The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's license as a limited customer representative (4-42), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Facts Admitted by Answer Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, you, Anna Michelle Mack, currently are licensed in this state as a limited customer representative (4-42), and were so licensed at all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referenced herein. Your license identification no. is A161579. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Florida Department of Financial Services has jurisdiction over your license and appointments. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referenced herein you, Anna Michelle Mack, were employed with Beck Insurance, in Jacksonville, Florida. At all times relevant to the dates and occurrences referenced herein you, Anna Michelle Mack, had a duly-appointed supervising agent, Monica Beck. Count I - Nelson Yettman On July 20, 2001, Nelson Yettman purchased mobile home homeowner's insurance from Beck Insurance. In the interest of obtaining the insurance policy he completed an application upon a form related to the Florida Residential Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association (FRPCJUA), Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. He signed the application. It reflects the signature of Monica Beck as agent, but Mr. Yettman dealt with the Respondent in the details involved with the transaction. On July 21, 2001, the only person that Mr. Yettman did business with at Beck Insurance from the beginning until the end of the transaction was the Respondent. Respondent made no explanation to Mr. Yettman as to her status as an insurance agent or not. At the time, Respondent was a limited customer representative (4-42), as she has remained. Monica Beck bound the mobile home homeowner's policy as the primary agent for Beck Insurance. On July 20, 2001, Mr. Yettman paid $377 for the mobile home homeowner's policy premium. In return Respondent provided Mr. Yettman a receipt noting that payment, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. The receipt had Respondent's first name affixed. The receipt also referred to a $75 charge for "Nation Homeowners." That amount was not tendered on July 20, 2001. The reference to "Nation Homeowners" refers to a product from Nation Safe Drivers described as Homeowners/Renters contract customer service. Mr. Yettman signed for Plan 3, the $75 Plan within that service. This arrangement was one in which, according to the document, executed the agreement between the contracting parties as set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6, was "NATION HOMEOWNERS/RENTERS PLAN agrees that the person named in the schedule made a part heheof [sic], in consideration of the payment of fee [sic] provided in paid schedule, is a nw/amed [sic] member of the NATION HOMEOWNERS/RENTERS PLAN, and entitled to all the services benefits and proviledges [sic] hereof, for and in connection with the ownership, or rental of a home or apartment in the name of the member, for the period set forth, within the United States of America, its territories, possessions, or Canada, . . . ." In particular, the services being offered were related to: Burglary & Vandalism Reward and Emblem: Nation Homeowners/Renters Plan; Extra Living Expense; Credit Card Protection; Major Appliance Allowance; Ambulance Service; Lock and Key Service; Notary Public Service; Touring and Travel Services; World Wide Tour Service; and Post Office Box. Mr. Yettman acknowledges signing Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6, the Homeowners/Renters contract and that on July 23, 2001, he paid the $75 called for in the contract. To that end, on July 23, 2001, Respondent provided a receipt to Mr. Yettman with her first name affixed noting payment of the additional $75 Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5. While Mr. Yettman realizes that he paid $75 for the Homeowners/Renters contract, no explanation was given to him by Respondent concerning the purchase. Mr. Yettman did not realize that it was an optional item unrelated to his mobile home homeowner's policy. He did not realize that there was an additional charge for the purchase until he paid the $377 for the mobile home homeowner's policy and was reminded that he owned an additional $75 which he eventually paid. Mr. Yettman asked what the additional $75 was for. Respondent told Mr. Yettman in response that he needed to pay another $75. Mr. Yettman went home and discussed the extra payment with his wife, and returned two days later to pay the extra $75. Mr. Yettman returned to make payment with the belief that the extra $75 was something in relation to the mobile home homeowner's insurance premium. Mr. Yettman had not read the details set forth in the Homeowners/Renters contract, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 6. When Mr. Yettman returned on July 23, 2001, to pay the additional $75 he found out that the money was in relation to the Homeowners/Renters contract. With this knowledge he did not reject the contract at that time. Nonetheless, his overall impression remained that $452 paid in the aggregate was for a homeowner's insurance policy. As Respondent identified in her testimony, she is aware that her limited customer representative license (4-42) pertains to her opportunity to write and discuss automobile insurance. It is limited to that activity. It is unrelated to the ability to write insurance for property and casualty insurance, such as homeowner's insurance, an opportunity reserved to a general lines agent (2-20). Notwithstanding this limitation, Respondent believes that she was entitled to obtain experience while employed at Beck Insurance, under supervision leading to her licensure as a general lines agent (2-20). Respondent asserts that she was undergoing training toward that goal from Jennifer L. Faloon, a Beck Insurance employee who held a general lines agent (2-20) license. In this connection, to the knowledge of Respondent, only three or four homeowner's policies are written at Beck Insurance per month. Respondent asked Jennifer Faloon to help her in processing the application for mobile home homeowner's insurance completed by Mr. Yettman, in such matters as an item referred to as a cost estimator. Respondent wrote in the information on the application, as well as the receipts for payment that have been previously described. Respondent, in her testimony, acknowledged that the Homeowners/Renters contract was involved with items unrelated to the mobile home homeowner's insurance policy, which Mr. Yettman had come to Beck Insurance to purchase. Respondent describes the manner in which she would have presented the Homeowners/Renters contract to Mr. Yettman by telling him what it covers. "It covers the ambulance, it covers lock and key, notary, touring, covers major appliance allowance, credit cards, and stuff like that." Respondent indicated that the signature of the customer is obtained for the Homeowners/Renters contract "to let them know that they have this." This is a similar concept, as a product, to the towing and rental product sold to customer Laura Brown, whose transaction is also discussed in this case. Respondent's remarks about her description to Mr. Yettman are perceived as being what would be typical in dealing with a Homeowners/Renters contract with a customer, not specifically related to Mr. Yettman. Respondent does not recall any specific questions, which Mr. Yettman may have had about the Homeowners/Renters contract. When asked if Mr. Yettman signed the contract in her presence, she replied "Yes, Sir, he would have," meaning again that this would be the expected outcome. Respondent explained that the different plans described in the Homeowners/Renters contract are not presented to the customer by any method. Count II - Carolyn Grant On March 12, 2001, Carolyn Grant purchased automobile insurance from Beck Insurance, together with auto rental reimbursement and towing service reimbursement from All World All Safe Drivers (All World). These transactions are evidenced in applications, questionnaires, an inspection form and a receipt for payment, variously described in Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 8 through 11, and Respondent's Exhibit numbered 1. Respondent did not deal with Ms. Grant in the transactions. Count III - Laura Brown On January 21, 2002, Laura Brown purchased automobile insurance through Beck Insurance. She dealt with Valerie Webster and Anna Michelle Mack, employees at Beck Insurance. Ms. Brown dealt primarily with Ms. Webster during the transaction, with Ms. Mack there to assist Ms. Webster on and off. At various times in 2002 and 2003 Valerie Lynn Webster had applied to Petitioner to be licensed as a (2-14) life, including variable annuity agent and a limited customer representative (4-42). No licenses were issued to Ms. Webster. Before arriving at Beck Insurance, Ms. Brown had obtained a preliminary quotation by telephone from the agency related to the purchase of automobile insurance. Ms. Brown was interested in obtaining full coverage for her car. The nature of the discussion at the agency was about the purchase of automobile insurance, not about a towing and rental contract, motor club membership, or the All World plan. A down-payment was made with installments to follow, associated with the automobile insurance. Ms. Brown thought that the entire amount of the down-payment was for the insurance premium. No explanation was made to the effect that the motor club was separate from the automobile insurance policy. When Ms. Brown left the Beck Insurance agency, she did not realize that she had purchased anything other than automobile insurance. