Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Insurance was the government agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and the regulation of the practice of the insurance profession in this state. Respondent, Alan Chappuis, was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, health insurance agent, general lines agent, and a life, health and variable annuity contracts salesman. Erna Swan, an 84 year old twice widowed lady, and the individual to whom Respondent sold the annuity policies in question, was unable, at the time of the hearing, to recall the names of either of her former husbands or when they passed away. She recalls that both husbands worked in insurance and that she has lived in the Pinellas County area for a long time, but cannot recall for how long. Mrs. Swan lives alone and can cook for herself and bathe and dress herself, but does not know how much her current income is or the source of that income. She was able to recognize Respondent as her insurance agent of several years standing, but cannot recall whether she ever purchased anything from him, and she does not know what Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company is. She does not know what an annuity is or whether she ever wanted to buy one from the Respondent. By the same token, she cannot recall if he ever tried to sell her an annuity. Mrs. Swan has known Nadine Hopkins, a close friend, for about 10 years. She also recognizes Mr. Wells and Mr. Tipton, her attorney and stock broker respectively, but does not know what they do. Mrs. Swan maintains a room in her condominium apartment which she uses for an office where, before she was placed under the guardianship of Ms. Hopkins, she paid her bills and kept her business records, such as they were. She recalls that she had a brokerage account with Merrill Lynch but cannot remember what it was for or what type of securities were in it. She is familiar with Bayridge Baptist Church, of which she is a member, and she recognizes that she has given money to the church over the years. Mrs. Swan's driver's license was cancelled several years ago because, according to Ms. Hopkins, she felt she could not take the test required to renew it. Mrs. Swan does not recall this though she remembers she used to own a car. She cannot remember what kind it was. Mrs. Swan's apartment is paid for. There are no mortgage payments. She claims she still writes checks for her monthly bills by herself, but also notes that Ms. Hopkins does it. More likely it is the latter. She still answers her phone, answers her mail, and reads the newspaper. She is, however, obviously incompetent to testify to the nature of an annuity, and it is quite clear that at this time she would be unable to understand the provisions of an annuity contract and the difference between an annuity contract and an investment portfolio in another product. Mr. Tipton, formerly a stock broker with Merrill Lynch, first met Mrs. Swan in the early 1960's through a family member who worked at the family insurance agency. At that time Mrs. Swan and her husband had purchased the agency from his family, and in the years following the Swans stayed as friends of Mr. Tipton. Mr. Tipton became an investment advisor in 1981 to Mr. Swan who passed away sometime in either 1985 or 1986. He started buying U.S. Government bonds and thereafter moved to tax free investments. When Mr. Swan passed away, Mrs. Swan became the owner of the account. During 1992 and 1993, Mr. Tipton would see Mrs. Swan once or twice a month. At that time, toward the end of 1993, it was clear to him that her memory appeared to be slipping. She would not remember things they had talked about and was unable to participate fully in the decisions made on her investments. At the end of 1993, Mrs. Swan's portfolio with Merrill Lynch was valued at approximately $360,000, plus a money market balance of $18,000. The account statement for October, 1993 reflected she had 5 municipal bonds valued at $80,000, tax free bond funds valued at $273,620, and approximately $18,000 in money market funds. Her estimated annual income from the bonds was approximately $6,631, or approximately $520.00 per month. Her tax free bond funds income returned approximately $1,200 per month, and her Nuveen Fund, approximately $50.00 per month, giving her a grand total of approximately $1,800 per month investment income in addition to her Social Security monthly payment of somewhat in excess of $650. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Tipton, as a representative of Merrill Lynch, received a letter moving Mrs. Swan's account to another brokerage firm, located in Texas, but with a local representative. At that time, Mr. Tipton tried to stop the transfer by contacting his main office, but was advised that by the time he had received the letter, the transfer had been completed. Mr. Tipton wanted to stop the transfer because when he called Mrs. Swan to inquire about it, she indicated to him that she did not want her account moved. Several weeks later, Mrs. Swan called Mr. Tipton to find out where her Merrill Lynch monthly account statement was. She did not recall at that time that her Merrill Lynch account had been closed and the securities therein transferred to the Texas brokerage concern. Because of this call, sometime in early January, 1994, Mr. Tipton called Mr. Wells, Mrs. Swan's attorney, and set up a meeting for the three of them. There were approximately three meetings of the three of them between January and March, 1994. The substance of their discussions was the fact that the broker to whom the Merrill Lynch account had been transferred had liquidated her entire account and used the proceeds thereof to pay for the annuities sold to Mrs. Swan by Mr. Chappuis and his associate, Mr. Mednick. According to Mr. Tipton, up until this time, Mrs. Swan had never indicated any dissatisfaction with the interest and income she was earning on her Merrill Lynch brokerage account. Mr. Tipton absolutely denies there was any churning of her account to garner more commissions. The only transfer was a sale at a premium in February, 1993 of bonds of the Jacksonville Electric Authority to create more capital for investment to provide greater income. The brokerage account owned by Mrs. Swan was not insured against loss of principal though many of the particular funds in which much of the money was invested were, however, individually insured. In 1990, Mrs. Swan's account, which had been in her name individually, was transferred to a trust account of which she was the beneficiary for life, with the provision that at her death, the funds therein would be distributed to various religious organizations and a few friends. Mrs. Swan had no family heirs. No commission was earned by Mr. Tipton on the transfer, though he did receive a commission on both the above-mentioned sale of the Jacksonville Electric bonds and the purchase of a tax free bond fund with the proceeds. Her brokerage account permitted her to write checks on the funds in the money fund. Mr. Tipton claims he never engaged in a transaction regarding Mrs. Swan's account without first talking to her about it. In his opinion, whenever he did make a change she appeared alert and aware enough to participate effectively. The last major transaction was the 1990 bond sale, however. Mrs. Hopkins and Mrs. Swan attend the same church. In late 1993 or early 1994, Respondent's business card was always on Mrs. Swan's refrigerator. At no time did she ever speak disparagingly of him to Mrs. Hopkins, or complain about any insurance product he sold her. Mrs. Hopkins was not Mrs. Swan's guardian at that time and Mrs. Swan was paying her own bills, however not