Findings Of Fact On September 8, 1987, the Department of Insurance received a letter dated September 1, 1987, from Joseph F. Kinman, Jr., which stated: Another insurance agent (Daniel Bruce Caughey) from Pensacola, Florida and his incorporated agency (Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc.) are refusing to forward premium payments on to Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. despite a final judgment for such amounts here in Hillsborough County Circuit Court. Enclosed is a copy of the Final Judgment entered August 13, 1987, as well as a copy of the Complaint. We represent Jordan Roberts & Company, as well as Poe & Associates, Inc. here in Tampa, Florida. In approximately August of 1982, Daniel Bruce Caughey and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. entered into a brokerage agreement with Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. wherein Mr. Caughey and the Agency were to collect premiums on behalf of Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. and in turn, Mr. Caughey and the Agency were to receive commissions. Mr. Caughey signed an Individual Guarantee Agreement on October 21, 1983, guaranteeing that Brokerage Agreement with Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. Mr. Caughey and the Agency failed to forward the insurance premiums collected on behalf of Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. despite repeated demands and inquiries. Finally, a lawsuit was filed against Mr. Caughey and the Agency in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Hillsborough County in December of 1986. Final judgment for Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. against Mr. Caughey and the Agency was entered on August 13, 1987, for an amount of $6,595.94. Mr. Caughey and his Agency have unlawfully withheld monies belonging to an insurer, Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. and, accordingly, appear to be in violation of Florida Statutes 626 et seq. Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. has a judgment for unpaid insurance premiums against Mr. Caughey and the Agency, however, Mr. Caughey and the Agency refuse or fail to pay over to Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. premium funds rightfully belonging to Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. Accordingly, we would respectfully request that your office conduct an investigation of Mr. Caughey and the Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. Enclosed with this letter were copies of the complaint and final judgment in the circuit court case, Case No. 86-21454. As found in the main administrative case, Case No. 89-2651: In Count 1, JORO's complaint [in Case No. 86-21454] alleges the existence of a brokerage agreement between JORO and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc., entered into "[o]n or about April 27, 1982"; execution and delivery of respondent's guarantee "[o]n or about October 21, 1983"; and the agency's indebtedness "for premiums on policies underwritten by [JORO] for the sum of $20,975.36." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. In Count II, the complaint also alleges execution and delivery of a promissory note "[o]n or about October 21, 1983," without, however, explicitly indicating its relationship (if any) with the guarantee executed the same date. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The final judgment does not specify which count(s) JORO recovered on. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Attached to the complaint are copies of the promissory note, executed by "CAUGHEY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., By: D B Caughey Vice President"; the guarantee, executed in the same way; and the brokerage agreement, executed on behalf of Caughey Insurance Agency by "William C. Caughey, President." Although the Individual Guarantee Agreement names respondent as guarantor in the opening paragraph, the corporation is shown as guarantor on the signature line. The complaint does not allege and the judgment does not recite that respondent personally failed to remit premiums but says he is responsible as an officer of the agency. Without any further investigation, as far as the record shows, the Department of Insurance filed a complaint amended on April 24, 1989, to allege, inter alia, that "[o]n or about August 19, 1982 Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. entered into a brokerage agreement with Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. . . . requir[ing] Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. to remit premiums, unearned commissions and additional premiums to Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc."; and that respondent "personally guaranteed the [agency's] obligation under this agreement in" writing, but "failed to remit five thousand five dollars and forty-four cents due under th[e] agreement" for which sum Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. obtained judgment. After a formal administrative hearing, a recommended order was entered on April 2, 1990, recommending dismissal of the administrative complaint, because "ambiguities in the court papers do not clearly and convincingly rule out the possibility that the court's judgment rests on the dishonored promissory note . . . [rather than] a breach of respondent's [here petitioner's] fiduciary responsibilities." In its final order, the Department dismissed the administrative complaint; Daniel Bruce Caughey was the prevailing party in that case. The parties have stipulated that "Daniel B. Caughey qualifies as a small business party as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes." The parties also stipulated that the "total value of the reasonable attorney's fees and costs at issue is $2,830."
Findings Of Fact The parties entered into a Stipulation resolving many of the factual disputes involved in this proceeding. This Stipulation included attached Exhibits 1-21, which were referred to by number in the Stipulation. The Stipulation, in its entirety, provided as follows: On August 1, 1973, and February 1, 1976, the State of Florida issued full faith and credit road bonds on behalf of Alachua County, Florida, said bonds having a face value of $3.8 million and $4.0 million, respectively (see Exhibits 1 and 2). The 1976 bonds were issued in parity with the 1973 bonds. The Alachua County portion of the fifth and sixth cent gas tax (Second Gas Tax) were pledged for the payment of "the principal of and interest on the bonds." The 1973 and 1976 bonds were issued to pay for certain specified road construction projects and unspecified "rights-of-way acquisition for Primary and Secondary roads throughout Alachua County" (see Exhibits 1 and 2, pp. 6) . Prior to July 1, 1977, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) controlled the expenditure of the counties' portion of the Second Gas Tax fund pursuant to statute. Prior to July 1, 1977, upon priorities established jointly by the counties and the DOT, the counties through their respective boards of county commissioners adopted resolutions and signed agreements authorizing the DOT to expend county Second Gas Tax funds and road bonds (such as the Alachua County road bond funds) on road construction and right- of-way acquisition projects within the counties. Upon receiving such authorization, the Florida DOT administered and supervised all aspects of the road projects. Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 (attached hereto) consist of the requisite county resolutions (requesting initiation of road projects and specifying the- source of funds) and right of way acquisition agreements for Alachua County road projects initiated by the Florida Department of Transportation, prior to July 1, 1977, said projects being identified as numbers 26070-2532, 26070-2533 and 26250-2501, respectively. Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 (attached hereto) consist of right-of-way agreements, right-of-way appraisal agreements, and orders of taking in condemnation suits, executed prior to July 1, 1977, which pertain to the road projects identified in Paragraph 5 above. Exhibits 9 and 10 (attached hereto) are of the same character as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8, but were executed after July 1, 1977. Exhibit 11 (attached hereto) represents a summary of expenditures, by year, for each of the above-enumerated right-of-way acquisition projects. The Florida Department of Transportation committed and expended approximately $500,000 to $600,000 of Alachua County road bond funds after July 1, 1977, for acquisition of Primary rights-of-way. These expenditures included acquisition of real property, surveying costs, appraisals, general personnel and office operation costs of the Florida Department of Transportation. Prior to July 1, 1977, the three above-enumerated road projects were designated as part of the state Primary Road System, pursuant to statute. After July 1, 1977, pursuant to Chapter 77-165, Laws of Florida, the three above-enumerated road projects were designated as part of the State Road System. Chapter 77-165, Laws of Florida, establish [sic] three road classification systems including State roads, County roads, and Municipal roads, Pursuant to law, each jurisdiction was to assume administrative, operational, and financial responsibility for its respective road system. Pursuant to Chapter 77-165, Laws of Florida, Florida DOT assumed the administrative, operational, and financial responsibility for State roads, and adopted Chapters 14-11 and 14-12, Florida Administrative Code, to effect this assumption and transfer of responsibility. Pursuant to Chapter 77-165, Laws of Florida, and Chapters 14-11 and 12, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida DOT requested that the various counties identify those road projects (jurisdiction over which had been transferred to the counties pursuant to the new law) for which the counties desired the Florida Department of Transportation to continue administrative responsibility. Attached as Composite Exhibit 12 are documents consisting of the Florida DOT's above-noted request to Alachua County and Alachua County's response thereto. After July 1, 1977, Alachua County never requested, through resolution or signed agreement, that the Florida Department of Transportation acquire rights-of-way on the three above-identified rights-of-way acquisition projects. Alachua County did not adopt resolution [sic] in the same form used to initiate the road projects (see Exhibits 3, 4, and 5) requesting the Florida Department of Transportation to discontinue acquisition of said rights-of-way; however, there was an exchange of correspondence between representatives of both Alachua County and the Florida Department of Transportation subsequent to July 1, 1977, relative to the issue of bond monies, copies of which letter [sic] are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit Number 13. Exhibit 14 consists of a DOT Office of Management and Budget circular which was distributed throughout the various offices, including District Offices, of the Department of Transportation. Exhibit 15 (which is a July 22, 1977, letter) was distributed to the various boards of county commissioners for the counties within the State of Florida. For fiscal year 1977-1978, the Florida Legislature appropriated to the Florida Department of Transportation at Chapter 77-464, Laws of Florida, the amount of $20 million for the specific purpose of acquiring Primary rights-of-way for the new State Road System. Similar appropriations have been awarded to the Department of Transportation in subsequent fiscal years. On or about October 18, 1977, the Florida Department of Transportation pursuant to Chapter 77-165, Laws of Florida, for the purpose of affecting said