issue only that: Mr. Palesky came here, and he had a thing on his coat, and he says[sic] you bought some policies from the -- and he mentioned the name of the company in St. Louis, and he says[sic] I'm here to check on that, and he rattles this thing and give [sic] me the impression that he was the--was from the State of Florida checking this. . . . As mentioned above, Respondent is charged with representing to Mr. Fritz that Respondent was an "investigator with Florida." Nothing contained in the record in this cause establishes that Respondent ever made such a representation to Mr. Fritz. Indeed, Mr. Fritz clearly testified that he could not remember exactly what Respondent said to him to give him the "impression" that he was an employee of the State of Florida. It is, however, clear from the record in this cause that the allegation of the Administrative Complaint that Mr. Fritz did not know that Respondent was not a state employee until reading of Respondent's emergency suspension in a newspaper article on or about April 2, 1983, is false. What is clear is that Respondent made a sales presentation to Mr. Fritz which resulted not only in Mr. Fritz' reinstating the policy he had earlier purchased from another agent and cancelled, but in fact buying another policy from Respondent at the same time. It is also clear that Respondent gave Mr. Fritz a business card during the course of their conversation which clearly identified Respondent as a salesman for National States Insurance Company. In short, this record does not establish that Respondent ever represented himself as an employee of the State of Florida during the course of his sales presentation to Mr. Fritz, nor did Mr. Fritz reinstate his cancelled policy and purchase a second policy based upon any such representation. COUNT XVII On April 15, 1981, Esther Huddleson purchased two Medicare supplement policies issued by National States Insurance Company from agent Michael Frye. On April 16, 1901, she requested a refund on the National States policies. On June 1, 1981, she was visited in her home by Respondent. Count XVII alleges that Respondent falsely advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "insurance investigator" and an "investigator for the State." It is also alleged that Respondent was not an "investigator" for National States Insurance Company and that his status with the company had always been that of a sales representative. Further, it is alleged that Respondent ". . . falsely told Mrs. Huddleson her statutory `free look' had expired and so persuaded her to sign a conservation notice." It is clear from the record in this proceeding that Respondent never advised Mrs. Huddleson that he was an "investigator for the State" or in any other manner employed by the State of Florida or the Department of Insurance. A sworn statement signed by Mrs. Huddleson upon which she was closely interrogated by counsel and the Bearing Officer during the course of this proceeding clearly reflects that Respondent identified himself either as "an investigator from National States Insurance Company" or "States Insurance Company." Fur ther, there is no evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that this representation by Respondent was in any way false. Finally, the only testimony in the record in this cause concerning Mrs. Huddleson's statutory "free look" period occurred on the direct examination of Mrs. Buddleson as follows: Q Did [Respondent] lead you to believe that your 30-day period had passed? A yes. At least, that was in my mind. Mrs. Buddleson's testimony in this regard is, at best, equivocal, and does not persuasively establish that Respondent did, in fact, advise her that her "free look" period had expired as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. There is, accordingly, insufficient evidence of record in this proceeding to establish the allegations against Respondent contained in Count XVII of the Administrative Complaint. The Bearing Officer feels constrained, further, to note with concern the failure of Petitioner's counsel to deal with both Mrs. Huddleson's sworn statement and direct testimony concerning the fact that Respondent never represented himself to her to be an employee of the State of Florida. In fact, to say that Petitioner's counsel failed to deal with those issues is most charitable. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the proposed findings submitted by Petitioner's counsel on this particular issue have absolutely no factual basis in this record, despite citations to a portion of the transcript purportedly supporting the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXI In December of 1982 Mary Ellen Stapleton purchased a Medicare supplement policy from an agent, other than Respon- dent, representing National States Insurance Company. After reviewing the policy and deciding that she did not want to retain it, Mrs. Stapleton returned the policy on or about February 8, 1983, to National States Insurance Company, and requested a refund of her premium. Through a series of correspondence with National States Insurance Company, Mrs. Stapleton's cancellation request was acknowledged, and she was advised that her premium refund had been returned to the office of the agency selling the policy, with instructions to make immediate delivery to her. On or about March 8, 1983, Respondent telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home and advised her that he was an investigator for National States Insurance Company and that he was investigating a Mr. Buffer, who had sold Mrs. Stapleton her National States policy. Count XXI, in pertinent part, alleges: That on or about March 8, 1983, you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, telephoned Mrs. Stapleton at her home in Lakeland, Florida, and told her you were "an investigator for National States and [that you were] investi- gating Mr. Buffer" when in fact you were not and are