effectively. She was late getting them out and complained it was becoming difficult for her to type out the checks. According to Mrs. Hopking, Mrs. Swan was not extravagant in her spending. She did not take cruises, go to expensive restaurants or buy a lot of clothes. Mrs. Swan, in Ms. Hopkins' opinion, lived comfortably. She was generous in the terms of her charitable contributions. Since being appointed Mrs. Swan's guardian, Mrs. Hopkins had seen her financial records and she knows that Mrs. Swan donated a lot of money to various churches and religious organizations. Mrs. Swan received many requests for donations and indicated that as long as she had the money to give she would do so. In later years, however, as Mrs. Hopkins recalls, it became a physical and mental burden for Mrs. Swan to write the checks, and she frequently commented on this. Mr. Wells is Mrs. Swan's attorney, specializing in estate and trust planning. He met Mrs. Swan through a friend in 1990 and began to serve as her estate planner. In the spring of 1994 Mr. Wells met with Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan regarding the Respondent's sale of her security portfolio and the purchase of the two annuities in issue here with the proceeds. At that time Mrs. Swan seemed to have no knowledge of the transaction. As a result, he called Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company to get some information on what needed to be done in order to bring about a recision of the policies, but before any action was taken, the entire matter was turned over to Mr. Keirnan, another attorney, who does trial work. As a result of Keirnan's efforts, approximately two weeks before the hearing, Mr. Wells, on behalf of Mrs. Swan, received a check in the amount of approximately $372,000 from Guarantee Trust and Life Insurance Company as full reimbursement of the premiums paid for the two annuities in issue. From the time the annuities were issued in December, 1993 and January, 1994, Mrs. Swan had only her Social Security check to live on. She also received a check from Guarantee for $5,000, at her request, at the time the policies were issued as the balance in her brokerage account over the amount required as premiums for the annuities. She received nothing from her annuities which, as set up, did not call for the payment of any monthly income. As a result, Mr. Wells felt it necessary to borrow between $15,000 and $20,000 at 8 percent for Mrs. Swan from other trusts he managed to provide funds for Mrs. Swan to live on. From the documents which Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan brought to him in March, 1994, Wells could determine that the two annuities were purchased for her but she, at that time, did not seem to know anything about them. Though the annuities offered several options to permit period withdrawal of principal and interest, none had been selected by Mrs. Swan and as they then existed, she would draw no income from them until she was 100 years of age. When Mr. Tipton and Mrs. Swan came to Mr. Wells' office and brought the paperwork showing she had sold her securities to buy the annuities, Mr. Wells called Respondent to find out what had happened to Mrs. Swan's money. About the same time, he drafted a letter to Respondent at Mrs. Swan's request in which she requested Respondent not contact her any more. This letter was written because Mrs. Swan had said Respondent had "pestered" her at home and upset her on some occasions before the letter was written. Guarantee's manager of Government Relations and Compliance, Mr. Krevitzky, identified the two policies issued to Mrs. Swan. According to Mr. Krevitzky, an annuity is a savings vehicle which holds funds over a period at interest with provision for single or periodic pay out. Interest on both annuities in issue here was guaranteed at a rate of 4.5 percent per year or higher. The first year, the policies earned only the guaranteed 4.5 percent interest, and the income was credited to the policy from January, 1994 until the policies were surrendered as a part of the litigation settlement on March 25, 1995. At that point, since it was considered that the policies were rescinded and therefore void ab initio, the interest earned was forfeited and not paid. Only the premiums paid in were refunded in total. The commission paid to the Respondent and his associate, Mr. Mednick, was paid out of company funds and not Mrs. Swan's funds. The annuity contracts sold by the Respondent to Mrs. Swan had options for five different pay-outs, some of which would have returned income to her during the pendency of the contract. However, none of these was selected by Mrs. Swan and there was no evidence to indicate that Respondent ever explained any of them to her. As they existed as of the date they were cancelled, and at all time up until then, Mrs. Swan would receive no income until the annuity matured at her age 100. This is an unreasonable situation for an individual of Mrs. Swan's age and situation. Mr. Krevitzky contends that the potential pay out options could have provided Mrs. Swan with a substantial income equal to or exceeding the income she was received from her securities portfolio. Most of these options would have included a partial return of principal, however, whereas the income from the prior held portfolio was interest only with her principal remaining intact. One option provided an income for a guaranteed period which, in some circumstances, could have resulted in her receiving more than the amount paid in for the contract. The ultimate fact remains, however, that at the time of sale, and at all times thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Chappuis was directed to stay away from Mrs. Swan, he had failed to assist her in the selection of any income option and she was receiving no current income at all from the annuities. In each of the two years prior to the purchase, for 1992 and 1993, she had regular tax free investment income of between $26,000 and $27,000, in addition to the capital gains of approximately $23,000 from the sale of the bonds in 1992. It matters not that she needed little to live on or donated a great portion of her income to charity. This decision was hers to make. By the same token, it matters not that no request for income was made, during the pendency of the annuities, by or on behalf of Mrs. Swan. Annuities have several benefits over other types of investments, according to Mr. Krevitzky. One is the tax deferment provision for interest earned on the annuity. Another is the fact that, subject to local law, the principal of the annuity is not subject to garnishment. A third is the guaranteed return of principal at the end of the annuity which permits older annuitants to provide for their heirs while maintaining income during their lifetimes. Many senior citizens look to the safety of their investment rather than the taxability of the interest. Therefore, in selling annuities to seniors, the agents stress these factors and the no-probate consideration. David W. Johnson has been an independent contractor with Respondent's broker, Professional Systems Associates, since 1989 and is the annuity manager for the firm. Mr. Johnson indicates that there has been an increase in the annuity business with seniors in 1993 - 1994. Funds for the purchase of the annuities usually comes from bank certificates of deposit, but sometimes, like in the instant case, the funds come from a brokerage account. In his experience, seniors choose annuities over certificates of deposit and brokerage accounts. According to Mr. Johnson, if Mrs. Swan had wanted to stop the transfer from her account she could have done so up until the transaction was completed, even after the