law, promulgated rules as set forth at Chapters 14-11 and 14-12, Florida Administrative Code. In connection with the February 1, 1976, bond issue, the road construction project denominated as Southeast 40th Avenue (see page 6 of Exhibit 2) remains uncompleted as of this date and there are insufficient monies remaining in the Alachua County road bond fund to complete said project. As of July 21, 1980, $28,317.01 remains in the February 1, 1976, bond issue fund. Attached as Composite Exhibit 16 is an August 23, 1977, letter from the Palm Beach County Engineer to Board of County Commissioners, an August 26, 1977, letter from Palm Beach County Director of Engineering Coordination to the Florida Department of Transportation, and a copy of resolution number R-77-859, said resolution dated August 23, 1977. Attached as Exhibit Number 17 are documents showing that the Florida Department of Transportation, with the concurrence of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, transferred $1.2 million from the Alachua County road bond account to the Second Gas Tax account of Alachua County. Attached as Exhibits 18 and 19, respectively, are the January 30, 1973, and August 5, 1975, resolution of the Alachua County Commission issued in connection with the August 1, 1973, and February 1, 1976, bond issues. Attached as Exhibits 20 and 21, respectively, are the August 1, 1973, Lease Purchase Agreement and the February 1, 1976, Supplemental Lease Purchase Agreement prepared in connection with their respective bond issues. The parties to this stipulation agree to submit into evidence the depositions taken by Petitioner of Leon Cassels, Florida Department of Transportation, Comptroller; Tom Webb, Florida Department of Transportation, Deputy Director of Operations; Gene Mynard, Florida Department of Transportation, Fiscal Division Accountant; Fred Renault, Florida Department of Transportation, Chief, Bureau of Right-of-Way; Chuck Butterworth, Florida Department of Transportation, Fiscal and Securities Analyst; Robert (Bob) Taff, Florida Department of Transportation, Contracts Supervisor. Subsequently, the parties by Supplemental Stipulation further agreed as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation expended $590,018 of Alachua County road bond funds after July 1, 1977, in connection with road projects number 26070-2532, 26070-2533, and 26250-2501; and this sum represents the amount of money Alachua County claims should be reimbursed by the Florida Department of Transportation. Testimony adduced at the final hearing on November 13, 1980, established that upon sale of the bond issues in dispute in this proceeding, the State Board of Administration set up a separate two-part account for each bond issue. The first portion of the account consists of a "sinking fund" containing the necessary reserve requirement together with a portion of the Second Gas Tax sufficient to make maturity payments falling due within any given year. The remaining portion of the bond proceeds were placed in a "construction account", whose contents were invested by the State Board of Administration until drawn down by DOT to fund specific projects. Any amounts of the Second Gas Tax not required to be deposited in the "sinking fund" to meet maturity requirements were available, prior to July 1, 1977, for distribution to Alachua County through DOT. After July 1, 1977, of course, the Second Gas Tax proceeds, if not otherwise encumbered, were distributed directly to Alachua County. By Resolution dated January 30, 1973, Petitioner requested the Division of Bond Finance and the Department of Transportation to finance and construct highway improvement projects by means of a bond issue in the amount of $3,800,000, and by additional resolution dated August 5, 1975, Petiti- requested the issuance of additional bonds in the amount of $4,000,000 for the same purpose. In identical wording in both resolutions Petitioner indicated its ". opinion that adequate highways are necessary and desirable to the progress and development of the State and County . . ., and that ". . neither the Department of Transportation . nor the County has sufficient funds to finance such construction . . " As previously indicated, the dispute between the parties in this proceeding concerns some $590,018 of Alachua County road bond funds expended after July 1, 1977, on DOT project Numbers 26070-2532, 26070-2533 and 26350- 2501. Each of these projects was the subject of a separate resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, Florida. Project Numbers 26070-2532 and 26070-2533 involved right-of-way acquisition for construction and improvements to State Road 26 in Alachua County. Project Number 26250-2501 involved right-of-way acquisition for construction and improvements to State Road 121 (34th Street) in Alachua County. In identical language in each of these resolutions, the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County, Florida authorized the ". . . use by the Florida Department of Transportation of such portions of bond proceeds as are needed to acquire right- of-way for construction and improvements to State Roads 26 and 121. As previously indicated, these resolutions were never rescinded by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Department of Management Services (DMS), has the responsibility of procuring insurance coverage for all state agencies. One area of coverage is for fire, windstorm and other risks to state owned buildings and their contents. The state is a self-insurer for the first two million dollars of loss through a fire insurance trust fund established for that purpose, but it purchases excess coverage from commercial insurance carriers for any claims in excess of that amount. Prior to this dispute arising, DMS obtained this excess coverage through the solicitation of bids and the awarding of a contract to an insurance company who purchased the excess coverage on behalf of the state. Indeed, petitioner, Acordia of South Florida, Inc. (ASFI), had provided this coverage for the previous nine years. Due to "gaps" in coverage caused by Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, and its desire to reduce rapidly spriraling costs, DMS decided to select an "agent of record" for obtaining the excess coverage. Under this approach, the selected firm (agent of record) would agree to work on behalf of the state to select and negotiate sufficient coverages for the Fire Insurance Trust Fund Excess Property Program. After obtaining the agency head's approval to negotiate a contract under Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code, rather than use the normal competitive bid or request for proposal process, a DMS staffer, in consultation with the Department of Insurance (DOI), prepared a prequalification questionnaire which was sent to interested vendors on April 28, 1993, inviting them to prequalify for the contract. Based on prequalification, the three highest ranked vendors were required to give an oral presentation to, and answer questions by, an evaluation committee who ranked them based on their presentation and responses. Only four vendors filed prequalifying responses, including petitioner and Johnson & Higgins of Georgia, Inc. (JHGI). After one vendor was preliminarily disqualified, the committee met separately with each of the three remaining vendors and then assigned a score. Under the committee's scoring procedures, JHGI received the highest score and was slated to receive the contract. Petitioner was ranked second. Claiming that the evaluation committee raised new matters during the negotiation process that were not contained in the prequalification questionnaire, ASFI has challenged the award of the contract to JHGI. The Specifications DOI was aware that several other states, including the State of Georgia, were using the agent of record approach for insurance acquisitions. Accordingly, DMS obtained a blank Request for Proposal used by the State of Georgia and gave it to DOI to use in tailoring specifications that would fit DMS' needs. There was no mention or reference to JHGI in any material received from Georgia. During the formulation of the Florida solicitation, DOI did not contact nor receive any input from JHGI. The suggestions by petitioner that JHGI improperly influenced the drafting of the specifications, or that the specifications were drawn in JHGI's favor, are rejected. DMS' invitation to negotiate was issued on April 28, 1993. It advised all vendors that DMS intended "to negotiate to award a contract to a licensed insurance broker/agent for the placement of the State of Florida's Fire Insurance Trust Fund Excess Property Program." (emphasis added) The invitation further stated that each broker/agent must complete the attached prequalifying questionnaire and return it to DMS by 2:00 p. m. on May 7, 1993. The questionnaire was simply intended to screen out bidders that could not qualify, establish minimum standards, and identify qualified firms for further negotiations. It was always envisioned that those vendors who prequalified would be asked additional questions during the actual negotiation process. During these discussions, Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code, which governs this process, allows the vendor to give a "final firm price, terms and conditions." Of particular relevance to this dispute were the requirements in the questionnaire that each vendor identify (a) the "account executives" who would be assigned to the state's account (subparagraph 2a.), and (b) "information on compensation" (paragraph 4). Paragraph 2 of the questionnaire dealt generally with a vendor's organization and staffing. Subparagraph 2a. required the vendor to state "the name(s) and provide a resume for the account executive(s) who will be assigned to this account." In other words, the vendor was required to name the individuals who would administer the program. The second item in question, which contained a number of typographical errors, pertained to information on compensation and informed all vendors that they would be paid on a "fee basis." Subparagraph 4a. required the firm to "give details on how you will document that coverage are (sic) placed on a 'net' (ex-commission) basis," subparagraph 4b. stated that "(n)o commission may be received for placements of these (sic) coverage," while subparagraph 4c. provided that "(i)f your firm utilizes an intermediary, surplus lines of (sic) London broker owned by your firm or your parent firm, no commissions shall be allowed to these firms." Under this arrangement, then, the successful vendor would provide the services for a flat fee and state the amount of that fee on the questionnaire, and DMS would pay only premiums, with no commissions included, to insurance carriers for the coverage needed. This requirement was considered critical to DMS for controlling costs because DMS wanted to be sure it was paying pure premium to the carriers for risk coverage and not commissions to other entities for merely doing paperwork. Finally, the invitation to negotiate provided that after the questionnaires were timely filed, the three highest ranked vendors would meet individually with an evaluation committee and "verbally present and discuss the information furnished by the broker/agent and to answer questions posed by the committee." The latter questions are found in respondent's exhibit 8. The Evaluation Process The evaluation committee was composed of four persons, three from DMS, and one from DOI. All members participated in the questioning of vendor representatives, and after the session, each reviewed the tape recording of the meeting and independently assigned scores to each of the three vendors. Thereafter, the scores were combined and overall rankings were assigned the vendors. In this case, JHGI received a