not an investigator for National States Insurance Company but were and are only a salesman. That at no time did you tell Mrs. Stapleton that you represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. That you, JOSEPH MICHAEL PALESKY, created the false impression of your employ- ment status in order to induce Mrs. Stapleton to keep the [cancelled] policy. . Respondent did not tell Mrs. Stapleton that he represented Diversified Health Services of St. Petersburg, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent was, on March 8, 1983, a salesman for National States Insurance Company. Petitioner has not established by any evidence whatsoever that Respondent was not an investigator for National States Insurance Company with authority to investigate Mr. Buffer. Neither has it been shown in this record that Respondent was under any obligation to identify the insurance agency by whom he was employed after having first clearly identified himself as being affiliated with National States Insurance Company. It is, therefore, specifically concluded that there are no facts of record to establish the violations alleged in Count XXI of the Administrative Complaint. COUNT XXII On September 24, 1980, Respondent visited John Capers Smith and Lillian H. Smith in their home in Bradenton, Florida. Respondent went to the Smiths' home in response to the Smiths having sent a card to National States Insurance Company requesting information concerning Medicare supplement policies. Upon his arrival at the Smiths' home, Respondent was advised by Mrs. Smith initially that she did not wish to speak with him further on that day because her husband had recently undergone surgery and was still recuperating. However, uoon Respondent's insistence, he was admitted to the Smiths' home at approximately 1:00 p.m. Respondent remained in the Smiths' home until approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 24, 1980. When he first arrived in the Smiths' home, Respondent told the Smiths that he worked for the State of Florida and that Bill Gunter was his boss. In the course of discussing National States Insurance Company policies, Respondent advised the Smiths that this type of policy was something that Mr. Gunter was attempting to do to assist elderly Floridians. During the course of his conversation with the Smiths, Respondent displayed a photograph of Mr. Gunter to the Smiths as proof of his affiliation with the State of Florida, and offered to call Mr. Gunter on the telephone to verify his credentials. After a long period of discussion, the Smiths purchased an insurance policy from Respondent, and gave him a check for $694. The Smiths' purchase of the policy was due in large part to Respondent's representation that he was an employee of the State of Florida, and that Mr. Gunter approved of the policy. Respondent denies having made any representation to the Smiths concerning his employment by the State of Florida, but, under the circumstances here present, it is specifically concluded that the Smiths' versions of the transaction occurring on September 24, 1980, are more credible.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent violated various provisions of the Florida Insurance Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact 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 with regulating the practice of agents and other insurance professionals already licensed by the State of Florida. The Respondent, at all times pertinent hereto, was and is licensed by the State of Florida as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. The Respondent procured applications for life insurance to be issued from Pacific to the 30 named individuals and entities set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint in its 25 counts. Pacific was not authorized to transact insurance business in the State of Florida because the company was not yet licensed. However, it was in the process of becoming licensed and licensure was imminent. The company Regional Director, C. Manley Denton, and other company officials, when they recruited the Respondent to sell insurance policies in Florida, assured him that licensure was imminent, that there was no impediment to finalization of the licensure procedures in the very near future, and that the Respondent could legally obtain life insurance policy applications and sell policies in Florida if he took the applications and dated them in and from his Tulsa, Oklahoma, office. He was assured that this procedure would render his activities legal. In reliance on these representations by officials of Pacific, the Respondent undertook to and did obtain the applications for, and sell the insurance policies, referenced above and in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Respondent, for many years, has transacted insurance business as a general agent of life and health insurance in Oklahoma and in Florida. He is a resident of both states, spending part of each year in each state. Many of the policyholders referenced above and in the Amended Administrative Complaint were clients of the Respondent, who had already had other insurance policies issued by him through companies he represents. In the particular instances involved in this proceeding, many of these clients had been policyholders of the First Capital Life Insurance Company, which had experienced financial difficulties and gone into receivership. Because of his policyholders' concern and his own concern about the possibility of the future inability to pay claims by the company in receivership, the affected clients and the Respondent were desirous of replacing those policies with policies in a different and sounder insurance company. This desire dovetailed neatly with the desire by the executives at Pacific to obtain a large block of insurance policy business in Florida and in other states in the mainland United States. This desire by Pacific executives was due to a recent