securities had been liquidated and the funds sent to Guarantee. This is so, he claims even though Mrs. Swan gave authority to make the transfer in the documentation accompanying her application for the annuities. Mr. Johnson indicated it takes about two weeks after the receipt of the premium before Guarantee issues the annuity contract and at any time before issue, the transaction could be cancelled and the money returned. Even after issue, there is a "free look" period during which the contract may be cancelled without penalty. Though the contract may be cancelled and the premium returned, the former securities are still liquidated and the brokerage account closed. According to Mr. Johnson, there was nothing in the paperwork regarding these annuities which he saw which would raise any flag for consideration. He did not feel it necessary to call Mrs. Swan to see if she really wanted the policy and he never received a call from her or anybody else regarding it. Mr. Chappuis' partner in this sale was Scott Mednick who has been a licensed insurance agent since 1984 and who is an independent contractor with the same agency. Mr. Mednick was solicited to accompany Mr. Chappuis to Mrs. Swan's home in December, 1994 because of his expertise in the annuity field. Respondent had described Mrs. Swan to him as a long time customer. Respondent claimed that Mrs. Swan had indicated she was concerned about her brokerage account and he wanted to show her some product, annuities, she might be interested in. Mr. Mednick has known Respondent for eleven years and knows him to be a top producer. Respondent's reputation is that he is cheap and close with the dollar. Nonetheless, Mr. Mednick claims he was not surprised that Respondent was willing to share the commission on this sale in order to be sure the client got the proper product. Mrs. Swan let Mr. Mednick examine her monthly statement from Merrill Lynch. It appeared to Mr. Mednick that the account had not grown over the years. This is not surprising in that the portfolio was made up solely of tax free bond funds, tax free municipal bonds and tax free money marts, the volatility of and fluctuation in price of which is minimal. Mr. Mednick cannot now recall if Mrs. Swan indicated she knew about her stocks. However, he relates that he and the Respondent suggested she look into annuities as an alternative which Respondent explained to her. In addition, he claims they provided her with a lot of written material. Based on Mrs. Swan's action, words and attitudes expressed, Mr. Mednick believed she completely understood what was explained to her and wanted to make the change. It was his belief she seemed to understand she would pay no commission on the purchase; that she would have a guaranteed income that she could not outlive; that the annuity avoided the volatility of the stock market; and it was not attachable by creditors. As structured and sold to Mrs. Swan, however, she was to get no income at all from this product until she reached the age of 100/. Mr. Mednick asserts that at no time did he feel that Respondent had less than the best interests of Mrs. Swan at heart and he can recall no time when Respondent lied to Mrs. Swan. All representations made by either Respondent or Mednick allegedly came from the brochures left with her. Mednick indicates that during their conversation, Mrs. Swan did not seem concerned about getting her principal out of the investment. She was most concerned about her desire to leave the principal to the church. Mednick claims that at the time of the sale, the two agents asked Mrs. Swan if she wanted her interest paid quarterly but she said to let it accrue. This representation, in light of the other evidence, is not credible. Taken together, Mednick's testimony does nothing to detract from Respondent's sale of this product, inappropriate as it was for this client, to Mrs. Swan. Mr. Mednick's credentials are somewhat suspect, and his credibility poor, however. By his own admission, he has been administratively fined by the Department on two occasions based on allegations of misconduct. He denies any misconduct, however, claiming he accepted punishment only as an alternative to a prolonged contest of the allegations. The allegations herein were referred to an investigator of the Department to look into. As is the custom of the Department, he did not interview the Respondent but merely sought to gather facts concerning each allegation to be sent to the Department offices in Tallahassee where the analysis and determination of misconduct is made. By the same token, he did not call or speak with Mrs. Swan, Mr. Mednick, or anyone at Professional Systems. He spoke with Mr. Tipton, Mr. Wells, Mrs. Hopkins and with Mr. Keirnan a couple of times.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the insurance licenses and the eligibility for licensure of the Respondent herein, Alan Chappuis, be suspended for nine months. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. - 27 Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's post hearing submittal was entitled "Respondent's Final Argument." However, because it makes specific Findings of Fact, the submittal will be treated as though it were Proposed Findings of Fact which will be ruled upon herein. First sentence accepted. Balance rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. & 3. Accepted that Mr. Krevitzky testified and that there was nothing in the contract which would cause Respondent to misrepresent. The product may well be a worthy product for someone in a different financial position than Ms. Swan, and the issue is whether Respondent fully explained the implications and ramifications of the contracts to her. Rejected as a misconception of the nature of the witness' testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted as a summary of the witness' testimony. First and second sentences accepted. Balance rejected as an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the evidence. Accepted but irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Alan Chappuis, Pro se P. O. Box 86126 Madiera Beach, Florida 33738 The Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent on the basis of her failure to timely comply with continuing education requirements established by Section 626.2815, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is currently licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance ("Department") as a General Lines (2-20) Agent. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, the Respondent was licensed as a General Lines (2-20) Agent and as a Life, Health, and Variable Annuity (2-15) Agent. At all times material to this case, insurance agents licensed in Florida have been required to complete continuing education courses every two years. Licensed insurance agents can meet their continuing education requirements by attending seminars, taking classroom courses, or taking self-study courses. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, the Respondent was required to complete 28 hours of continuing education courses. /3 The required courses could be taken and completed at any time during that two-year period. At all times material, the Respondent has been aware of the continuing education requirements applicable to licensed insurance agents. The Respondent resides in Key Largo, Florida, and has lived at the same address for at least 10 years. Miami, Florida, is about 60 miles from Key Largo. Key West is about 100 miles from Key Largo. During the period from August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1997, there were 11 continuing education courses offered in Key largo. During that same period there were 73 continuing education courses offered in Monroe County. During that same period there were approximately 3,000 continuing education courses offered in Dade County. The Respondent waited until July 16, 1997, which was 15 days before the end of her two-year continuing education deadline, before taking any action to comply with the continuing education requirements. On that day she ordered two self-study courses from a course provider named Noble. If an insurance agent chooses a self-study course to fulfill the continuing education requirements, the course is not considered to be completed until the agent has taken a monitored examination on the course material and has achieved a score of at least 70 percent. The Respondent finished her study of the course materials she bought from Noble by the end of July 1997, but she did not take and pass the examinations on those materials until the end of August 1997, which was three or four weeks past the end of her compliance deadline. In July of 1997, the Respondent was nursing an infant child. Although Noble had a testing site in Miami, the Respondent did not want to go to Miami to take the examinations for her self-study courses, because a trip to Miami would interfere with nursing her child. The Respondent waited until the end of August, because by that time Noble had opened a testing site in Key Largo. All insurance agents who failed to comply with the continuing education requirements for the period ending July 31, 1997, were sent a Preliminary Notice of Non-Compliance. All agents who did not respond to the Preliminary Notice of Non- Compliance were sent a Final Notice of Non-compliance. Both preliminary and final notices were sent to the Respondent. The Department initiated disciplinary action against all insurance agents who were found to have failed to comply with the continuing education requirements. The Department offered each of the non-compliant agents an opportunity to settle the disciplinary actions by payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Numerous insurance agents settled on those terms. In one case, such a disciplinary action was resolved by a stipulated six-month license suspension.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance issue a final order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of failing to comply with statutory and rule provisions regarding continuing education, and imposing a penalty consisting of a six-month suspension of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether the following rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority: Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B1-2.008; 64B1-6.002(1), (4) (only the following language: "is responsible for filing provider approval applications and"), (5), (8) (only the following language: ". . .n approved"), and (10) (only the following language: "individual,"); 64B1-6.005(4); 64B1-6.006(1), (8) (only the following language: "approved"), and (11); 64B1-6.007(1) and (2); and 64B1-6.008(1) and (2).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner received his degree in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine in 1997. He subsequently obtained a license, under Chapter 457, Florida Statutes (2003), and is now an acupuncture physician, practicing Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. Petitioner has been a member of numerous acupuncture organizations. Respondent has approved Petitioner, individually, as a continuing education provider, under provider number BP02-92. To obtain such approval, Petitioner has twice paid Respondent $100 for a two-year approval as an acupuncture continuing education provider. Respondent has also approved the Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine National Coalition Corp. (NCC), which is a Florida for-profit corporation, as an acupuncture continuing education provider. Incorporated on March 3, 2003, NCC has paid Respondent $100 for approval as an acupuncture continuing education provider. Petitioner and David Sontag are the sole officers, directors, and shareholders of NCC. Each shareholder owns half of the company's stock. The purpose of NCC is to raise the standards of the acupuncture profession nationally, including educational standards, and to support the advancement of "acupuncture and oriental medicine." NCC has about 300 members residing in Florida and 1000 members nationally. Membership, which is free, entitles the member to benefits, such as access to information on the NCC website and negotiated discounts from other service providers, but not to rights in governing the corporation. Respondent has approved NCC as a "State or National Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine Organization," pursuant to Section 457.107(3), Florida Statutes (2003). In November 2001, Petitioner coordinated an acupuncture continuing education program in Fort Lauderdale for another provider. In 2002, Petitioner sponsored an acupuncture continuing education program in Florida on electro-acupuncture. On August 23, 2003, Petitioner taught a weekend acupuncture continuing education program sponsored by NCC. Petitioner obtained Respondent's approval for the electro-acupuncture course, but the process took nine months to complete. However, the record is insufficient to determine the cause or causes for the delay and, thus, who was responsible for it. At least 60 days before conducting the course, Petitioner paid the $50 program approval fee and submitted the approval forms. When Petitioner inquired about the approval, Respondent's executive director advised him to provide the course, pending approval. Petitioner thus was unable to advertise the course as approved by Respondent and instead advertised only that the sponsor had applied for Respondent's approval. Nearly 100 persons attended the electro-acupuncture course, paying $65 each. However, Petitioner netted only $350 on the program because of the expenses in advertising the program, renting a hotel, and other items. NCC obtained Respondent's approval for its course in August 2003 within two weeks of submitting its application. NCC submitted the required forms and the required $100 check. Persons attending the NCC course received their acupuncture continuing education credits from Respondent. Petitioner is substantially affected by the rules that he has challenged. Petitioner has sponsored an acupuncture continuing education course and, as an employee, taught another course that was sponsored by NCC. It may be reasonably expected that Petitioner will participate in future acupuncture continuing education programs in one or both of these capacities. The rules concerning a filing fee for approval require a modest fee, but NCC's net on the one course for which detailed financial information was provided suggests that the provider is substantially affected by even a modest fee, given the relatively little profit that ensued from that course. In their entirety, the subject rules in this case are as follows (challenged portions underlined): 64B1-2.008 Continuing Education Program Approval Fee. The continuing education program approval fee shall be $50. Specific Authority 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 5- 12-87, Amended 9-15-92, Formerly 21AA-2.008, 61F1-2.008, 59M-2.008, Amended 10-15-97. 