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 12 (DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL) is the automobile insurance application through Superior executed by Ms. Brown on the date in question. It was signed by Ms. Faloon noting that the policy was bound. Ms. Faloon had no other direct involvement in the transaction. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 13 (DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL) is a receipt dated January 22, 2002, issued to Ms. Brown by Ms. Webster and Ms. Mack, totaling $247 that Ms. Brown paid on that date. It is broken out as $184 for Superior, $60 for All World Motor Club, and $3 for a motor vehicle report. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 14 (DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL), is an executed application for All World automobile rental and towing service reimbursement executed by Ms. Brown for a period January 22, 2002, through June 22, 2002, under Plan 3. This form does not reflect the cost of that plan. Ms. Brown executed the Beck Insurance questionnaire, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 15 (DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL) that contains item 11 relating to the motor club stating, "I am aware that the towing and rental car reimbursement is optional. I want to carry this coverage. (This coverage can only be renewed by coming into the office, as it is not written with your auto carrier.)" This creates an option to purchase then immediately withdraws the option. The form additionally sets forth in another place, that the towing and rental car reimbursement is optional but without the opportunity to decline that option that is specifically described for other optional coverage in the form, such as uninsured motorists and medical payments. In an affidavit containing Ms. Brown's statement prepared on May 23, 2002, Ms. Brown stated, "I knew that I had purchased towing or rental reimbursement policy for my policy 1/22/2002/2003 because I saw the form and I asked questions about it. The lady in picture number 10 (Ms. Mack depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 17, DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL), told me I would get so many tows for free, she also told me it was from Beck Insurance." But in that affidavit Ms. Brown goes on to state, "I did not know that I paid an additional $60 for the towing policy. I thought this was just something I got with the car insurance policy." Nothing in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 14 (DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL), the application for All World towing and rental reflects the cost of Plan 3. That was made known in the receipt, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 13 (DOAH Case No. 03-3666PL). Ms. Brown does not recall whether Ms. Mack, in her participation in the transaction, indicated that Ms. Mack's status at the Beck Insurance agency was other than that of an insurance agent. Disciplinary History Respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of those provisions within Counts I and III that have been referred to, dismissing the others within those Counts, dismissing Count II, suspending her license for one-year, placing Respondent on two years probation, and requiring attendance at such continuing education courses as deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of June, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the hearing, and at all times relevant to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Alan David Cottrill was licensed as a general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous lines agent by the Department of Insurance. The Department of Insurance regulates general lines-property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous lines agents pursuant to Chapters 626 and 627, Florida Statutes. Lloyd Register, III, and his son, Lloyd Register, IV, operate directly or indirectly a number of insurance agencies specializing in the sale of nonstandard insurance. These agencies generally employ an agent, who is an officer of a separate corporation in which one or both of the Registers is also an officer; and the Registers own a controlling interest in the corporation or otherwise have the capacity to terminate each corporation. Alan David Cottrill started his employment with Cash Register of Arlington, Inc. in July, 1992. He was designated as the primary agent at Cash Register of Jacksonville, Inc. at the end of July, 1992, at which time he was president of the corporation. In February of 1993, he became vice president and president of Cash Register of Westside, Inc. In March of 1993, the Mr. Cottrill was again employed by Cash Register of Arlington, Inc., and was an officer of that corporation and primary agent of that insurance agency. He was the primary agent and general manager of Cash Register of Palatka, Inc., from November of 1993 until October of 1994. From February of 1993 until October of 1994, Mr. Cottrill was general manager of all Cash Register Offices in Jacksonville and Orange Park, Florida. The Respondent was again employed full time by Cash Register of Westside, Inc. in March of 1994, and became the primary agent for that agency in May of 1994. All of the Cash Register Auto Insurance agencies with which the Respondent was employed, as indicated in Paragraph 4, above, were insurance agencies regulated under the laws of Florida. Lloyd Register, IV, was an officer and director of the foregoing Cash Register Auto Insurance agencies. Colonial Touring Association, Inc., is an automobile club providing accidental death and dismemberment as an ancillary product. COUNT I, II, and III The Petitioner did not present any evidence on the allegations of Counts I, II, III, VI, VII, IX, and X in the Administrative Complaint. COUNT IV Cassie Reimer contacted Cash Register Auto Insurance of Orange Park, Inc., at 203 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida, on January 8, 1993, regarding the purchase of automobile insurance. At the time Ms. Reimer purchased insurance from Cash Register Auto Insurance of Orange Park, Inc., the Respondent admitted he was the manager of the Orange Park office. The application executed by Ms. Reimer indicates that the Agency's name is "Cash Register Auto Insurance of Jax, Inc., 5631 University Blvd. W., Jacksonville, FL 32216," and the agent's number is 8009. Prior to going the Orange Park office of Cash Register Auto Insurance, Ms. Reimer had called and had obtained a quote for liability, collision, and personal injury protection for her automobile. Ms. Reimer advised the individual with whom she spoke on the phone that she wanted the minimum coverages necessary to satisfy the lien-holder of her automobile loan and the Florida law. Based upon the quote which she received, she went to the Orange Park office of Cash Register Auto Insurance. When Ms. Reimer arrived at the office, she was assisted by Andrew Voshell, who she knew as "Andy" and who helped her fill out the insurance applications (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 & 2) for liability, collision, and personal injury protection from American Union Insurance Company. Mr. Voshell helped her fill out the premium financing agreement, accepted a down payment in the amount of $83 from Ms. Reimer, and presented Ms. Reimer an application which she executed for Colonial Automobile Club which included additional insurance for accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) which cost $80. The transaction was memorialized in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (the premium financing agreement), Petitioner's Exhibit 4 (cash receipt from Voshell), Petitioner's Exhibit 5 (Colonial Touring Association, Inc. designation of beneficiary), and Petitioner's Exhibit 6 (confirmation of coverage). The Confirmation of Coverage form (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) indicates that there were $2,000, $1,000, $500, and $250 deductibles for bodily injury; and that ADD coverage from Colonial was optional and cost $80. Ms. Reimer signed each of the spaces on the Confirmation of Coverage, indicating she had read and understood the policy. The Premium Financing Agreement (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) indicates that the total amount financed was $551, which included the $80 premium for Colonial Touring Association (CTA) for ADD and the $471 premium for American Union (AIB) for property damage and personal injury protection. Ms. Reimer was not advised by Mr. Voshell that she was purchasing an optional automobile club membership, and that the cost thereof was being added to her premiums and financed. Andrew Voshell was not a licensed agent at the time he dealt with Ms. Reimer. It was Mr. Voshell who acted as the agent presenting the applications and obtaining Ms. Reimer's signature and accepting payment from her; however, Alan David Cottrill knew about the transaction because he signed Ms. Reimer's applications