score of 310, petitioner received a score of 290, and Arthur J. Gallagher & Company, the third vendor, received the lowest score of 230. During the negotiation phase of the process, all vendors were asked to state "the name of one person and one alternate to be the account executive to administer the coverage" (question 2.a.). Petitioner says it had no advance notice that the name of an additional person would be required. Believing that DMS was looking for a person with multiple designations, ASFI initially responded to the question by naming Lee Anne Cross, an employee with CPUC, CIC, and AMIM designations. Since Cross had not handled a billion dollar property account, however, ASFI was given no points for naming that individual. In hindsight, ASFI now says that it would have named a different individual who had the necessary experience in handling large accounts, and this individual would have received at least thirty more points. Whether this assumption is correct is speculative at best. Even so, the committee did not allow petitioner to change its response and name a more qualified individual, and in this respect DMS did not follow the requirements of its own rule (60A-1.018), which contemplates that a vendor be allowed to give a "final firm price, terms and conditions" during the negotiation process. Petitioner contends that by requesting this information during the discussion phase of the process, the committee imposed a new requirement not previously mentioned in the prequalification questionnaire. However, the specifications asked each vendor to "state the name(s) and provide a resume of the account executive(s) who would be assigned to the account," and each vendor was advised to be prepared "to discuss the information furnished by the Broker/Agent and to answer questions posed by the committee." Accordingly, it is found that DMS did not deviate from the requirements stated in the prequalification questionnaire by asking question 2.a. Indeed, petitioner's witness acknowledged that when the question was asked, he simply named the wrong employee. During the negotiation process, all vendors were asked to provide a statement that they intended to comply with the requirement that DMS would pay no commissions to intermediaries who secured excess coverages for the state (question 4.e.). Only ASFI declined to make such a statement. ASFI responded that it could not place coverage without the use of non-owned intermediaries, and thus it would have to pay additional commissions to those entities. Since this was contrary to the clear requirement in paragraph 4, ASFI received only ten points, in contrast to thirty points received by JHGI for that question. After being told that no commissions would be paid, ASFI sought to amend its proposal by increasing its flat fee from $95,000 to $195,000 to take into account the additional commissions it would have to pay. Even then, AFSI's fee would have been $30,000 lower than the $225,000 fee proposed by JHGI. On the theory that the deadline for filing proposals had long since expired, and it would be unfair to allow a vendor to amend its proposal at that point, the committee denied ASFI's request to change its fee proposal. This was contrary to the terms of rule 60A-1.018(2). ASFI contends that by imposing the requirement that commissions could not be paid if non-owned intermediaries were used, DMS added a new requirement not previously found in the specifications. It further argues that by using the word "intermediary" in paragraph 4a. of the prequalification questionnaire, DMS was referring to an owned intermediary, rather than a non-owned intermediary. In addition, it points out that such a distinction was not made when DMS used the competitive bidding process. But under the new negotiation process, the questionnaire had stated in three different ways that DMS did not intend to pay any commissions other than the agent of record fee, no matter what entities were used. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to find that DMS deviated from the requirements of the specifications by asking question 4.e. Finally, ASFI suggests that the specifications were vague and confusing. However, AFSI could have sought to clarify or contest those items prior to being qualified but it failed to do so. Moreover, during the negotiation process, its representative did not indicate to the committee that he was confused or did not understand the requirements, and no objection was ever made until AFSI learned it had not been awarded the contract. Since the other two vendors filed responsive questionnaires, and were not confused, and the challenged language was self-explanatory, it is found that the specifications were not misleading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DMS reconsider the three proposals in a manner consistent with its rule and enter a final order awarding the agent of record contract for the Fire Insurance Trust Fund to the vendor "with the best price, terms and conditions." DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6454BID Petitioner: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 6-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 15 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14 and 16. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 24-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 28-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 30-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 32-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 40. Rejected as being irrelevant. 41. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 42. Rejected as being irrelevant. 43. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 44. 45. Rejected issues. Rejected as being as being unnecessary irrelevant. for a resolution of the Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 48. Covered in preliminary statement. 49-54. Rejected as being irrelevant. 55-56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 57-59. Rejected as being irrelevant. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 61. Rejected as being irrelevant. 62. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 63. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 7. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 12-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 16-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 18. Rejected as being unnecessary. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 24-25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 28-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 35-36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 37-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 39-41. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gregory Bruce Sample, should be disciplined for alleged statutory and rule violations for his role in several insurance transactions.
Findings Of Fact Count I – Jewel Frisani Jewel Frisani was born December 22, 1932. As of September 23, 2010, Ms. Frisani owned two annuities; one issued by MetLife and the other issued by ING Golden American (ING). Ms. Frisani was withdrawing $500 per month from each annuity for a total of $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year. Death benefits were provided as a feature of each annuity. On September 23, 2010, Ms. Frisani attended a luncheon seminar hosted by Respondent. While at the seminar, Ms. Frisani completed a questionnaire wherein she provided her name, address, and phone number. The questionnaire directs that individuals completing the same should note thereon “Topics of Most Interest to Me.” The questionnaire lists some 25 topics and Ms. Frisani noted that she was only interested in having Respondent to “[r]eview[] [her] existing annuity(ies).” One of the listed topics is “[e]state [p]lanning.” Ms. Frisani did not indicate on the form that she was interested in discussing with Respondent matters related to planning her estate. Soon after the seminar, Respondent contacted Ms. Frisani and they agreed that they would personally meet on October 5 and October 11, 2010, to discuss matters related to her existing annuities. On October 5, 2010, Ms. Frisani met with Respondent to discuss her MetLife and ING annuities. During the meeting, Ms. Frisani showed Respondent a “Portfolio detail” for her ING annuity and a “snapshot” summary of her MetLife annuity. The “Portfolio detail” showed that as of September 30, 2010, the ING annuity had a market value of $65,604.77. The “snapshot” of Ms. Frisani’s MetLife annuity showed that at the beginning of the year, the opening value of her annuity was $50,638.98 and her closing value as of September 30, 2010, was $46,807.73. Neither the “Portfolio detail” nor the “snapshot” summary listed any charges associated with surrendering either annuity. During the meeting with Respondent on October 5, 2010, Ms. Frisani informed Respondent that her “annuities were going to be [the] inheritance for [her] granddaughter.” This explains why the words “Prisilla Frisani granddaughter” appear in Respondent’s handwriting on the bottom of the “Portfolio detail.” Although Ms. Frisani informed Respondent of her desire to leave an inheritance for her granddaughter, she did not impress upon Respondent that any new product(s) that she might purchase must offer death benefits in an amount not less than what she already had with MetLife and ING. Specifically, as to this issue, Ms. Frisani testified as follows: Q. What investment goals did you share with [Respondent] at that meeting? What did you tell him you wanted out of -- A. I wanted him to see if he could do better than what I was getting from my annuities. Q. Okay. And as you stated earlier, what you did like about your old annuities was that -- what was it that you stated earlier that you liked about your old annuities? A. Oh, that I was getting a thousand a month from my -- from my checking, and then they had death benefits for my granddaughter. Q. Did you also share with Mr. Sample that you wanted to continue those benefits? A. No, I didn’t mention that to him there. Q. You didn’t mention the death benefits? A. The death benefits, no. Q. Did you mention -- so you just mentioned that you wanted -- A. I wanted him to make sure that what he was doing would go in the trust, and that I would continue getting my thousand a month. Q. Okay. A. -- from the annuities -- Q. Okay. A. -- and that I wouldn’t lose no money by switching. Q. Okay. And you say he was aware that both annuities had death benefits? A. Well, I don’t know if he was aware of that or not, but Q. Okay. We didn’t discuss too much about the death benefits. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 149-151. Respondent credibly testified that had Ms. Frisani explained to him that her objective was to maximize the death benefits payable to her granddaughter, then he would have recommended life insurance as a vehicle for her investments instead of annuities. Ms. Frisani also contends that during her meeting with Respondent on October 5, 2010, he assured her that she would not lose any money by surrendering the ING and MetLife annuities. When Ms. Frisani met with Respondent on October 5, 2010, she informed Respondent she was taking a $500 per month partial withdrawal from her ING annuity as well as a $500 per month partial withdrawal from her MetLife annuity. Ms. Frisani also had $200,000 in the bank, some of which may have been in a money market account. When asked if she shared information with Respondent concerning the $200,000, Ms. Frisani testified that “I might have mentioned it, yeah.” Ms. Frisani's ING annuity was characterized as a qualified retirement account. Due to her age, in order to avoid a tax penalty on this qualified account, Ms. Frisani was required to take a minimum distribution of four percent annually. Ms. Frisani's MetLife annuity was a non-qualified account. Therefore, she did not have to take from it any required minimum distributions (RMD). Respondent suggested to Ms. Frisani that as a means of paying less in taxes and obtaining growth on her investments, without losing any principal in the stock market, she should consider replacing the ING and MetLife variable annuities with National Western fixed annuities, and that for her $12,000 annual withdrawals she should take $3,000 a year in partial withdrawals from the National Western qualified annuity he was offering her and $9,000 a year from her money market account. The $3,000 per year in withdrawals from the qualified National Western annuity would satisfy her RMD without incurring any penalty. Since her money market account was paying very little interest, the $9,000 a year from this account would make up the balance of money she needed for her annual income. The non-qualified National Western annuity could then grow at a higher interest rate than the funds in Ms. Frisani's money market account. In order to assist Ms. Frisani with her efforts to learn more about the National Western annuity, Respondent, during the meeting of October 5, 2010, gave Ms. Frisani a copy of National Western's multi-page brochure. The brochure allowed Ms. Frisani to familiarize herself with the National Western annuity prior to their next meeting on October 11, 2010. On October 11, 2010, Ms. Frisani met with Respondent a second time. During this meeting, Ms. Frisani signed several forms related to the surrender of the ING and MetLife annuities, and the purchase of annuities from National Western. It is undisputed that each form was completed by Respondent and signed by Ms. Frisani. Ms. Frisani testified that she did not bother to read the documents that Respondent gave her to sign.3/ One of the forms signed by Ms. Frisani for each of the National Western annuities is the Annuity Suitability Questionnaire. The questionnaire asks two related questions. The first question asks “[w]ill the proposed annuity replace any product?” and the second asks “[i]f yes, will you pay a penalty or other charge to obtain these funds?” The answer noted on the form to the first question is “yes,” and the answer to the second question is “no.” During the October 11, 2010, meeting with Respondent, Ms. Frisani also signed, for both National Western annuity contracts, a “Disclosure and Comparison of Annuity Contracts” form (Comparison form). This form facilitates the side-by-side comparison of certain features of an existing annuity contract with those of a replacement annuity contract. Near the top of the Comparison form, there is a line where the contract number for the existing annuity is to be placed. On the Comparison form for the MetLife annuity, the contract number “3201353529” appears. This is the correct contract number for the MetLife annuity. On the Comparison form for the ING annuity, the contract number “I038301-0D” appears. This is the correct contract number for the ING annuity. Neither of these contract numbers appears on the “snapshot” or the “Portfolio detail” documents that Ms. Frisani presented to Respondent during their initial meeting on October 5, 2010. Ms. Frisani received quarterly statements from both ING and MetLife for the annuity contracts that she had with these companies. The ING and MetLife quarterly statements for the period ending September 30, 2010, each lists the annuity contract number, the contract date, and other pertinent information. The MetLife quarterly statement indicates that as of September 30, 2010, Ms. Frisani’s MetLife annuity had an account balance of $46,684.92 and a death benefit in the amount of $57,160.41. Ms. Frisani’s ING quarterly annuity statement for the period ending September 30, 2010, shows the following: Guaranteed Minimum Death Benefit $115,859.39 Accumulation Value $ 65,491.51 Surrender Charges $ 1,345.01 Cash Surrender Value $ 64,146.50 When Respondent met with Ms. Frisani on October 11, 2010, the evidence reasonably suggests that Ms. Frisani had her quarterly statements with her and presented the same to Respondent so as to assist him with completing the paperwork related to the surrender of Ms. Frisani’s existing annuities and the purchase of the new annuities from National Western. For Ms. Frisani’s MetLife annuity, Respondent wrote on the Comparison form that this annuity contract was issued in “Yr99.” The MetLife quarterly statement that Ms. Frisani presented to Respondent shows, however, that the actual date of issue for the MetLife annuity was April 22, 2005. The evidence does not sufficiently explain this discrepancy. For the MetLife annuity, Respondent also noted on the Comparison form that this annuity had a nine year surrender charge period and a first year surrender charge rate of nine percent that decreased by one percentage point each year that the annuitant maintained the policy. Although Respondent accurately noted the surrender period and related percentages on the Comparison form, it is not clear from the evidence where Respondent got this information, given that neither the MetLife quarterly statement for the period ending September 30, 2010, nor the “snapshot” make mention of surrender charges or related percentages. Respondent, nevertheless, obviously knew of the surrender period and related charges for Ms. Frisani’s MetLife annuity. The Comparison form also notes that the MetLife annuity provides for a “Waiver of Surrender Charge Benefit or Similar Benefit.” Again, however, there is nothing in the MetLife quarterly statement or “snapshot” that makes mention of the waiver of any surrender or similar charges. During the meeting with Respondent on October 11, 2010, Ms. Frisani also signed, for the MetLife annuity, a form titled “DISCLOSURE OF SURRENDER CHARGES IF EXISTING ANNUITY IS REPLACED OR EXCHANGED.” There is a section of the disclosure form where estimated surrender charges are noted. For this section, Respondent wrote in “0” as the amount of surrender charges associated with replacing the MetLife annuity with an annuity from National Western. Contrary to Respondent’s representations on the form, Ms. Frisani incurred $2,142.50 in surrender charges related to the surrender of the MetLife annuity contract. On October 11, 2010, when Respondent met with Ms. Frisani, he knew, or should have known, based on the information available to him, that Ms. Frisani would incur surrender charges related to the surrender of the MetLife annuity. The totality of the evidence as to this transaction indicates that Respondent willfully misled Ms. Frisani, thus causing her to be misinformed about the charges related to the surrender of her MetLife annuity. Petitioner also alleges that Ms. Frisani suffered financial harm as a result of Respondent deceiving her into believing that she would not incur charges related to the surrender of her ING annuity. According to Petitioner, Ms. Frisani incurred $1,345.01 in surrender charges related to this transaction. The evidence of record is insufficient to support this allegation. The “DISCLOSURE AND COMPARISON OF ANNUITY CONTRACTS” form that Respondent completed for Ms. Frisani’s ING annuity notes that nine years was the surrender charge period for this annuity. If this representation is true, the surrender charge would terminate in November 2009. Petitioner’s Exhibit 37 contains a summary of the terms of Ms. Frisani’s ING annuity and it shows seven years as the surrender charge period for this annuity. Whether it is seven years or nine years, neither of these yearly figures would result in a surrender charge, given that Ms. Frisani had held the ING annuity for nine years and eleven months at the time of actual surrender. To further complicate matters, Ms. Frisani’s ING quarterly statement for the period ending September 30, 2010, shows that if she were to surrender the annuity on September 30, 2010, she would incur $1,345.01 in surrender charges. As previously noted, Ms. Frisani’s ING annuity, as of September 30, 2010, had an accumulated value of $65,491.51. Subtracting the stated surrender charges would result in a cash surrender value of the ING annuity of $64,146.50. When this annuity was actually surrendered on or about October 25, 2010, ING issued a check in the amount of $65,172.33 to National Western for Ms. Frisani’s new annuity. The evidence does not explain with sufficient clarity why there is only a $319.18 difference between the accumulated value as of September 30, 2010, and the actual cash surrender value as of October 25, 2010. Also, on or about October 22, 2010, ING sent Ms. Frisani a “Confirmation Notice” regarding transactions related to her annuity account. The Confirmation Notice provides the name (Jeffrey A. Masters), phone number, and mailing address for Ms. Frisani’s ING financial advisor along with a notice advising that “The ING Variable Annuity Customer Contact Center is available Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM Eastern Time and Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time at 1-800-366- 0066.” The Confirmation Notice also states the following: IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please carefully review all of the transactions detailed on this confirmation notice. You must inform us of any errors we may have made with respect to allocations of your investment dollars within30 days from the date of this notice. If you do not respond within 30 days, all allocations listed on this confirmation notice will be deemed final pursuant to your instructions. The Confirmation Notice lists two transactions with an effective date of October 22, 2010. The first transaction shows a “Total Cash Surrender” of $65,172.33, and the second transaction shows a “Total Surrender Charge” of $1,345.01. Independent of what Respondent may have told Ms. Frisani, she was given notice by ING that there was a $1,345.01 charge associated with surrendering her ING annuity and that she had 30 days from the date of the notice to inform ING about any irregularities associated with the transaction. There is no evidence that Ms. Frisani ever contacted ING or Jeffrey A. Masters about the $1,345.01 surrender charge. Also, Ms. Frisani had until November 21, 2010, to inquire about the surrender charges or any other matters, including death benefits, related to the surrender of her ING policy. There is no evidence suggesting that Ms. Frisani availed herself of this option. Petitioner failed to prove that Ms. Frisani suffered, as a consequence of Respondent’s conduct, financial harm in the amount of $1,345.01, as alleged. The Department also alleges that Respondent misrepresented to Ms. Frisani that she would receive a $9,000 bonus following her first year of ownership of the National Western annuities. Respondent denies this allegation. None of the documentary evidence references a $9,000 bonus and the only testimony regarding this alleged bonus is from Ms. Frisani. Ms. Frisani’s testimony, without more, is insufficient to satisfy Petitioner’s burden with respect to this allegation. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that Respondent “stated on Ms. Frisani’s disclosure and comparison of annuity contracts that she would not incur any administrative fees or margins, but the National Western (annuity number 0101255052) contract clearly states otherwise.” It is correct that the disclosure and comparison form notes that the National Western annuity will have zero “Administrative fees or Margins.” The disclosure and comparison form in evidence does not define what constitutes an administrative fee or margin. Petitioner equates the “charge” that Ms. Frisani paid for the National Western annuity withdrawal benefit rider with an administrative fee, but the record does not support Petitioner’s conclusion. There is no indication that National Western considers the charge for the withdrawal benefit rider as an administrative fee. The National Western documents signed by Ms. Frisani advise that “[t]he Account Value of the policy is reduced each year by the Annual Rider Charge” and “[t]here is a charge for this rider, which is assessed annually.” (emphasis added). In looking at Ms. Frisani’s National Western statement for this annuity for the period November 4, 2010, through September 26, 2011, the only “fee” listed is an “Option A Asset Fee” that shows zero as the percentage associated with it. The annual rider charge is not listed as an “administrative” or any other type of fee. Without more, the undersigned is unable to conclude that the annual rider charge is the equivalent of an “administrative fee” as these terms are used in the disclosure and comparison form signed by Ms. Frisani on October 11, 2010. Respondent explained his rationale for recommending the National Western annuities to Ms. Frisani. He estimated that Ms. Frisani may have made $5,000 with her ING variable annuity in the ten years that she owned it and $5,000 with the MetLife variable annuity in the five years she owned that annuity, so her net return was a half percent and one percent, respectively. On the other hand, the National Western fixed annuities Respondent sold Ms. Frisani had a guaranteed five percent growth so she would be earning ten times the amount she had been making on her ING annuity and five times the amount for her MetLife annuity. The National Western annuities also included a five percent bonus, which approximated $6,000. Respondent summarized his comparison of the National Western annuities he sold Ms. Frisani with the ING and MetLife annuities she previously owned as follows: [S]o she had these old contracts with no safety, that had produced a half percent interest from the get-go for ten years. We moved her to National Western, which is an equity index annuity. The principal is fixed. It had a five percent income rider guarantee, which is what she wanted. And we were able to take the nonqualified account and just let it grow. The other is the qualified contract. She -- she has to take out four percent for her RMD. She's making five, which means she continues to actually make some money. Had she stayed with the variable, she was just depleting it every year by this four percent. So she was losing principal every year, so we stopped that. We stopped that. It's stopped cold. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 1157-1158. Respondent further explained that Ms. Frisani's National Western annuities are structured so she can withdraw up to ten percent annually from the account, but if she does not take any withdrawals in the first year then she is allowed to take up to twenty percent in the second year, and if she elects not to take any withdrawals in the second year then she may withdraw up to thirty percent for the third year, and so on for the duration of the annuity period. Respondent had an objectively reasonable basis for recommending the National Western annuities to Ms. Frisani. Count II – Fred and Eileen Sarracino Fred Sarracino and Eileen Sarracino are married and reside in Lake Placid, Florida. Mr. Sarracino was born on September 20, 1934, and is a retired automobile mechanic. Mrs. Sarracino was born on February 1, 1935, and is retired from working for an insurance broker in Pennsylvania. In October 1993 Mr. Sarracino paid an initial premium of $2,000 towards the purchase of an Allmerica Financial Life Insurance and Annuity Company variable annuity contract (Commonwealth 46). Over the next 15 years, he added premium payments to Commonwealth 46 so that it had a surrender value of $46,435.53 on June 30, 2008, and an enhanced death benefit of approximately $54,000 on March 31, 2008. In October 1993 Mrs. Sarracino paid an initial premium of $2,000 towards the purchase of a separate Commonwealth variable annuity contract (Commonwealth 45). Over the next 15 years, she added premium payments to Commonwealth 45 so that it had a surrender value of $18,979.81 on June 30, 2008, and an enhanced death benefit of approximately $75,000 on March 31, 2008. In September 1997 Mrs. Sarracino paid an initial premium payment of $94,226.16 toward another Commonwealth variable annuity contract (Commonwealth 03). Over the next 11 years, she added premium payments to Commonwealth 03 so that it had a surrender value of $172,831.01 on June 30, 2008, and an enhanced death benefit of over $237,000 on March 31, 2008. During the initial months of 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Sarracino were losing money on their Commonwealth variable annuities and decided, in mid-2008, to attend a seminar presentation hosted by Respondent at a restaurant in Sebring, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Sarracino met privately with Respondent on June 30, 2008. Acting on Respondent’s recommendations, Mr. Sarracino surrendered Commonwealth 46 and used the proceeds of $46,435.53 to purchase an Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance Company annuity (Old Mutual 67). Mrs. Sarracino surrendered Commonwealth 45 and applied the proceeds of $18,979.81 to purchase an Old Mutual annuity (Old Mutual 68). Mrs. Sarracino also surrendered Commonwealth 03 and applied the proceeds of $172,402.45 to purchase yet another Old Mutual annuity (Old Mutual 69). In total, Respondent earned $31,428.52 in commission from these transactions. When Respondent took the applications for each of the Old Mutual annuities, he misrepresented the financial profile of the Sarracinos on the annuity suitability forms. Respondent accomplished this in part by having the Sarracinos sign blank suitability forms which Respondent later filled in with false information.4/ Respondent falsely noted on the suitability form that Mrs. Sarracino’s monthly disposable income was $1,600. Mrs. Sarracino credibly testified that her monthly disposable income when she met with Respondent was more in the range of four to five hundred dollars. Respondent also falsely noted on the form that Mrs. Sarracino owned $60,000 worth of certificates of deposit (CDs), variable annuities amounting to $300,000, and had $60,000 in mutual funds. Respondent noted on the suitability form that Mr. Sarracino, like his wife, also had monthly disposable income in the amount of $1,600. This is false. Respondent also falsely noted on the form that Mr. Sarracino owned $60,000 worth of CDs, variable annuities totaling $300,000, and $60,000 in mutual funds. Finally, Respondent falsely stated that Mr. Sarracino owned a life insurance policy with a cash value of $10,000. The unrefuted evidence is that Mr. Sarracino has never owned a life insurance policy of any amount. Respondent willfully misrepresented the financial profile of the Sarracinos so that they could pass Old Mutual’s underwriting standards and he could receive a commission. Count III – Warren and Darlene Morgan Warren and Darlene Morgan are married and live in Port Charlotte, Florida. Mr. Morgan was born on May 24, 1947. Mrs. Morgan was born on April 21, 1948. In 2005, the Morgans decided they should consult a financial advisor closer to their home. In May and June 2005, the Morgans met with Respondent for the purpose of purchasing four Allianz annuities. On May 28, 2005, Mr. Morgan made an initial premium payment of $56,949.16 toward the purchase of the first Allianz annuity contract (Allianz 32). On May 28, 2005, Mr. Morgan made an initial premium payment of $16,701.27 toward the purchase of a second Allianz annuity contract (Allianz 22). On May 28, 2005, Mrs. Morgan purchased the third Allianz annuity contract (Allianz 02). The initial premium payment was $16,701.27. On June 15, 2005, Mrs. Morgan purchased the fourth Allianz annuity contract (Allianz 43). She made three premium payments on this policy between May 28, 2005, and June 15, 2005, totaling $68,040.34. Each of the Allianz annuities Respondent sold the Morgans was intended as a long-term investment as evidenced by the respective annuities’ multi-year surrender charge periods and high surrender charge penalties. After purchasing the Allianz annuities, the Morgans and Respondent met annually to review the Morgans' investments, but until 2010, they decided not to change anything. In early calendar year 2010, Respondent, consistent with the practice of conducting their annual review, called the Morgans and informed them of a new product that might appeal to them. Respondent and the Morgans met on January 7, 2010, and Mrs. Morgan testified that Respondent compared the new product with the Allianz annuities they owned. Mrs. Morgan stated in her testimony that “we asked a lot of questions” during the meeting with Respondent. Mrs. Morgan thoughtfully considered the merits of purchasing the new product and explained that initially she was opposed to replacing their Allianz annuities because she believed the surrender penalty that she and her husband would pay was too steep a price for the exchange. She testified, however, that her husband, Warren, wanted to make the change and so she agreed to do so. On January 7, 2010, when they met with Respondent, Darlene and Warren Morgan were 61 and 62 years of age, respectively, and their investment objective remained focused on growth. During the meeting, Respondent suggested that the Allianz annuities should be replaced with annuities issued by Forethought Life Insurance Company (Forethought) and Old Mutual Financial Life Insurance Company (OM). The Forethought annuities were offering a new feature known as an "income rider" that was not available when the Morgans purchased the Allianz annuities in 2005. Allianz 32 was exchanged for a Forethought annuity contract (Forethought 03). Mr. Morgan incurred a surrender penalty of $6,151.79 for exchanging this Allianz annuity, which at the time of the exchange was valued at approximately $58,000. Allianz 22 was exchanged for an OM annuity (OM 57). Mr. Morgan incurred a surrender penalty of $4,441.09 for exchanging this Allianz annuity, which at the time of the exchange was valued at approximately $16,000. Allianz 43 was exchanged for a Forethought annuity (Forethought 92). Mrs. Morgan incurred a surrender penalty of $21,469.82 for exchanging this Allianz annuity, which at the time of the exchange was valued at approximately $65,000. Allianz 02 was exchanged for an OM annuity (OM 58). Mrs. Morgan incurred a surrender penalty of $4,441.09 for exchanging this Allianz annuity, which at the time of the exchange was valued at approximately $16,000. Combined, the Morgans incurred $36,503.79 in surrender penalties associated with the exchange of their annuities. Respondent’s total commission for these transactions was $16,581.62. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “hurriedly pushed annuity application and suitability forms in front of Mr. and Mrs. M[organ] and had them sign them without allowing them any time to review them,” and that the “entire meeting on or about January 7, 2010, lasted approximately 20 minutes.” The Administrative Complaint also alleges that consistent with Respondent’s alleged conduct of rushing the Morgans, he had them sign blank forms related to the exchange of the Allianz annuities. According to Mrs. Morgan’s testimony, the meeting with Respondent on January 7, 2010, lasted approximately 45 minutes (more than twice as long as alleged), during which they “asked a lot of questions.” As for the issue of allegedly signing blank forms, Mrs. Morgan testified as follows: Q: Did you sign blank forms or were they partially filled out? A: I don’t know. Because he was at his desk writing very fast. Part of it could have been filled out. Final Hearing Transcript p. 645 Q: All right. But what I’m asking you is: As you sit here today, can you state with certainty that any of the forms that he had you sign were, in fact, blank? A: No, I cannot state with certainty that. Final Hearing Transcript p. 678 The evidence is insufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that the Respondent rushed the Morgans into exchanging their Allianz annuities or that Respondent had them to sign blank documents. Respondent, in filling out the transfer, application, and suitability forms for the purchase of the Forethought and OM annuities, listed therein information regarding the Morgans that was false. Respondent included a false statement that the Morgans had a net worth of $400,000, excluding the value of their home, that the Morgans’ liquid assets totaled $65,000, and that the Morgans owned CDs. Respondent willfully misrepresented the financial profile of the Morgans so that they could pass the Old Mutual and Forethought underwriting standards thereby allowing him to receive a commission. Petitioner, in its Proposed Recommended Order, offers several proposed factual findings that ultimately show, “[b]ased on all of the evidence, [that] there was no objectively reasonable basis to recommend the Morgans’ annuity exchanges. § 627.4554(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010).” Section 627.4554, by its express terms, only applies to “Senior consumers” that are “65 years of age or older.” Neither of the Morgans was within this age range when they met with Respondent in 2010 and, therefore, section 627.4554 cannot be relied upon by Petitioner as a basis for imposing disciplinary action against Respondent. Count IV Petitioner withdrew Count IV of its Administrative Complaint. Count V – Joel and Evelyn Langer Petitioner alleges that Respondent told Joel and Evelyn Langer that he was familiar with the “IRS 72t rule,” when in reality he was not, and because of his unfamiliarity with this rule, this meant that Respondent “knew that by selling the Langers’ annuities, they would incur substantial withdrawal penalties [pursuant to] the terms of the[ir] annuity contracts.” The essence of this allegation is that Respondent did something wrong in arranging for the issuance of the OM annuities that adversely affected the Langers’ 72(t) protections with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and also caused them to lose money. Joel and Evelyn Langer are married and reside in Port Charlotte, Florida. Mr. Langer was born on September 10, 1948. Mrs. Langer was born on August 31, 1949. During their employment, Mr. and Mrs. Langer put their savings in mutual funds managed by Royal Bank of Canada Wealth Management (RBC). Mr. and Mrs. Langer were forced into early retirement before reaching age 59 1/2. The mutual fund investments then became their only liquid assets and they depended on these funds for income. On February 21, 2008, Mr. and Mrs. Langer, who were 58 and 59 years of age respectively, attended a luncheon seminar Respondent hosted in Port Charlotte, Florida. The Langers were interested in obtaining more information about annuities, because they had their life savings invested in the stock market, which was rapidly declining, and they were looking to move their funds to another investment product. The Langers felt annuities would be “a safer investment.” The Langers met with Respondent and explained that they would need immediate income that would qualify for disbursement under the 72(t) provisions of the federal income tax code. Because the Langers had been forced into early retirement, they had elected to draw on their investments through the 72(t) provisions of the federal income tax code. The 72(t) provisions allow the investor, prior to age 59 1/2, to receive distributions from their retirement investment, in substantially equal periodic payments without paying a penalty for early withdrawal, provided the investor receives the distribution for a period of five years without interruption. Respondent placed all of Mr. and Mrs. Langer’s liquid assets into three Old Mutual annuity contracts, hereinafter “Old Mutual 02,” “Old Mutual 03” and “Old Mutual 04.” On March 7, 2008, Mrs. Langer purchased Old Mutual 02. The initial premium was paid with an RBC check in the amount of $237,563.23, made payable to Old Mutual Financial Life. Respondent earned a commission in the amount of $26,131.96 for this transaction. On March 7, 2008, Mr. Langer purchased Old Mutual 03. The initial premium was paid with an RBC check in the amount of $393,073.89, made payable to Old Mutual Financial Life. Respondent earned a commission in the amount of $43,238.13 for this transaction. On March 7, 2008, Mrs. Langer purchased Old Mutual 04. The initial premium was paid with an RBC check in the amount of $72,572.48, made payable to Old Mutual Financial Life. Respondent earned a commission in the amount of $7,982.97 for this transaction. As previously noted, Petitioner alleges that the Langers incurred “substantial withdrawal penalties” as a consequence of Respondent botching the paperwork related to the Langers maintaining the protections afforded by the IRS 72(t) rule. Although the evidence is not at all clear as to the amounts of the alleged penalties, it appears as though the Langers did not actually incur any penalties, as alleged, because OM, on or about April 8, 2008, issued refund checks to Mr. and Mrs. Langer in the amounts of $1,329 and $2,018, respectively. As for the alleged mishandling by Respondent of the Langers’ IRS 72(t) paperwork, Petitioner's expert witness, John Richard Brinkley, testified that he assumed Respondent failed to send the IRS the necessary paperwork to entitle the Langers to the IRS rule 72(t) privileges for the OM annuities sold to them by Respondent. Mr. Brinkley conceded, however, that he never verified whether the necessary forms were or were not delivered, or to whom such fault should be allocated. Similarly, both Mr. and Mrs. Langer conceded during their testimony that they could not say whether it was Respondent's supposed error in qualifying the OM annuities under the IRS rule 72(t) provisions, or whether the supposed error was the fault of OM itself. The unrefuted evidence is that Respondent faxed OM specific instructions to set up the annuities so that the annuities complied with the IRS rule 72(t) provisions and that OM subsequently confirmed, in letters sent to each of the Langers, that the annuities indeed were being set up to conform to the IRS rule 72(t) provisions. While there is evidence that Respondent initially may have completed the incorrect OM form for this transaction, the evidence is inconclusive as to the effect this had on how the OM annuities were originally structured by the company. Additionally, the Department's investigator, Juanita Midgett, wrote to OM inquiring as to whether Respondent bore any responsibility in ensuring that the annuities he sold the Langers did, in fact, conform to the IRS rule 72(t) provisions. OM's letter in response stated that Respondent bore no responsibility for any “premature penalty tax,” and reminded Ms. Midgett that the Langers were required “to consult their personal tax advisor before submitting a request should they elect to take early distributions from their retirement funds.” Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this issue. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that “[d]ue to [Respondent’s] failure to take into account the L[angers’] necessity for a monthly income, the OM 02 and OM 03 contracts had to be reissued thereby altering the initial premiums” paid by the Langers. The only argument advanced by Petitioner in its Proposed Recommended Order as to this issue is found in paragraph 35 wherein Petitioner simply restates that Respondent “failed to properly account for the Langers’ need for a monthly income and, as a result, the Old Mutual 02 and Old Mutual 03 contracts had to be reissued thereby altering the initial premiums” paid by the Langers. It is unclear from the evidence why the referenced contracts had to be reissued. Petitioner’s allegations imply that the “altering [of] the initial premiums” resulted in the Langers incurring additional expense as a result of the error, but the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the premium amounts increased or decreased. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to this issue. Paragraph 71(c) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “never explained to the [Langers] that all three annuities had huge surrender charge rates and periods, starting at 17.5% for the first year of ownership and diminishing thereafter until the penalty percentage reached 4.5% in the fourteenth year of ownership.” Remarkably, Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order as to this allegation simply restates, verbatim, the allegation from the Administrative Complaint and only cites to the annuity contracts themselves as record support for the allegation.5/ This allegation is not sufficiently supported by the evidence, given that Mrs. Langer testified that Respondent explained to them, with respect to the issue of surrender charges associated with the annuities, that they “had to remain in [the annuities] for a period of years.” Paragraph 71(d) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “knew that the Langers wanted to be done with the risks associated with the stock market and yet [he] pegged all three Old Mutual annuities to S&P 500 indices in determining their income returns.” Once again, Petitioner merely restates in its Proposed Recommended Order the allegation from the Administrative Complaint and only cites to the annuity contracts themselves as record support for the allegation. Nevertheless, Mrs. Langer testified that “at the seminar, [Respondent] went over the benefits [of the] annuities and went into detailed explanations of his annuity plans being tied to the S&P 500, and he did quite a bit of explaining at the seminar.” The Langers knew that the annuity products that Respondent was selling were tied to the S&P 500 well in advance of purchasing the products. The evidence clearly establishes that the Langers knew what Respondent was selling and that they made a conscientious and informed decision when they ultimately decided to purchase the three Old Mutual annuities. Paragraph 71(e) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “checked a box on the Old Mutual suitability forms indicating that Mr. and Mrs. Langer declined to answer the questions propounded on the form, which was false.” Respondent explained that he discussed with the Langers the nature of their assets, but because the totality of their assets consisted of the money in their brokerage account, there was no purpose in completing the "Customer Profile" section of the suitability forms, and so he checked the line on the OM forms indicating that the Langers were declining to answer the questions. Mr. Langer testified that they “explained to [Respondent] that [they] had no other assets to consider” besides their mutual funds. Given this, it is inconsequential that Respondent checked the box signifying that the Langers declined to answer the "Customer Profile" questions. Paragraph 71(g) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “refused to respond to the Langers’ inquiries once they discovered the financial losses they suffered [due to] his recommendations.” Respondent generally denies this allegation but offers no specific defense in response thereto. Mrs. Langer credibly testified that Respondent “would not return her calls” after she and her husband realized that there was a problem with the application of IRS rule 72(t) to their Old Mutual annuities. The evidence does not quantify the number of calls or the length of the time period during which the Langers made calls to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to return Mrs. Langer’s phone calls is, under the facts present, inconsequential given that the evidence is not clear and convincing regarding any culpability on Respondent’s part with respect to Old Mutual’s processing of the Langer’s IRS rule 72(t) paperwork. Paragraph 71(h) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent “never explained the ‘free look’ provision of the three Old Mutual contracts.” As to this allegation, Petitioner, in its Proposed Recommended Order, offers as its only proposed finding of fact that Respondent “nullified the free look option by pre-dating the delivery receipt so as to eliminate the Langer’s option to cancel the contracts.” Alleged actions of “pre-dating” a delivery receipt are substantively different from actions related to the alleged “failure to explain” a contractual provision. Respondent had no pre-hearing notice of the allegation that Respondent “pre-dated” the delivery receipt and therefore this allegation, even if true, is irrelevant to the allegation that Respondent never explained the free look provision of the three Old Mutual annuities. Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the allegation that Respondent “never explained the ‘free look’ provision of the three Old Mutual contracts.” Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any violations by Respondent with respect to his dealings with the Langers. Count VI – Gail Shane On February 16, 2012, Gail Shane, who was 65 years old at the time (born June 17, 1946) and an unmarried woman, attended a luncheon seminar conducted by Respondent in Sebring, Florida. At the luncheon, Respondent shared with Ms. Shane information that convinced her that Respondent could place her in an investment product suitable for her needs. Ms. Shane met with Respondent in his Sebring office on March 6, 2012. During this meeting, Ms. Shane explained to Respondent that she was looking for an investment product where she could simply park $5,000 and let it “grow,” and that she was not looking for the investment product to provide her with income. In other words, Ms. Shane wanted an annuity product that would guarantee growth and not reduce her principal investment amount. Per Respondent’s recommendation, Ms. Shane purchased a $5,000 annuity issued by National Western Insurance Company (National Western). Respondent’s commission for this transaction was $500. During the meeting with Ms. Shane on March 6, 2012, Respondent did not explain to Ms. Shane that the National Western annuity contained a yearly withdrawal benefit rider that cost $40.95 per year. According to the annuity contract, the withdrawal benefit rider “provides guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits . . . in an amount selected by [Ms. Shane on a] semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly payment” basis. At the time of purchase, Ms. Shane did not bother to read the terms and conditions of the annuity product and her omission, coupled with Respondent’s failure to explain to her the inclusion in the policy of the yearly withdrawal benefit rider, resulted in Ms. Shane not knowing that the annuity contained the rider. It was only after Ms. Shane received a statement from National Western that she realized that her annuity contained a rider that she did not need and that was otherwise inconsistent with her investment goals of “growth without principal reduction.” Ms. Shane, upon learning of the existence of the yearly withdrawal benefit rider, immediately notified National Western and directed the company to remove the rider from her annuity. Per Ms. Shane’s request, National Western removed the rider from her annuity policy. Respondent did not have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that Ms. Shane desired to have the yearly withdrawal benefit rider as part of her annuity contract. Paragraph 79(d) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent never explained to Ms. Shane that the National Western annuity “had huge surrender charge rates and periods, starting at 15% for the first year of ownership and diminishing thereafter until the penalty percentage reached 2% in the thirteenth year of ownership.” As previously mentioned, Ms. Shane’s investment objectives were such that she wanted to park her $5,000 initial investment and let it grow. It is true that Respondent did not explain the surrender charge rates to Ms. Shane. However, his failure to do so is not of legal significance given her stated investment strategy. Paragraph 79 of the Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent had Ms. Shane to sign suitability forms that were in many respects blank and that Respondent “completed the forms outside [Ms. Shane’s] presence . . . [and] failed to provide a copy to Ms. S[hane] for her review so that she could discover the falsehoods that were being forwarded to National Western [for] its underwriter’s review.” Specifically, paragraph 79(e) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that “after obtaining Ms. S[hane]’s signature on the annuity suitability form, [Respondent] completed the form outside her presence and indicated therein that she had a net worth of $1,000,000 knowing that [this representation] was completely, utterly, and absurdly false.” Ms. Shane credibly testified that when she met with Respondent on March 6, 2012, her net worth was somewhere in the neighborhood of $258,000; not anywhere near the $1,000,000 that Respondent noted on the suitability form. Petitioner’s Hearing Exhibit 261, p. 803, is the Accredited Investor Acknowledgment Form (Acknowledgment Form) signed by Ms. Shane on March 6, 2012. The first sentence of the Acknowledgment Form provides that “National Western Life Insurance Company is prohibited by Florida Law from selling the annuity for which you have applied to any senior consumer (a purchaser 65 years of age or older) unless that senior consumer is an “Accredited Investor.” The Acknowledgment Form also states the following: Florida law defines an “Accredited Investor” as any person who comes within any of the following categories at the time of the sale of an annuity to that person: The person’s net worth or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase, exceeds $1 million; or The person had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the 2 most recent years, or joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of those years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year. The Acknowledgment Form then requires the proposed annuitant to check the appropriate box, sign, and date the form. Respondent checked the box after Ms. Shane signed the form and noted thereon that Ms. Shane’s net worth “exceeds $1 million.” Paragraph 79, subparts (f), (g) and (h), of the Administrative Complaint allege, collectively, that “after obtaining Ms. S[hane]’s signature on the annuity suitability form, [Respondent] completed the form outside her presence and indicated therein that she had an annual income of $50,000.00, . . . liquid assets amounting to $80,000.00, . . . [and] that she owned her own home and that she owned real estate worth $500,000.00, knowing that such information was false.” Ms. Shane credibly testified that in March 2012, her annual income was “closer to $30,000.00,” her liquid assets were “$8,000.00,” she rented and did not own a home, and that her undeveloped real estate was “worth about $50,000.00.” The Acknowledgement Form makes it abundantly clear that the only way that Respondent could sell the National Western annuity product to Ms. Shane was to qualify her as an “Accredited Investor.” In the absence of Ms. Shane being qualified as such, Respondent would not earn a commission. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent willfully misrepresented Ms. Shane’s annual income, net worth, liquid assets, residential status, and real estate holdings so that he could receive a commission for the sale of the National Western annuity.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Agents and Agency Services, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated sections 626.611(5), (7) and (9), 626.9541(1)(e)1., and 627.4554(4)(a), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Department revoke his Florida licenses to act as an insurance agent in this state and impose against him a fine in the amount of $140,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 29th day of October, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Petitioner held a license issued by the Florida Department of Insurance as a general lines insurance agent. On or about April 3, 1979, Steven B. Atkinson entered the Okeechobee Insurance Agency in West Palm Beach, Florida, from whom he had purchased his auto insurance for approximately three years. His intention at this time was to purchase only that insurance necessary to procure the license tags for his automobile, a seven-year-old Vega. He told the person he dealt with at that time at the insurance agency that this was all he wanted. He did not ask for auto club membership, did not need it, and did not want it. He asked only for what he needed to get his tags. However, he was told by a representative of the agency that he needed not only "PIP" insurance, but also auto club membership and accidental death and dismemberment insurance. Of the $144 premium, $31 was for the required "PIP" coverage, $75 was for auto club membership (not required), and $38 was for accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) (not required). Representatives of the agency told him that he needed all three to get the tags and, though he knew what he was getting and knew he was purchasing all three, he agreed because he was told by the agency representatives that he needed to have all three in order to get his tags. 3 Diane Phillipy McDonald contacted the Okeechobee Insurance Agency in April, 1979, because she had heard on the radio that their prices were inexpensive. All she wanted was personal injury protection (PIP), which was what she thought the law required to get tags on her automobile. When she first called the agency and asked how much the coverage she wanted would be, she was told she could pay a percentage down and finance the rest. When she entered the agency, she was waited on by a man whose name she cannot remember. However, she did not ask for auto club coverage or accidental death and dismemberment coverage, nor did those subjects ever come up in the conversation. She asked only for PIP, and she paid a $50 deposit on her coverage. In return for her deposit, she was given a slip of paper that reflected that she had purchased PIP coverage. She was not told she was charged for auto club membership or accidental death and dismemberment. The forms that she signed, including those which reflect a premium for all three coverages in the total amount of $137, bear her signature, and though she admits signing the papers, she denies having read them or having them explained to her before she signed them. In fact, she cannot recall whether they were even filled out when she signed them. In regard to the papers, the premium finance agreement signed by the witness on April 3, 1979, reflects in the breakdown of coverage total premium of $137. However, immediately below, the total cash premium is listed as $158, $21 more than the total of the individual premiums for the three coverages, and the financing charge is based on that amount1 less the down payment. Marvin W. Niemi purchased his auto insurance from the Okeechobee Insurance Agency in March, 1979, after he heard their advertisement on the radio and went in to get the insurance required by the State in order to get his license tags. When he entered the agency, he asked personnel there for the minimum insurance required to qualify for tags because he was strapped for money at