64B1-6.002 Definitions. “Approved” means acceptable to the Florida Board of Acupuncture. “Board” means Florida Board of Acupuncture. “Committee” means Committee on Continuing Education of the Board. “Contact Person” means one who is responsible for filing provider approval applications and insures compliance with these rules, maintains complete rosters of participants, and is knowledgeable about the provider’s program(s). “Correspondence Program” means an approved program offered by mail with a defined course of study to be completed by the participant for which an evaluation of performance is made and a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory completion of the course is given by the provider. “Credit Hour” means a minimum of 50 minutes and a maximum of 60 minutes of class time. One-half (1/2) credit hour means a minimum of 25 minutes and a maximum of 30 minutes of class time. “Department” means the Department of Health. “Participant” means an acupuncturist who attends a program presented by an approved provider in order to achieve the stated objectives of the program. “Program” means a planned educational experience dealing with a specific content based on the stated objectives. “Provider” means the individual, organization or institution conducting the continuing education program. Specific Authority 456.013, 456.025, 456.033, 457.104, 457.107(3) Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013, 456.025, 456.033, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2-24-88, Formerly 21AA-6.002, 61F1-6.002, Amended 1-16-97, Formerly 59M-6.002. 64B1-6.005 Standards for Approval of Continuing Education Credit. A continuing education program must contribute to the advancement, extension or enhancement of the licensee’s skills and knowledge related to the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine. Programs should concern the history and theory of acupuncture, acupuncture diagnosis and treatment techniques, techniques of adjunctive therapies, acupuncturist-patient communication and professional ethics. All continuing education courses are subject to evaluation and approval by the Board to determine that the continuing education course meets the criteria established by the Board which has final determination as to the number of hours of acceptable credit that will be awarded for each program. Each program offered for continuing education credit must be presented or taught by a person who at a minimum holds a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university or a post-secondary education institution licensed by the State of Florida, with a major in the subject matter to be presented; or has graduated from a school of acupuncture, or has completed a tutorial program which has a curriculum equivalent to the requirements in this state and was approved by a state licensing authority, a nationally recognized acupuncture/oriental medicine association or a substantially equivalent accrediting body, and has completed three (3) years of professional experience in the licensed practice of acupuncture; and has a minimum of two (2) years teaching experience in the subject matter to be presented, or has taught the same program for which approval is sought a minimum of three (3) times in the past two (2) years before a professional convention, professional group or at any acupuncture school, or has completed specialized training in the subject matter of the program and has a minimum of two (2) years of practical experience in the subject. In order to meet the continuing education requirements, the continuing education program submitted by the licensee must meet the criteria established by the Board. No credit will be given for programs which are primarily devoted to administrative or business management aspects of acupuncture practice. To receive credit for programs on HIV/AIDS, the program must be, at a minimum, two (2) hours in length and must address the areas mandated in Section 456.033, F.S. The Board accepts HIV/AIDS programs presented or conducted by the Department of Health and programs approved by other professional regulatory boards for the health professions. Continuing education programs related to laboratory test or imaging findings shall be designed to provide course content on the clinical relevance of laboratory and diagnostic tests and procedures as well as biomedical physical examination findings and to advance, extend or enhance the licensee’s skills and knowledge related to the safe and beneficial use of laboratory test and imaging findings. Specific Authority 456.013(9), 456.033, 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013(9), 456.033, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2-24-88, Amended 8-6-89, Formerly 21AA-6.005, 61F1-6.005, Amended 3-18-97, Formerly 59M- 6.005, Amended 6-1-99, 1-7-03. 64B1-6.006 Requirements for the Provider. Each provider shall: File all information necessary for provider and program approval on Forms DOH/AP007, Continuing Education Course Approval Applications, DOH/AP006, Continuing Education Provider Approval, which are hereby incorporated by reference and will be effective 2-18-98, copies of which may be obtained from the Board office. Insure that the continuing education program(s) presented by the provider complies with these rules. Maintain a complete, alphabetized, legible roster of participants for a period of 3 years following each program presentation. Maintain a “sign-in” sheet and a “sign- out” sheet with the signatures of participants. Provide each participant with a certificate certifying that the participant has successfully completed the program. The certificate shall not be issued until completion of the program and shall contain the provider’s name, title of program, date of program, location, and number of credit hours. Notify the Board of any significant changes relative to the maintenance of standards as set forth in these rules. Ensure that no person receives credit for the same program more than once. Notify the Board of any change in the presenters or instructors of any approved program, and demonstrate the new instructor meets the criteria set forth in subsection 64B1-6.005(2), F.A.C. Designate a contact person who assumes responsibility for each program, and who is knowledgeable about each program. The contact person shall notify the Board of any significant changes in programs or a lapse in the maintenance of standards. In a correspondence continuing education program, each provider is responsible for obtaining from each certificateholder a signed statement which states that the participant did in fact read the material, performed the exercises and took the examination personally. A clearly defined refund policy shall be in the flyer. There shall be adequate personnel to assist with administrative matters and personnel with competencies outside content areas in cases when the method of delivery requires technical or other special expertise. Providers shall maintain records of individual offerings for inspection by the Board; records shall include subject matter, objectives, faculty qualifications, evaluation mechanisms, credit hours and rosters of participants. Specific Authority 456.013, 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2-24-88, Amended 7-25- 88, Formerly 21AA-6.006, 61F1-6.006, Amended 3-18-97, Formerly 59M-6.006, Amended 2-18-98. 64B1-6.007 Preapproved Providers. Subject to the requirements of Rule 64B1-6.005 and subsections 64B1-6.007(3) through (5), F.A.C., the Board approves for continuing education credit programs offered by: (a) The Continuing Education Committee of the American Association of Oriental Medicine (AAOM); (b) The Florida State Oriental Medicine Association (FSOMA); (c) Individual member schools of the Colleges of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (CCAOM); and (d) The National Alliance for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine. A nonrefundable processing fee of $50 must be submitted with each registration of course offering. Each program offering shall contain: A detailed program outline or syllabus; A current curriculum vitae of each speaker or lecturer; The procedure to be used for recording attendance; and Evidence of meeting all the requirements of Rule 64B1-6.005, F.A.C. Upon processing of a program offering, the Board will assign an identification number to that program. Upon receipt by the provider of the course identification number, the provider may identify the program as “approved by the Florida Board of Acupuncture for purposes of Continuing Education Credit” in any flyer or other advertisement. Specific Authority 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2- 24-88, Formerly 21AA-6.007, Amended 7-4-94, Formerly 61F1-6.007, Amended 4-10-97, Formerly 59M-6.007. 