outside her presence. COUNT V On December 10, 1992, Curtis Newton bought automobile insurance at the University Boulevard office of Cash Register Auto Insurance of Jacksonville, Inc. The Respondent was employed at that office as the primary agent at that time. Mr. Newton called the office and obtained a quote for the minimum liability and PIP coverage required by law. The Respondent completed most of Mr. Newton's application for insurance while speaking with him on the telephone. Because Mr. Newton wanted to finance the premiums, the Respondent included an auto club membership with ADD coverage in the quote. When Mr. Newton came to the agency, he dealt with Linda Palmer, an unlicensed individual, exclusively. Ms. Palmer worked at the office from September, 1992 until August, 1993 under the supervision of the Respondent. Ms. Palmer did not hold a license to transact any type of insurance business during her employment with Cash Register Auto Insurance. The Respondent permitted Ms. Palmer to take applications and receive money. The Respondent required that Ms. Palmer explain to the customer the Confirmation of Coverages form which the customer signed. This was the only explanation provided to customers of the insurance they were buying, and constituted an explanation of policies. Mr. Newton advised Ms. Palmer that he did not want to join an auto club and did not want ADD coverage. Ms. Palmer crossed off the ADD coverage on the Premium Financing Agreement; however, she had Mr. Newton execute the Coverage Confirmation which indicated $4,000 coverage for ADD, but which did not state a premium amount. There is no place under ADD to indicate "no coverage" as there is for the other optional coverages. Mr. Newton also executed a designation of beneficiary form for Auto Accidental Death Coverage, and paid a down payment of $91 to Ms. Palmer. Ms. Palmer did not advise Mr. Newton that he had executed the paperwork for ADD coverage. Ms. Palmer was required by Respondent to sell auto club and ADD coverage. The inclusion of the forms for auto club and ADD coverage was intentional. The premium financing agreement was for the amount of the liability and PIP coverage, $256, and this coverage was provided. However, the premium financing agreement indicates the down payment was $51, not $91. There is no evidence that Mr. Newton was provided with ADD coverage, which he did not want, but the $40 difference between the $51 down payment and the $91 which Mr. Newton tendered to Ms. Palmer was not refunded to Mr. Newton. There was no evidence that Mr. Newton ever made demand for this overpayment. Had the Respondent handled Mr. Newton's application, the Respondent would have known that Mr. Newton did not desire ADD coverage, and that the down payment tendered was excessive and inconsistent with the insurance being provided and the amount being financed. In filling out the applications, explaining the forms, and accepting the money from Mr. Newton, Ms. Palmer engaged in activities restricted to agents with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. COUNT VI and VII The Department did not present any evidence regarding Counts VI and VII. COUNT VIII On October 22, 1992, Rosa Coleman bought automobile insurance at the 3796 Blanding Boulevard office of Cash Register Auto Insurance of Westside, Inc. from the Respondent who was employed at that office at that time. Ms. Coleman advised the Respondent that she wanted the minimum required coverages. Ms. Coleman came into the office on her lunch hour and executed an application (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) for bodily injury, property damage, and PIP insurance to Union American Insurance Company. Ms. Coleman executed various forms, among which were a Confirmation of Coverage form and Designation of Beneficiary form which indicated she was obtaining auto club and ADD coverage. The Respondent did not explain that there was a separate charge for auto club membership which included the ADD coverage, or that she did not have to have this coverage. The total insurance premium for the liability and PIP coverage was $291 and the charge for the auto club was $30, for a total of $321. The handwriting makes it difficult to read the two amounts; however, the ADD was for $3,000, and the premium was $10 per thousand of coverage. The receipt indicates the Respondent received $40 down payment. The remainder of the premium was financed by Ms. Coleman with Equity Premium, Inc. The application (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) the receipt (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) and designation of beneficiary form (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) indicate that insurance company was Cash Register Auto Insurance, 5631 University Blvd. West, Jacksonville, FL 32216. Although the Respondent was not the agent for the Blanding Boulevard office at the time Ms. Coleman purchased her insurance, the Respondent, who personally sold Ms. Coleman her insurance, was the primary agent for the agency listed on the application and receipt which she received from the Respondent. COUNT IX AND X The Department did not present any evidence on these two counts. COUNT XI On or about December 22, 1993, Dennis Hurlburt went into the Palatka office of Cash Register Auto Insurance of Putnam County, Inc., in Palatka, Florida, and purchased liability and PIP on his truck. At that time, the Respondent was the primary agent in the Palatka office. (Volume III, Page 345, line 19.) Mr. Hurlburt completed an application for property damage and PIP insurance from Security Insurance Company of Hartford with the assistance of Andrew Voshell, an unlicensed employee of Cash Register Auto Insurance of Putnam County, Inc. in Palatka, Florida, who was under the supervision of the Respondent. Mr. Hurlburt's premium for the coverages he applied for was $229, and he paid Andrew Voshell $75. Mr. Hurlburt financed the balance of the premiums which included PIP, property damage, automobile club, and ADD. Mr. Voshell receipted for the down payment, and signed Respondent's name on Mr. Hurlburt's application as brokering agent. The Respondent denied that he was aware of Mr. Voshell's actions; however, he was primary agent in that office during the time in question and is charged with the supervision of the office. Money was received and receipted for by Mr. Voshell, who the Respondent admits was authorized to see customers, review applications, make deposits, and keep books. At this time, the Respondent was also actively engaged as primary agent in another office. Based upon the record as a whole and credibility of the various witnesses, the Respondent's denial is rejected. GENERAL FINDINGS ON THE CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Most purchasers of nonstandard automobile insurance who finance their premiums do not complete payment of the premiums; whereupon, the finance company notifies the insurance company which cancels the insurance and cancels the commission earned by the selling agent after deducting for the coverage provided. By selling the auto club memberships, which included ADD coverage, the agent receives 90 percent of the premium which protects the agent against the loss of unearned premiums charged back by insurance companies. It is for this reason that the owners and management of Cash Register had the employees of their outlets include auto club memberships in insurance contracts, particularly those with premium financing. In those cases in which a customer declines auto club membership, the Cash Register agencies refuse to finance premiums, or increase the charges for financing. The Respondent and his employees sell between 80-140 automobile insurance policies per month. The average premium has increased over time, but varied between $250 and $550 for the counts presented. The Respondent receives a commission between 15 and 17.5 percent on automobile insurance. The commission for an auto club ADD contract is 90 percent which means that the agency receives $54 of a $60 premium. This is a "guaranteed" commission because there is no refund on the auto club membership, and this permits the agency to risk the loss of unearned commission which occurs when an insured defaults on his or her premium financing agreement. The customers made a down payment, which was received by the agency, and the balance of the amount owed was financed by the customer. According to the premium financing contract, the down payment was subtracted from that total due for PIP, property damage, and ADD insurance; and the balance due was financed. Under the terms of the contract, the customer financed a portion of the ADD coverage. In actuality, the down payment was applied first to the auto club membership, which included ADD coverage, and only PIP and property damage coverages were financed. The contract for the premium financing and the explanations of what was being financed do not accurately reflect this reality. Government Employees Insurance Company markets its automobile insurance through the mail, and sends applications to the customers through the mail, which are subsequently executed by the agent when returned by the customer by mail. Prior to October 12, 1993, the Department had no rule proscribing the practice of unlicensed persons giving quotes on behalf of a licensed agent. The Department has no rule defining "solicit" and "procure" with respect to the sale of insurance. The Department has no rule which requires an agent sign an application in the presence of the insured.