merger of that company with the Hawaiian Life Insurance Company, a company which was owned by Meiji Mutual Life of Tokyo Japan (Meiji). The resulting merged company, Pacific, was owned by Meiji. The executives at Pacific, which had historically been headquartered in San Jose, California, desired to continue to maintain the company domicile and their own personal residences in California and avoid having to relocate to Hawaii. This was the reason they desired to secure a large block of insurance business very rapidly in order to enhance the sales record of the "stateside branch" of the company. They believed that this would insure that their relocation would not have to be accomplished. With this interest in the forefront of their plans, the executives of Pacific began to search for the best insurance agents in the nation who have a record of successfully writing large volumes of life insurance policy business. The Respondent is such an insurance agent. He had recently achieved a nationally-recognized ranking as one of the highest volume life insurance producer agents in the country. Because the Respondent was desirous of placing a high-dollar volume of life insurance policies for the clients referenced above, who had had policies in the financially-troubled First Capital Life Insurance Company, the Respondent agreed, at the behest of the officials of Pacific, to attempt to write a large block of life insurance business in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a well-respected general life insurance and health insurance agent. He is widely known throughout the insurance profession and industry, throughout the United States, as an ethical, competent and successful life insurance policy producer. He has no blemish on his licensure and practice record as an agent, throughout the approximate 40 years he has engaged in the profession. When the Respondent obtained the insurance policy applications and policies at issue in this proceeding, he engaged in one course of conduct. That is, he contacted the clients and obtained their applications and arranged for the sale of the insurance policy contracts to them, as either new policies and clients, or as replacement policies for his existing clients, as the case might be. He engaged in this essentially-identical transaction with all 30 of these policyholders, in the genuine, good-faith belief that he was legally writing insurance policy business in the State of Florida based upon the circumstances related to him by officials of Pacific, upon which he relied. He candidly acknowledges, through counsel, that, in so relying, he knew that the company was not actually licensed in the State of Florida, but that that eventuality was imminent in the very near future, and that based upon the method the company assured him of writing the policies through the Tulsa, Oklahoma, office, he would be obtaining and transacting this business in a legally acceptable way. He also candidly acknowledges that, in fact, he understands, from his contact with the Department since that time, this was not the case and that he was writing the business for a company not legally authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The Respondent has freely admitted these above-found facts and does not dispute that he was in violation of the portion of the charges that do not depend on intent. He has established, however, through the exhibits admitted as explanatory hearsay and the agreed-upon proffer of his counsel, that the transactions at issue, all of which were the result of one essentially-identical course of conduct, were accomplished with no intent to defraud the policyholders, the company, or the Florida Department of Insurance. There was no willful, dishonest or deceitful intent by the Respondent during the course of his engagement in these transactions. There was no such willful wrongful intent in the course of his contact and relations with the company, those policyholders, or the Department of Insurance since that time. No policyholder or company suffered any financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's conduct, nor did any insurance coverage lapse at any time. Although there were some 30 policyholders who were sold insurance by the Respondent, as the agent for a company not actually licensed in the State of Florida, that circumstance had no effect on the validity of the policy coverages involved and there were no actual "victims" of the Respondent's conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner, Department of Insurance, finding the Respondent, Wayne Harland Creasy, guilty of a violation of Section 626.901(1), Florida Statutes, in the manner found and concluded above and that a penalty of $3,000.00 be imposed, together with the award of $500.00 in attorney's fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-32. Accepted. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, in a technical sense, but not in the sense that any overt, intentional effort to circumvent Florida law was committed by the Respondent. Rather, it was a negligent failure to act in a legal way due to being misled by Pacific Guardian Life Insurance Company, Ltd. or its officers or employees. Accepted, as to the factual allegations of the Administrative Complaint, but not as to their legal import, and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are not ruled upon or considered because they were not timely filed, being approximately one month out of time with no motion for extension of time, during the originally-set time period, being filed. Consequently, the Petitioner's motion to strike the Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is granted. COPIES FURNISHED: Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 C. Rabon Martin, Esquire Martin and Associates 403 South Cheyenne Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Bill Nelson, State 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