64B1-6.008 Process for Program Approval. Each program to be offered by an approved provider must be approved by the Board. Applications for approval Form DOH/AP007, Continuing Education Provider Approval, which are hereby incorporated by reference and will be effective 2-18-98, copies of which may be obtained from the Board office shall be submitted to the Board Office at least 60 days prior to the date of presentation. Each program application shall contain: A detailed program outline or syllabus; A current curriculum vitae of each speaker or lecturer; The procedure to be used for recording attendance; Evidence of meeting all the requirements of Rule 64B1-6.005, F.A.C.; and A nonrefundable fee of $50.00. Upon approval of a program, the Board will assign an identification number to that program. If approved, the provider may identify the program as “approved by the Florida Board of Acupuncture for Purposes of Continuing Education Credit” in any flyer or other advertisement. Specific Authority 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.104, 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. Law Implemented 456.013(7), (8), (9), 457.107(3), Florida Statutes. History–New 2- 24-88, Formerly 21AA-6.008, 61F1-6.008, Amended 1-16-97, Formerly 59M-6.008, Amended 2-18-98. The forms mentioned in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B1-6.006(1) involve two approval processes. Form DOH/AP007, which is also mentioned in Rule 64B1-6.008(1), is the application for Respondent's approval of the provider. Form DOH/AP006 is the application for Respondent's approval of the program. Form DOH/AP007 comprises two pages of instructions, a copy of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B1-6.005, and a four- page application. The instructions state: "Application Fee: $100 (Non- Refundable). The remainder of the instructions explain the items set forth in the application. The checklist at the end of the instructions restates the requirement to submit a $100 check or money order. The first page of the application states: "$100 non- refundable application fee." It asks whether the application is a "renewal application." The first page also asks the name of the "organization" and its "continuing education director," as well as contact information, such as mailing address. The first page asks four questions: Does your organization monitor attendance to assure those in attendance have been present for the entire program for which they receive credit? Does your organization assign an identifiable person to be present at continuing education activities who is responsible for recording attendance? Does your organization have facilities available to store records for at least 3 years? Have you attached a curriculum vitae for each instructor? The first page concludes with an affidavit signed by the continuing education director, although not notarized, and stating that he or she represents that the information in the completed form is accurate and will comply with the rules contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64B1-6.006. The second page of the application is a certificate of completion. It requests the name, license number, and address of the licensee attending the program; the name and address of the provider; and the site, course title, continuing education hours awarded, and name of the instructor. The third page of the application is Form C: Course Offering Data Form. This page requires the provider to list the educational objectives of the course and the continuing education hours and subject matter for each objective. The form also requires the identification of the teaching methods. The fourth page of the application is Form D: Course Offering Data Form. This page requires the provider to list the name and job title of each instructor and his or her relevant education and experience. Form DOH/AP006 is the application for Respondent's approval of the program. Form DOH/AP006 comprises one page of instructions, a copy of Florida Administrative Code Rules, 4B1-6.005 and 64B1-6.008, and a three-page application, the last two pages of which are identical to the last two pages of the Form DOH/AP007 application. The first numbered instruction requires: "Prior to offering or advertising a continuing education course, the provider must have registered by way of submitting this application: the course, along with any materials to be offered and the name and qualifications of the instructor . . .." This instruction warns: "If you have failed to submit all of the above, you will not be eligible to offer the course for continuing education credit. NO RETROACTIVE CREDIT IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD." The second numbered instruction requires the provider to submit any material to be used in a home-study course. The third numbered instruction requires a "nonrefundable fee of $50" with "each program application." The first page of the application requires identifying information for the provider and program, as well as disclosure of whether the course for which approval is sought is a previously approved course with a new or additional instructor, a new course, or a previously approved course with different credit hours. The first page also states that instructors must meet the qualifications of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B1-6.005(2)(a) or (b).
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, the Petitioner was an applicant for licensure as a life including variable annuity and health insurance agent. On or about February 2, 1994, the Petitioner was scheduled to take the life including variable annuity and health insurance agent examinations at Florida Technical College in Orlando, Florida. On February 2, 1994, the Petitioner chose to take only the life including variable annuity examination. He did not receive a passing grade on this examination. On February 4, 1994, the Petitioner returned to the Florida Technical College after the test had started. He attempted to use another test admittance authorization card to be able to re-test. At that time, the Petitioner was advised by Tom Bastedo, Test Site Computer Operator, that he could not use the authorization card to gain admittance to the examination since the Petitioner had already taken the life including variable annuity examination and the computer scoring system would report that the examination had already been scored. The Petitioner became angry and tore up the card. The Petitioner then discussed his personal situation with Tom Bastedo, which included a reference to some "emeralds" that the Petitioner owned. The Petitioner removed from his briefcase what appeared to be real emeralds and offered them as a bribe to Mr. Bastedo if he would make it look like the Petitioner had passed the examination which he had previously failed on February 2, 1994. Mr. Bastedo refused the offer and advised the Petitioner that he must reapply to be tested. The Petitioner hung around the testing site for awhile and then left the area. This incident was reported immediately by Mr. Bastedo to his supervisors. On or about March 9, 1994, the Petitioner's application for license as a life including variable annuity and health insurance agent was denied because of the events which had occurred at the Florida Technical College on February 4, 1994. Petitioner's explanation of the events that occurred on February 4, 1994 is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter an Order denying the license application of Dario Albert Alvarez for licensure as a life including variable annuity and health insurance agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-7. COPIES FURNISHED: Dario Albert Alvarez 13329 Laver Lane Orlando, FL 32824 John R. Dunphy, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 54 years of age and has been a resident of the State of Florida for eighteen years. On January 28, 1983, Petitioner was convicted of six counts of mortgage fraud in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. 