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department revoke the license of the Respondent for violation of Section 626.611(5) and (9), Florida Statutes, by aiding others to act as agents as alleged in Count V, and That the Department revoke the license of the Respondent for violation of Section 626.611(5) and (9), Florida Statutes, by aiding others to act as agents as alleged in Count VIII, and That the Department revoke the license of the Respondent for violation of Section 626.621(12), Florida Statutes, by aiding others to act as agents as alleged in Count IV, and That the Department revoke the license of the Respondent or impose a fine of $2,500 for violation of Section 626.621(12), Florida Statutes, by aiding others to act as agents as alleged in Count V, and That the Department revoke the license of the Respondent or impose a fine of $2,500 for violation of Section 626.621(12), Florida Statutes, by aiding others to act as agents as alleged in Count XI, and That the Department impose a $2,500 fine for Respondent's violation of Section 627.8405, Florida Statutes, by including ADD coverage in a premium financing agreement as alleged in Count XI, and That the Department impose a $500 fine for violation of Section 627.4085(1), Florida Statutes, for improperly identifying the agency's address as alleged in Counts IV, and That the Department impose a $500 fine for violation of Section 627.4085(1), Florida Statutes, for improperly identifying the agency's address as alleged in Counts VIII. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 11th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX CASE NO. 94-5460 Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states where their findings were adopted or why they were rejected: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Paragraph 1 Paragraphs 3-10 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 5 Paragraphs 12,13 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 14,15 Paragraph 14 Paragraphs 16,17 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 19 Irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 20 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 22,23 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 25 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 26 Paragraph 12 Paragraphs 27,28 Paragraphs 12,13,15 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 30 Subsumed by paragraph 15. (S-15.) Paragraph 31,32 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 33 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 34 Unnecessary. Paragraph 35 Paragraph 31 Paragraph 36 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 37 Paragraph 31 Paragraph 38 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 39,1st sent. Paragraph 30 Paragraph 39,remainder Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 40 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 41 Paragraph 33 Paragraphs 42,43 Paragraph 34 Paragraphs 44-47 Paragraph 35 Paragraph 48 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 49 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 50 Subsumed in Paragraph 22. Paragraph 51 Paragraph 21 Paragraphs 52-55,57 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 56 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 57 Subsumed in Paragraph 24. Paragraphs 58,59 Paragraph 21 Paragraph 60 Paragraph 22 Paragraphs 61,63,64 Unnecessary. Paragraph 62 Subsumed in Paragraph 23. Paragraph 65 Subsumed in Paragraph 36. Paragraphs 66,67 Paragraph 38 Paragraph 68 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 69 Irrelevant. Paragraph 70 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 71 Irrelevant. Paragraph 72 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 73 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 74 Irrelevant. Paragraph 75 Paragraph 37 Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Irrelevant as to time. Paragraph 4 Irrelevant. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraph 6-8 Subsumed in Paragraph 7. Paragraph 9 Paragraphs 8,11 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraph 13 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 and second application is irrelevant. Paragraph 14 Subsumed in Paragraph 14. Paragraph 15 Contrary to Reimer's testimony: Vol I, pg 118. Paragraph 16 Subsumed in Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 13. Paragraph 18 Subsumed in Paragraph 14. Paragraph 19 Irrelevant. Paragraph 20 Paragraph 20 Paragraph 21,22 Contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 23 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 25 Paragraph 19 Paragraphs 26,27 Subsumed in Paragraphs 20,21. Paragraphs 28,29 Subsumed in Paragraph 22. Paragraph 30 Subsumed in Paragraph 24. Paragraph 31 Rejected because Respondent's failure to perform the acts required of the agent lead to his mistaken belief. Paragraph 32 Paragraph 22 Paragraphs 33-35 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 36,37 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 38 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 39 True, but Respondent was the agent who dealt with Coleman and was directly responsible for his own acts. Paragraph 40 Subsumed in Paragraph 30. Paragraph 41 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraphs 42,43 Subsumed in Paragraph 30. Paragraphs 44,45 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 46,47 Paragraph 32 Paragraph 48 Paragraph 33 Paragraph 49 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraphs 50-52 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 53,54 Paragraphs 34,35 Paragraph 55 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 56 Subsumed in various paragraphs. Paragraph 57,58 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 59-69 Irrelevant or not necessary to resolution of the issues. Paragraph 70 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 71 Irrelevant. Paragraph 72 Not necessary to resolution of the issues. Paragraph 73,74 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 75-79 Irrelevant. Paragraph 80 While true, the fact asserted is contrary to the financing paper work. This is part of the misleading activities by Respondent and his employees. Paragraph 81-84 Irrelevant. Paragraph 85 Recites Hearing Officer's ruling. Paragraph 86,87 Not necessary to resolution of the issues. Paragraph 88,89 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 90,92 Paragraphs 43,44 Paragraphs 91 Irrelevant. Paragraph 93,94 Paragraph 45 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen R. Moayad, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Jed Berman, Esquire Infantino and Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 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
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Statement of Facts Admitted3: Respondent works as the manager of a Cash Register Insurance ("Cash Register") office in New Port Richey. Cash Register is owned by Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc. ("Direct General"). Respondent sells automobile insurance to individual customers. During the relevant period, Respondent also sold four ancillary products: a vehicle protection plan, an accident medical protection plan, a travel protection plan, and a term life insurance policy.4 Respondent is paid a salary, and receives no commission on the sale of automobile insurance. Respondent does receive a ten percent commission on the sale of ancillary products. Respondent received 34 percent of her overall income from the sale of ancillary products during the relevant time period. Respondent deals with at least 50 customers per day, six days per week. She sells between seven and ten automobile insurance policies per day, on average. Given her customer volume, Respondent cannot remember each customer to whom she has sold insurance. Respondent frankly testified that she had no specific recollection of selling the policies to the individuals named in the Statement of Facts Admitted. However, Respondent also testified that she sells insurance according to a script, and that in light of this unvarying practice she could state with confidence whether she had or had not engaged in the specific sales techniques alleged by the Department and its witnesses. Respondent testified at length as to her sales routine. When talking to potential customers on the telephone, Respondent must follow the script provided by Direct General. Respondent testified that agents are not required to follow the script when customers come in to the office, but that she generally adheres to the format provided by her employer. All of the sales at issue in this proceeding were generated via in-person sales at Respondent's Cash Register office. Respondent first obtains basic information from the customer: name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, whether there are persons over age 14 in the household and whether those persons will drive the insured vehicle. She then asks the type of vehicle and the type of coverage the customer wants to purchase. Respondent enters the information into her computer, which generates a price quote. If the customer wants only basic personal injury protection ("PIP") and property damage coverage, Respondent