the time and could not afford anything else. He definitely did not want auto club membership. In fact, discussion of that did not even arise, nor did he want the accidental death policy. When he left the agency, he thought he was only getting what he had asked for; to wit, the PIP minimum coverage. All the forms that he signed were blank when he signed them. This application process took place very quickly during his lunch hour from work. He admits giving his son's (David Robert) name as the beneficiary on his insurance, but did not realize at the time that he was purchasing coverage other than the minimum coverage required. His rationale for giving his son's name as beneficiary was that agency personnel asked and the witness felt if there was any money involved, it should go to his son. In fact, Mr. Niemi was sold not only the PIP, but membership in an auto club and PIP coverage with an $8,000 deductible. Again, the total premium was $137, when the actual premium for the coverage he asked for was only $24. Frank Johnson purchased his insurance from Okeechobee Insurance Agency in April, 1979, because he had heard and seen their advertisement on radio and television and it appeared to be reasonable. He wanted only PIP coverage as required by law sufficient to get his license tags. When he entered the agency, he spoke with a man whose name he does not know, who after consulting the books came up with the premium for the coverage to be purchased. During this meeting, the question of motor club or AD&D coverage was not mentioned. His signature does not appear on the statement of understanding, which outlines the coverage and the premium therefor. In this case, because Mr. Johnson had had some prior traffic tickets, his total premium came to $243. His coverage, however, included bodily injury liability, property damage liability, PIP, and auto club. After paying a $50 down payment, he made two additional payments which totaled approximately $50, but thereafter failed to make any additional payments. On August 1, 1980, Marguerite and Steven von Poppel entered the Federal Insurance Agency in Lake Worth, Florida, to purchase their automobile insurance coverage. They purchased policies which included bodily injury and property damage liability, PIP coverage, and comprehensive and collision coverage. The PIP coverage had a deductible of $8,000, and the comprehensive and collision coverage both had $200 deductibles. Mrs. von Poppel indicates that it was not their intention to have such large deductibles on their coverage. In any event, on that day, they gave a check for down payment in the amount of $320 and advised the employee of the agency that upon billing for the balance due of the $915 total premium, they would send the check. Neither Mrs. von Poppel nor Mr. von Poppel desired to finance the balance due of $595, and Mrs. von Poppel did not affix her signature to an application for premium financing with Devco Premium Finance Company dated the same day which bears the signature of Kevin D. Cox as agent. This premium finance agreement lists a cash premium of $966, as opposed to $915. The receipt given to the von Poppels initially reflects a down payment of $320, which is consistent with the receipt, and an amount financed of $646, as opposed to $595, which would have been the balance due under the cash payment intended and desired by the von Poppels. Somewhat later, Mrs. von Poppel received a premium payment booklet from Devco in the mail. When she received it, she immediately went to the Federal Insurance Agency, told them she did not desire to finance the payments, and that day1 September 3, 1980, gave them a check in the amount of $595, which was the balance due on their insurance coverage. This check was subsequently deposited to the account of Federal Insurance Agency and was cashed. This did not end the von Poppel saga, however, as subsequently the von Poppels were billed for an additional amount of $116.18, which reflects the interest on the amount ostensibly financed. When the von Poppels received this statement, they contacted the Federal Insurance Agency and were told that there was some mistake and that the matter would be taken care of. They therefore did not make any further payments, except a total payment of $20, which they were told was still owing. This $20 payment was made on May 29, 1981, after their insurance had been cancelled for nonpayment of the balance due on the finance agreement. The policy was, however, subsequently reinstated, back-dated to the date of cancellation, after the von Poppels complained. Their complaints, however, did nothing to forestall a series of dunning letters from a collection agency to which Devco had referred the von Poppels' account. It is obvious, therefore, that Federal Insurance Agency did not notify Devco of the fact that the amount due and payable had been paid, and did not clear the von Poppels with Devco or with the collection agency thereafter. As a result, the von Poppels filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner's office. That terminated their difficulty on this policy. On September 15, 1980, Federal Insurance Agency submitted a check in the amount $595, the amount paid to them by the von Poppels in full settlement of their account, to Devco. There appears to have been no additional letter of explanation, and though Devco credited this amount to the von Poppel account, it did not know to cancel the finance charges since the von Poppels' decline to finance their premium. Of the total amount of the von Poppel premium, the majority, $636, was attributable to the basic insurance in the amount of $10,000-$20,000 liability written by American Risk Assurance Company of Miami, Florida. The supplemental liability carrying a premium of $180 and covering $40,000-$80,000 liability was written by Hull and Company, Inc., out of Fort Lauderdale for Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company. The third portion of the coverage carrying a charged premium in the amount of $150 covered the AD&D covered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (RSLIC) of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This coverage, in the principal sum of $10,000 in the case of Mr. von Poppel and $5,000 in the case of Mrs. von Poppel, was included without the knowledge or the cosnet of the von Poppels. The policies, numbered 10753 R and 10754 R, were never delivered to the von Poppels as, according to an officer of RSLIC, they should have been, but are in the files of the Federal Insurance Agency. Further, the von Poppels were overcharged for the coverage. Respondent, however, did not remit any of the premium to Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Instead, on August 1, 1980, the same day the von Poppels were in to purchase their insurance, he issued a sight draft drawn on Devco Premium Finance Company to Reliance Standard Life in the amount of $150. Reliance Standard Life was not the same company as Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, was not controlled by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, and in fact had no relation to Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Reliance Standard Life was a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida in which Kevin D. Cox was president and Howard I. Vogel was vice president-secretary. Of the $150 premium, 90 percent was retained by Respondent or his company as commission and 10 percent was transmitted to Nation Motor Club along with a 10 percent commission on policies written for other individuals. Nation Motor Club would then transmit the bona fide premium of 24 cents per $1,000 coverage to RSLIC. More than a year later, on October 16, 1981, Federal Insurance Agency reimbursed the von Poppels with a check for $42.50, representing the unearned portion of the unordered AD&D coverage. Clifford A. Ragsdale went to the Federal Insurance Agency in Lake Worth on April 19, 1982, to purchase his auto insurance because after calling several agencies by phone and advising them of the coverage he wanted, this was the least expensive. To do this, he would read off the coverage from his old policy and get a quote for the identical coverage. After getting this agency's quote, he went to the office where, after talking with two different ladies to whom he described the coverage he desired, he got to the person with whom he had talked on the phone and read his current coverage, and who already had some of the paperwork prepared. During all his discussions with the agency's employees on the phone and in person, he did not speak of, request, or desire auto club membership. He has been a member of AAA since 1977, and his membership there covers all the contingencies he is concerned with. Additional auto club membership in another club would be redundant. He gave the agency representative a check for $247 as a down payment and agreed to finance the balance due through Premium Service Company. Though he was given a receipt for the $247 deposit, the premium finance agreement he signed that day at the Federal Insurance Agency reflected a cash down payment of only $147, thus falsely inflating the balance due to be paid by the client. The $100 difference was refunded to Mr. Ragsdale by Federal Insurance Agency on October 25, 1982, some six months later after he complained to the Insurance Commissioner's office and was told that the $100 difference was for membership in a motor club that he did not desire or agree to. As late as December 29, 1982, over eight months later, the agency had still not remitted the $147 to Premium Service Company, who then added this deposit already paid by the client back to the account balance. Mr. Ragsdale did not read all the documents he signed at the agency, and he never received the policy he ordered. He was told he was signing an application for insurance and signed several instruments in blank at the request of the personnel at Federal Insurance Agency. He was told they would later fill in what wad needed. Respondent was the general lines agent of record for the Okeechobee Insurance Agency, located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida, during March and April, 1979, and at the Federal Insurance Agency, 3551 South Military Trail, Lake Worth, Florida, during the period which included August, 1980, and April, 1982. In each agency, he had instructed his' personnel how to serve and handle customers who came to the agency requesting the lowest minimum required insurance in which the agency specialized and which the agency, through its advertising program, purported to offer. As testified to by Linda Holly, an employee of Federal Insurance Agency, and as admitted by Respondent, when a prospective customer entered the agency requesting the minimum required coverage, the agent was to ask if the customer knew what the minimum was. The agent would then explain what was required and quote a premium which included not only the minimum required insurance, but also some additional service which, depending on the time, could be AD&D, towing, motor club, or the like, none of which was required by the State of Florida. Respondent instructed his employees to do this on the rationale that the premiums and commissions on the minimum required insurance were so low that the agency could not make sufficient profit on the sale of it, alone, to stay in business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a general lines agent in the State of Florida be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1983 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance Legal Division 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kevin Denis Cox 1483 S.W. 25th Way Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 The Honorable Bill Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