81-3411CF. That conviction arose out of certain conduct by Petitioner in approximately 1980. Petitioner was sentenced to five years of confinement, with credit for time served, and twelve years of probation. That conviction was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal on July 5, 1984, and re-hearing was denied on August 1, 1984. Zaremba v. State, 452 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 4th Dist. 1984). On February 25, 1987, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of grand theft in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, Case No. 86-0836CF. On that same date, he was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation for a period of five years to run concurrently with the probation imposed by the Circuit Court of Broward County in Case No. 81-3411CF. That charge arose out of a dispute with his employer, and Petitioner was required to make restitution during his probationary period in the amount of $16,082 pursuant to an order entered by the Court on March 5, 1987. Petitioner's probation was terminated in Case No. 81-3411CF on October 5, 1993, and in Case No. 86-0836CF on April 12, 1993. Petitioner timely made restitution in the total amount ordered by the Court. For the last eight years Petitioner has been employed by Atlantic Real Estate Company in Pompano Beach, Florida, a developer of time-share properties. As the closing officer for that company, Petitioner reviews the closing documents, including mortgages, deeds, and contracts. As the closing officer, Petitioner also handles the money and has for the last eight years. He accepts down payments and closing costs from people purchasing units by the week. He takes the money home at night and deposits it in the bank the next morning. Although he handles thousands of dollars a week in this manner, none of the money which has come into his possession has ended up "missing," and no one has ever accused him of improperly handling any of that money. Petitioner has been licensed as a real estate salesperson by the State of Florida since 1991. Although his application for that licensure was initially denied as a result of his criminal history, Petitioner requested an informal hearing before the Florida Real Estate Commission, and the Commission granted his application for a license. That real estate salesperson's license is current, having been renewed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, on August 7, 1993. Petitioner has also successfully handled monies belonging to others as a member of the Board of Directors of the Silver Seas Beach Club, a time-share resort on the Fort Lauderdale "strip." In that capacity, Petitioner has handled money from sales and has also operated the front desk on Saturdays receiving money from people renting units in that resort. He has so handled that money for four years. Petitioner was considered to be "an exemplary probationer" by his probation officer. Petitioner also enjoys a reputation for being competent, honest, reliable, and trustworthy in his handling of money belonging to other persons and in his business dealings, as evidenced by letters from his employer, from the management at Silver Seas, and from a local practicing attorney who was formerly employed by the State of Florida as a prosecutor. Petitioner has rehabilitated himself since the time of his activities which resulted in his two convictions. Petitioner has shown himself to be trustworthy and of good character. On July 29, 1993, Petitioner submitted to the Department his application for licensure as a mortgage broker. In that application he disclosed his two convictions and has provided to the Department all information requested relative thereto. That application reveals that Petitioner has complied with all procedures prerequisite to licensure, including filing the application, paying the appropriate application fee, providing fingerprints, attending the required mortgage broker education courses, and successfully passing the examination for licensure. By letter dated December 14, 1993, the Department denied Petitioner's application for licensure based solely on Petitioner's convictions. In denying Petitioner's application, the Department did not conduct any investigation as to Petitioner's rehabilitation or good character. Rather, the Department relied on its "policy" that no application for licensure as a mortgage broker will be granted if the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime involving fraud, dishonest dealing, or acts involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-1229 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 9-13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 8 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-7 and 11 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 10 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 13 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. Booth, Esquire Booth & Associates Post Office Box 12639 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cassandra A. Evans, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents have violated provisions of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, through payment of alleged monetary inducements to insurance agents for the purpose of securing contracts which finance insurance premiums.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). Respondents are Puritan Budget Plan, Inc., and Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., (Respondents). Findings contained in paragraphs 3- 23, were stipulated to by the parties. Stipulated Facts Common shares in Respondents' corporations were sold to insurance agent/shareholders for between $500.00 and $2,500.00 per share, depending on date purchased. Presently, and for the purposes of this litigation, marketing and/or administrative fees paid by Respondents to agent/shareholders range from $1.00 to $13.00 per contract produced, depending on the number of payments made, and the amount of the down payment. Each per contract marketing and/or administrative fee paid by Respondents to agent/shareholders is completely unrelated to the number of contracts produced by that agent/shareholder, and is based upon the characteristics of each contract, pursuant to the terms of the shareholder purchase agreement. Perry & Co., pursuant to a written agreement, manages the day to day activities of Respondents, including solicitation of new shareholder/agents. Alex Campos is currently President of Perry & Co. Perry & Co., Dick Perry or Alex Campos have no equity ownership, either direct or indirect, in Respondents corporations. No shareholder of Perry & Co. is also a shareholder in either Respondent, and no shareholder of the Respondents is a shareholder in Perry & Co. No