informs the customer that the quoted price includes PIP with an optional deductible of $1,000, a coverage limit of $10,000, and property damage coverage of $10,000. The price quote includes a down payment and monthly payments. The quoted amounts vary depending on whether the customer chooses to make 10 or 12 payments. During her presentation, Respondent mentions that the price quoted for the monthly payments includes the ancillary products. Once the customer has agreed to the price quote, Respondent makes a computer inquiry to obtain the customer's driving record. While waiting on these records, Respondent goes over a "pen sale" document with the customer. The pen sale document is a handwritten sheet that Respondent draws up in the presence of the customer to explain the policies. Respondent's pen sale sheets for Mr. Gatlin, Ms. Johnson, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Dossantos (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Complaining Customers") were admitted into evidence. At the top of the page, under the heading "Mandatory," Respondent outlined the PIP and property damage coverages, with the customer's options regarding deductibles. Lower on the page, under the heading "Optional," Respondent outlined the details of the ancillary coverages included in the price quote. Respondent testified that she sits with the customer and uses the pen sale sheet to explain the mandatory coverages in detail. She explains that Florida law requires that she offer bodily injury liability coverage, but that the customer has the option to reject it, and she indicates the customer's decision on the pen sale sheet. She explains the ancillary policies, and indicates on the pen sale sheet which of these policies the customer accepts and which ones the customer rejects. The customer is asked to sign the bottom of the sale sheet. When shown the pen sale sheet for each Complaining Customer, Respondent was able to state with confidence which ancillary policies each of them has accepted or rejected. None of the Complaining Customers denied having been shown the pen sale sheet, though none of them appeared to grasp its significance. Each of the Complaining Customers conceded that the signature at the bottom of his or her respective pen sale sheet was genuine. After Respondent obtains the customer's signature on the pen sale sheet, and has received the customer's driving records, she prints out the policy paperwork and goes over it with the customers. The earliest of the Complaining Customers was James Gatlin (Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint), who purchased insurance from Respondent on October 7, 2005.5 Mr. Gatlin's signed pen sale sheet indicated that he accepted the accident medical protection plan, the travel protection plan, and the term life policy. It also indicated that he rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, and comprehensive and collision policies offered by Respondent. Mr. Gatlin's policy paperwork was admitted into evidence. After explaining the automobile policy, Respondent explained the ancillary products that Mr. Gatlin had initially accepted on the pen sale sheet.6 Respondent first showed Mr. Gatlin a spreadsheet titled, "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)." Under the subheading "Auto Policy Coverages," the spreadsheet set forth the amount and type of coverage for each of the two cars for which Mr. Gatlin was buying insurance, as well as a premium estimate for each vehicle. Under the subheading "Optional Policies," the spreadsheet set forth the following: "American Bankers Travel Protection Plan," "Lloyds Accident Medical Protection Plan," and "Life Insurance." A monthly premium amount was set forth next to each of the three optional coverages. The subheading "Optional Policies," the list of the optional policies, the premium amounts for each optional policy, and the total estimated cost of all products are separately circled by hand on the spreadsheet. Respondent testified that it is her practice to circle these items as she explains them to the customer. Mr. Gatlin's initials appear above the list of optional policies. Below the grids of the spreadsheet is the following text (emphasis added): I, the undersigned, acknowledge that: The above premiums are estimates and that the actual premium charged to me will be determined by the Insurance Company issuing the policy. Further, I am responsible for the amount of the premium charged at the time the policy is issued. I agree that if my down payment or full payment check is returned by the bank for any reason, coverage will be null and void from the date of inception. I acknowledge that I have been advised of and understand the above coverage(s), and cost breakdowns, including non-insurance products, if any, and further [sic] that I have received a complete copy of this product. This document is only an explanation of insurance coverage and other products, if applicable—it is not a contract. The policy, if issued, will contain the terms and conditions of coverage. The level of coverage illustrated above is based on preliminary information which I have supplied. My eligibility for coverage is subject to the acceptance of my application in accordance with the Insurance Company's underwriting requirements. Customer Signature Date The signature line was signed by "James D. Gatlin" and dated October 7, 2005. At the hearing, Mr. Gatlin conceded the authenticity of his initials and signature on the spreadsheet. Respondent next explained the details of the accident medical protection plan to Mr. Gatlin. She explained the coverage options (individual, husband and wife, or family), and the annual premium for each. On the application, Respondent circled the "Individual Coverage Only" option. Mr. Gatlin placed his initials in the space provided to indicate his choice of coverage, and signed the application on the line provided. A second page, titled "Accident Medical Protection Plan," detailed the coverage provided and the method of filing a claim under the policy. The following text is provided at the bottom of the page (emphasis added): THE ACCIDENT MEDICAL PLAN IS A LIMITED POLICY. READ IT CAREFULLY. I, the undersigned, understand and acknowledge that: The Accident Medical Plan does not provide Liability Coverage insurance for bodily injury or property damage, nor does it meet any financial responsibility law. I am electing to purchase an optional coverage that is not required by the State of Florida. My agent has provided me with an outline of coverage and a copy of this acknowledgement. If I decide to select another option, or cancel this policy, I must notify the company or my agent in writing. I agree that if my down payment or full payment check is returned by the bank for any reason, coverage will be null and void from the date of inception. Insured's Signature Date I hereby REJECT this valuable coverage: Insured's Signature Date Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the form on the first line provided, indicating his acceptance of the accident medical protection plan. Respondent next explained the travel protection plan. The two forms associated with this plan set forth the coverages provided, the limits of those coverages, and the premium associated with the plan. The first form was titled, "American Bankers Insurance Company Optional Travel Protection Plan." After listing the coverages and their limits, the form read as follows: Purchasing the Optional Travel Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing your automobile liability policy. I hereby acknowledge I am purchasing an Optional Travel Protection Plan, and that I have received a copy of this acknowledgement. Insured Signature Date I HEREBY REJECT THIS VALUABLE COVERAGE: Insured Signature Date Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the first line of the form, indicating his acceptance of the policy. The second form, titled "Travel Protection Plan—Florida Declarations," listed the effective dates of the policy, the premium, the automobile covered, repeated the coverages and their limitations, and gave notice to the insured of his 30-day right to examine the policy and return it for a full refund provided no loss has occurred. Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the "Applicant's Signature" line. Respondent next went over the documents relating to the term life policy that Mr. Gatlin accepted on the pen sale sheet. The policy named Carol Burinskas, with whom Mr. Gatlin lived, as the beneficiary on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $276.00. Mr. Gatlin initialed his "no" answers to six standard insurability questions dealing with recent medical history and exposure to HIV. Mr. Gatlin signed and dated his acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. After completing her explanation of the various policies and obtaining Mr. Gatlin's acceptance, Respondent next explained the premium finance agreement. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the four policies accepted by Mr. Gatlin, totaling $1,363.00, plus $4.55 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $151.00, for a total amount financed of $1,216.55. The page disclosed the finance charge ($139.99) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (24.37%). Mr. Gatlin opted to make 10 monthly payments of $135.65, and initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate his acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Mr. Gatlin a document titled "Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form," which redundantly set forth in a simplified form exactly what Mr. Gatlin was purchasing and a breakdown of what each element of his purchase contributed to the total cost of the loan. The itemization read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $578 Property Damage Liability (PD) $314 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)7 $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $0 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $0 Collision $0 Accidental Death $0 Towing $0 Travel Protection Plan $60 Rental $0 Hospital Indemnity $110 Life Insurance $266 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $1,363 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $4.55 Less Down Payment applied $151.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $1,216.55 I, James Gatlin, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. _ Signature of Named Insured Date Mr. Gatlin signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. As noted above, Carol Burinskas lives with Mr. Gatlin and was named as the beneficiary in the term life policy the Respondent sold to Mr. Gatlin. Ms. Burinskas testified that she went into Respondent's Cash Register office on Mr. Gatlin's behalf a day or two before he completed the transaction. Ms. Burinskas had obtained quotes from several agencies in the course of doing the legwork for Mr. Gatlin's insurance purchase. Ms. Burinskas testified that she told Respondent that she was shopping for Mr. Gatlin, and was seeking quotes on the bare minimum insurance, "just what we needed to get a tag for the car." Based on information provided by Ms. Burinskas, Respondent provided a price quote, which Ms. Bruinskas showed to Mr. Gatlin at home that evening. Mr. Gatlin looked over the quote and pronounced it acceptable. He told Ms. Burinskas that he would stop in at the Cash Register office the next day and complete the paperwork for the policy. Mr. Gatlin testified that he believed the Cash Register quote offered the most reasonable price he had seen, but he was unaware that Respondent's quote included the ancillary policies discussed above. When he went into Respondent's office, he reiterated to her that he wanted only "the bare minimum insurance." Mr. Gatlin owned his vehicles outright and saw no need to carry extra coverage on them. Mr. Gatlin testified that Respondent asked him if he wanted life insurance, and he declined. Mr. Gatlin already had a $250,000 life insurance policy through his employer, Pasco County, for which Mr. Gatlin's sister is the beneficiary. He testified that if he had known he was purchasing a life insurance policy from Respondent, he would have made his sister the beneficiary. As noted above, Ms. Burinskas is the stated beneficiary of the term life policy Respondent sold to Mr. Gatlin. Mr. Gatlin testified that Respondent "was speaking very quickly and putting the papers in front of me just as fast as she was talking, so I was busy signing and dating." By the end of the process, "there was a stack of papers, rather thick" in front of Mr. Gatlin. Mr. Gatlin never heard Respondent say that some of the items he was purchasing were optional. In fact, he could not remember much at all about the content of Respondent's presentation. He remembered that Respondent talked while he initialed and signed in the places where she pointed. On cross-examination, Mr. Gatlin conceded that Respondent may have explained the ancillary policies, but so fast that he could not understand. He even conceded that he had allowed Respondent to talk him into buying the policies, though he later amended his answer to assert that he had been "bamboozled." Mr. Gatlin made no effort to slow down Respondent's presentation, and he had no questions about anything Respondent was saying. Mr. Gatlin stated that his only concern was how much he was paying, and that he was satisfied with the price quoted by Respondent at the time he bought the policies. Mr. Gatlin stated that it should have been obvious to Respondent that he was not reading the documents he was signing. He trusted Respondent to treat him the right way, and not sell him products without his knowledge. Respondent denied that she ever rushes anyone through the sales process, or has ever sold a customer a policy the customer did not agree to purchase. Ms. Burinskas discovered the ancillary policies only after reading a newspaper article about Direct General and the practice of sliding. She asked Mr. Gatlin if he had purchased any policies mentioned in the article, and he said that he had not, "as far as he knew." Ms. Burinskas pulled out the insurance paperwork, and in short order was able to ascertain that Mr. Gatlin had purchased the ancillary products described above. The next Complaining Customer was Gabriella Jungling, now known by her married name of Johnson (Counts IV and V). On August 17, 2006, Ms. Jungling and her future husband, Jeremy Johnson, were at a Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles ("DHSMV") office. Mr. Johnson was attempting to have his suspended license reinstated, but was informed that he must obtain the SR-22 form before his license could be issued. A DHSMV employee gave Ms. Jungling the names of several insurance companies that could immediately write a policy. Ms. Jungling noted that Respondent's Cash Register office was near the DHSMV office. Ms. Jungling and Mr. Johnson drove to Respondent's office. Ms. Jungling testified that she handled all the transactions that occurred at Respondent's office. She and Mr. Johnson intended to obtain "full coverage," whatever they needed to fulfill the SR-22 requirement and satisfy the bank that financed Mr. Johnson's truck, which was the only vehicle on the resulting policy. Ms. Jungling told Respondent that she wanted full coverage for a financed truck. Respondent made her standard sales presentation to Ms. Jungling. She gathered the basic information described in Finding of Fact 7 above, then gave Ms. Jungling a price quote that included the amount of the down payment and monthly payment amounts. Included in the price quote were the optional vehicle protection plan and a term life insurance policy. Respondent explained to Ms. Jungling that the optional vehicle protection plan included $125 per day for hospitalization resulting from an accident and $25 per day for a rental car if the insured car is in an accident or is stolen. Ms. Jungling agreed to the price quote. Respondent next went over a pen sale sheet with Ms. Jungling. As noted in the general pen sale findings above, Ms. Jungling did not deny having seen the pen sale sheet and admitted that she signed it. The pen sale document was different from that shown to Mr. Gatlin because Direct General had ceased offering the travel protection plan and instead offered the vehicle protection plan. See footnote 4, supra. The signed pen sale sheet indicated that Ms. Jungling accepted the vehicle protection plan and the term life insurance policy. It also indicated that she rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, comprehensive and collision policies. Respondent next printed the policy paperwork and reviewed it with Ms. Jungling. Ms. Jungling signed the vehicle protection plan application on the signature line, directly beneath the following language: "The purchase of this plan is optional and is not required with your auto insurance policy. I hereby request that the above coverages be placed in effect on the date and for the term indicated." The application indicated that Ms. Jungling was opting for a "family plan"8 with a term of one year. Ms. Jungling also signed a separate page titled, "Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement." This form listed the coverages and limitations provided under the vehicle protection plan. Below this listing, in bold type, was the statement, "Please Read Your Policy Carefully For A Full Explanation of Benefits." Beneath the bold type was the following language: Purchasing the Vehicle Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing your automobile policy. I hereby acknowledge that my agent has fully explained to me and I understand: the coverage provided under the Vehicle Protection Plan; that the Vehicle Protection Plan is an optional insurance product that is separate from my automobile insurance policy; that purchasing this optional Vehicle Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing my automobile insurance policy; I have made an informed decision to purchase the Vehicle Protection Plan, and I have received a copy of my signed acknowledgement. Insured Signature Date I HEREBY REJECT THIS VALUABLE COVERAGE: Insured Signature Date Ms. Jungling signed the first signature line, indicating her acceptance of the policy. Respondent went over the documents relating to the term life policy that Ms. Jungling accepted on the pen sale sheet. The policy named Mr. Johnson as the beneficiary on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $108.00. Ms. Jungling initialed her "no" answers to the standard insurability questions, and signed and dated her acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. Respondent showed Ms. Jungling an "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)" spreadsheet identical in form to that shown Mr. Gatlin. The "Optional Policies" subheading listed the optional policies, their premium amounts, and the total estimated cost of all products. These optional items were individually circled by Respondent and initialed by Ms. Jungling. The spreadsheet contained language identical to that set forth in Finding of Fact 18 above. Ms. Jungling signed and dated the sheet in the spaces provided. Respondent presented the premium finance agreement to Ms. Jungling in the same fashion described in Finding of Fact 26 above. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the three policies (auto, life, and vehicle protection) accepted by Ms. Jungling, totaling $3,052.00, plus $9.80 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $295.00, for a total amount financed of $2,766.80. The page disclosed the finance charge ($308.35) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (23.51%). Ms. Jungling opted to make 12 monthly payments of $256.26, and initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate her acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Ms. Jungling the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form. The itemization for Ms. Jungling's policies read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $491 Property Damage Liability (PD) $405 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)[9] $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $782 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $131 Collision $830 Accidental Death $20 Towing $0 Rental $0 Life Insurance $98 Accident Medical Plan $0 Vehicle Protection Insurance $260 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $3,052 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $9.80 Less Down Payment applied $295.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $2,766.80 I, Gabriella N. Jungling, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. Signature of Named Insured Date Ms. Jungling signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. Ms. Jungling testified that she already has a life insurance policy through her employer, Wells Fargo, and that she told Respondent that she was not interested in buying more. She admitted that the initials and signatures on the life insurance policy were hers, but had no recollection of Respondent's explanation of the policy. Ms. Jungling believed that she would have recalled an explanation had one been given by Respondent, and stated that she would have rejected the policy had Respondent told her it would cost $108.00 over and above the amount she was paying for auto insurance. However, Ms. Jungling conceded that Respondent did not rush her through the signing process. Ms. Jungling was in a hurry to purchase insurance and get back to her job. She admitted that Respondent presented the paperwork page by page, and that nothing prevented her from reading the paperwork. Ms. Jungling had no problem with the price quoted by Respondent. The life insurance paperwork plainly states, in bold lettering above Ms. Jungling's signature, that the annual premium for the policy is $108.00. The price of the policy is also stated on the Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown page and on the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form, both of which were signed by Ms. Jungling. Ms. Jungling also did not recall the explanation given to her by Respondent of the vehicle protection plan paperwork. She testified that she would have rejected the policy if Respondent had told her that it was separate and apart from the automobile insurance required by law. However, as noted above, the Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement page clearly stated that the vehicle protection plan was not a condition of purchasing an automobile policy and was an optional product separate from the automobile insurance policy. Ms. Jungling acknowledged that she signed this page. Ms. Jungling testified that she did not really read her insurance paperwork until she received a call from a Department investigator, who asked if she had knowingly purchased life insurance and the vehicle protection plan. Ms. Jungling gave a statement to a Department investigator in February 2007. On March 16, 2007, she went to Respondent's office and signed the paperwork to cancel the term life and vehicle protection policies, for which she received a pro-rated refund. The next Complaining Customer was Bruce Hansen (Counts VI and VII). On August 19, 2006, Mr. Hansen entered Respondent's Cash Register office to purchase insurance. Mr. Hansen testified that he has done business with Cash Register for years, but this was the first time he had done business with Respondent's office. Mr. Hansen stated that he had never bought anything other than basic auto coverage from Cash Register, and had no intention of buying anything else when he walked into Respondent's office. Mr. Hansen was purchasing new insurance, not renewing an existing policy. In fact, his driver's license had been suspended for lack of insurance coverage. Mr. Hansen testified that he told Respondent he wanted the most basic insurance that would get his license reinstated. He owned his car outright, and therefore was unconcerned about satisfying a financing entity. Respondent made her standard presentation to Mr. Hansen. She gathered the basic information described in Finding of Fact 7 above, then gave Mr. Hansen a price quote that included the amount of the down payment and monthly payment amounts. Included in the price quote were the optional vehicle protection plan and a term life insurance policy. Mr. Hansen agreed to the price quote. Respondent next went over a pen sale sheet with Mr. Hansen. As noted in the general pen sale findings above, Mr. Hansen did not deny having seen the pen sale sheet and admitted that he signed it. The pen sale document was identical to that shown to Ms. Jungling. Respondent used the pen sale sheet to explain to Mr. Hansen that the optional vehicle protection plan included a $1,000 medical expense that could be used toward his PIP deductible, hospital coverage of $125 per day, and rental car reimbursement of $25 per day if the insured car is in an accident or is stolen. Respondent also used the pen sale sheet to explain the term life insurance offered in the price quote. The signed pen sale sheet indicated that Mr. Hansen accepted the vehicle protection plan and the term life insurance policy. It also indicated that he rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, comprehensive and collision policies. Respondent next printed the policy paperwork and reviewed it with Mr. Hansen. The paperwork for the vehicle protection plan application was identical to that described in Findings of Fact 45 and 46 relating to Ms. Jungling. Mr. Hansen opted for the "individual plan" with a term of one year. He signed on the signature line of the application page, and signed the "Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement" page indicating his acceptance of this optional policy. Respondent went over the documents relating to the term life policy. The policy named Mr. Hansen's mother, who lived with Mr. Hansen, as the beneficiary on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $108.00. Mr. Hansen initialed "no" answers to the standard insurability questions, and signed and dated his acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. Respondent showed Mr. Hansen an "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)" spreadsheet identical in form to that shown Mr. Gatlin and Ms. Jungling. The "Optional Policies" subheading listed the optional policies, their premium amounts, and the total estimated cost of all products. These optional items were individually circled by Respondent and initialed by Mr. Hansen. The spreadsheet contained language identical to that set forth in Finding of Fact 18 above. Mr. Hansen signed and dated the sheet in the spaces provided. Respondent presented the premium finance agreement to Mr. Hansen in the same fashion described in Finding of Fact 26 above. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the three policies (auto, life, and vehicle protection) accepted by Mr. Hansen, totaling $833.00, plus $2.80 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $92.00, for a total amount financed of $743.80. The page disclosed the finance charge ($93.36) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (26.56%). Mr. Hansen opted to make 10 monthly payments of $83.72, initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate his acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Mr. Hansen the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form. The itemization for Mr. Hansen's policies read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $311 Property Damage Liability (PD) $219 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)[10] $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $0 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $0 Collision $0 Accidental Death $0 Towing $0 Rental $0 Life Insurance $98 Accident Medical Plan $0 Vehicle Protection Insurance $170 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $833 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $2.80 Less Down Payment applied $92.