officer or director of Perry & Co. is an officer or director of either Respondent, and no officer or director of either Respondent is an officer or director of Perry & Co. The individual management agreements between Perry & Co. and Respondents are terminable with proper notice by either party. Respondent Puritan Budget Plan, Inc., was originally licensed by the Department as a premium finance company in 1984, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. Puritans' principle office is located at 2635 Century Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. Respondent Gibraltar Budget Plan, Inc., was originally licensed by the Department as a premium finance company in 1984, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 627, Part XV, Florida Statutes. Gibraltar's principle office is located at 2635 Century Parkway, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. Customers of Respondents are typically financing automobile insurance premiums. There is little if any variation among licensed premium finance companies in the State of Florida as to the interest rate charged to customers. In 1988, the Department inquired of Respondents' activities in relation to agent/shareholder compensation arrangements. After several meetings with representatives from Respondents, the Department closed the matter without taking any action. Also in 1988, the Department proposed the adoption of Rule 4-18.009, which in part would have explicitly made payment of processing fees or stock dividends a violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, but later withdrew the proposed rule. Again in 1994, the Department proposed a rule which would have explicitly made payment of processing fees or stock dividends a violation of Section 627.837, Florida Statutes. After a hearing and adverse ruling by the hearing officer, the Department withdrew proposed Rule 4-196.030(8). Financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for the production of premium finance contracts may result in the unnecessary financing of contracts, and the Department believes Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, was intended to make such conduct illegal. Financial consideration paid to insurance agents in exchange for the production of premium finance contracts may result in insurance agents adding or sliding unnecessary products to make the total cost of insurance more expensive and induce the financing of additional contracts, and the Department believes Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, was intended to make such conduct illegal. An "inducement" is presently defined as "an incentive which motivates an insurance purchaser to finance the premium payment or which motivates any person to lead or influence an insured into financing the insurance coverage being purchased; or any compensation or consideration presented to a person based upon specific business performance whether under written agreement or otherwise." Rule 4-196.030(4), Florida Administrative Code (July 27, 1995). This rule is currently effective but presently on appeal. There is no evidence that Respondents unnecessarily financed any premium finance contracts or engaged in any "sliding" of unnecessary products to induce the unnecessary financing of contracts. Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit the payment of corporate dividends based on stock ownership to shareholders who are also insurance agents. According to the Final Bill Analysis for H.B. 2471, in 1995 the Legislature amended Section 627.837, Florida Statutes, relating to rebates and inducements. This section was amended to clarify that this statute does not prohibit an insurance agent or agents from owning a premium finance company. The statute, as amended, is silent on the issue of how owner-agents may be compensated. Other Facts Approximately 80 percent of Respondents' insureds will turn to the shareholder/agent to handle premium mailing and collection. When a shareholder/agent provides these valuable services and labor to Respondents through the servicing of the premium finance contract with an insured, payment for those services and/or recoupment of the expenses involved with their provision is made, at least in part, in the form of the marketing and administrative fees paid by Respondents to the shareholder/agent. The marketing and administrative fee payment by Respondents to shareholder/agents is made from the net profit of the corporation and represents payment of ownership interest (dividends) to shareholder/agents in addition to payment for shareholder/agent services or expenses. Respondents generally finance "non-standard" private passenger automobile insurance. Such insurance generally covers younger drivers and drivers with infraction points against their license. The average non-standard premium is $500 per year. Thirty percent of non-standard insureds will cancel their insurance prior to the renewal date. Cancellation of policies and financing arrangements by non-standard insurers require the agent to return unearned commissions, about $30 generally. In contrast, payment of an insurance premium in cash guarantees an agent his/her entire commission, an average of $90 per non-standard policy. Consequently, the financial interest of most agents is best served by cash sale of auto insurance as opposed to financing the insurance. The average amount generated by 95 percent of all premium finance contracts executed in Florida would yield an agent/shareholder approximately six dollars per contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaints. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 28th day of November, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-11. Accepted to extent included within stipulated facts, otherwise rejected for lack of citation to the record. 12. First sentence is rejected as not substantially dispositive of the issues presented. Remainder rejected for lack of record citation if not included within stipulated facts. 13.-15. Rejected to extent not included within stipulation, no citation to record. Incorporated by reference. Rejected, no record citation, legal conclusion. 18.-19. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 20. Rejected, no record citation. 21.-23. Rejected, not materially dispositive. Rejected, record citation and relevancy. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Incorporated by reference. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 2.-3. Accepted, not verbatim. 4. Rejected, unnecessary. 5.-7. Accepted, not verbatim. 8.-9. Rejected, unnecessary. 10. Accepted per stipulation. 11.-12. Rejected, unnecessary. 13. Accepted per stipulation. 14.-16. Accepted, not verbatim. Rejected, hearsay. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, unnecessary. 20.-22. Accepted per stipulation. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-57. Incorporated by reference. 58.-60. Rejected, unnecessary. 61.-62. Rejected, subordinate and not materially dispositive. 63.-67. Rejected as unnecessary to extent not included in stipulated facts. Accepted per stipulation. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted per stipulation. 72.-76. Rejected, unnecessary. 77. Accepted per stipulation. 78.-79. Incorporated by reference. 80.-87. Accepted per stipulation. 88. Incorporated by reference. 89.-90. Accepted per stipulation. 91.-95. Rejected, subordinate. 96. Accepted. 97.-101. Rejected, unnecessary. 102. Incorporated by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Liefer, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Steven M. Malono, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 N. Gadsden St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