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $743.80 I, Bruce K. Hansen, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. Signature of Named Insured Date Mr. Hansen signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. Mr. Hansen testified that he left Respondent's office believing he had bought only basic automobile insurance. He did not recall Respondent's explanations of the optional policies, and conceded that he was in a hurry to complete the transaction and spent a total of a half-hour in Respondent's office that day. Mr. Hansen testified that "I was flipping page after page, just signing my name to get out of there . . . I was trusting the person I was working with." Mr. Hansen testified that he did not recall Respondent explaining that the vehicle protection plan was a separate optional policy that would cost him an extra $170. He did recall Respondent asking the insurability questions related to the life insurance policy, but he thought they were just "procedure." Mr. Hansen conceded that Respondent might have explained every page of the paperwork to him, but that he was not paying attention. Mr. Hansen left Respondent's office with a copy of all the paperwork on his policies. He never looked at the paperwork until he was contacted by a Department investigator in February 2007. Mr. Hansen gave a statement to the Department investigator and agreed to testify in order to "stop stuff like this from happening," as well as try to obtain a full refund for the vehicle protection and term life policies. On March 3, 2007, he went to Respondent's office and signed the paperwork to cancel the term life and vehicle protection policies, for which he received a pro-rated refund. The final Complaining Customer was Sidney Dossantos (Counts VIII and IX). On July 20, 2006, Mr. Dossantos entered Respondent's Cash Register office to purchase insurance. Mr. Dossantos was renewing his policy with Direct General, though this was the first time he had done business with Respondent's office. In August 2005, Mr. Dossantos had purchased auto insurance plus an optional accident medical protection plan, a travel protection plan, and a term life insurance policy. Mr. Dossantos testified that he told Petitioner that he wished to purchase only basic automobile insurance, and that he rejected the optional term life and vehicle protection policies when Petitioner offered them. Respondent testified that her initial procedure is different with a renewing customer. She looks up the customer on her computer to verify the existing policies and determine if any money is owed. She verifies the customer's name, address and phone number. Respondent testified that the address is important because the customer's zip code is partially determinative of the rates offered on auto insurance. Respondent stated that the computer also lists the optional policies that are also due for renewal, and that it is her practice to go over these and inquire whether the customer wants to renew them. Mr. Dossantos' case was complicated by the fact that Direct General no longer offered the travel protection plan as a separate product. In these cases, Respondent would explain the vehicle protection plan, which was the current equivalent of the accident medical protection and travel protection plans that Mr. Dossantos purchased in 2005. See footnote 4, supra. Respondent testified that, after the customer verifies the information on file and states which policies he wishes to renew, she goes over a pen sale sheet with the customer. As noted in the general pen sale findings above, Mr. Dossantos did not deny having seen the pen sale sheet and admitted that he signed it. The pen sale document was identical to those shown to Ms. Jungling and Mr. Hansen. The signed pen sale sheet indicated that Mr. Dossantos accepted the vehicle protection plan and the term life insurance policy. It also indicated that he rejected optional uninsured motorist, medical payment, accidental death, comprehensive and collision policies. Respondent next printed the policy paperwork and reviewed it with Mr. Dossantos. The paperwork for the vehicle protection plan application was identical to that described in Findings of Fact 45 and 46 relating to Ms. Jungling. Mr. Dossantos opted for the "individual plan" with a term of one year. He signed on the signature line of the application page, and signed the "Optional Vehicle Protection Plan Summary & Acknowledgement" page indicating his acceptance of this optional policy. Respondent went over the documents relating to the term life policy. The policy named Mr. Dossantos' parents as the beneficiaries on the $10,000 policy, and stated an annual premium of $108.00. Mr. Dossantos was not asked the standard insurability questions, because this was a renewal of an existing policy. Mr. Dossantos signed and dated his acceptance of the policy on the signature line provided. Respondent showed Mr. Dossantos an "Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown (Including Non-Insurance Products)" spreadsheet identical in form to that shown to Mr. Gatlin, Ms. Jungling, and Mr. Hansen. The "Optional Policies" subheading listed the optional policies, their premium amounts, and the total estimated cost of all products. These optional items were individually circled by Respondent and initialed by Mr. Dossantos. The spreadsheet contained language identical to that set forth in Finding of Fact 18 above. Mr. Dossantos signed and dated the sheet in the spaces provided. Respondent presented the premium finance agreement to Mr. Dossantos in the same fashion described in Finding of Fact 26 above. On the first page of the agreement, under the heading, "Itemization of Amounts Financed," was stated the type of policy, the insurance company, and the annual premium for each of the three policies (auto, life, and vehicle protection) accepted by Mr. Dossantos, totaling $913.00, plus $3.15 in documentary stamp tax, less a down payment of $80.00, for a total amount financed of $836.15. The page disclosed the finance charge ($102.47) and the annual percentage rate of the loan (25.93%). Mr. Dossantos opted to make 10 monthly payments of $93.86, initialed the bottom of the first sheet of the premium finance agreement, then signed the second page to indicate his acceptance of the loan terms. Finally, Respondent showed Mr. Dossantos the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form. The itemization for Mr. Dossantos' policies read as follows: Insurance you are REQUIRED by law to have: Personal Injury Protection (PIP) $368 Property Damage Liability (PD) $242 Other insurance which you MAY be required by law to have: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has been issued)[11] $0 OPTIONAL insurance coverage: Bodily Injury (if an SR-22 has NOT been issued) $0 Medical Payments $0 Uninsured Motorist $0 Comprehensive $0 Collision $0 Accidental Death $0 Towing $0 Rental $0 Life Insurance $98 Accident Medical Plan $0 Vehicle Protection Insurance $170 Life Policy Fee $10 SR-22 Fee $0 Recoupment Fee, if applicable $0 Policy Fee, if applicable $25 TOTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS $913 Document Stamp Tax, if applicable $3.15 Less Down Payment applied $80.00 AMOUNT FINANCED (loaned to you) $836.15 I, Sidney Dossantos, have read the above and understand the coverages I am buying and how much they cost. Signature of Named Insured Date Mr. Dossantos signed and dated the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure Form on the spaces indicated. As noted above, Mr. Dossantos testified that he told Respondent he only wanted basic automobile insurance. Mr. Dossantos, a 25-year-old college student at the time he purchased insurance from Respondent, acknowledged having purchased the optional policies the previous year, when he was still living with his parents. However, in July 2006 he was living in an apartment with his girlfriend and money was tighter. He received life insurance through his employer, Publix Supermarkets, and did not want more. Mr. Dossantos conceded that his policy paperwork clearly stated that the vehicle protection plan was optional, but that he did not read it during the sale. Mr. Dossantos simply signed whatever papers Respondent placed in front of him. Mr. Dossantos testified that when he walked out of Respondent's office on July 20, 2006, he believed that he had bought basic auto insurance and nothing else. Like Ms. Jungling and Mr. Hansen, he learned otherwise only after being contacted by the Department's investigator in February 2007. Unlike Ms. Jungling and Mr. Hansen, Mr. Dossantos did not later cancel the optional policies. All four of the Complaining Customers credibly testified that the Department made no promises that they would obtain full refunds of the premiums paid on the optional policies in exchange for their written statements or their testimony in this proceeding. On or about August 9, 2006, Respondent changed her principal business street address from 6318 U.S. Highway 19 North, New Port Richey, Florida, to 5116 U.S. Highway 19 North, New Port Richey, Florida, but did not notify the Department of this change in principal business street address until on or about March 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the violation alleged in Count X of the Administrative Complaint, fining her $250.00 for such violation, and dismissing the remaining counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 February, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in this state by the Petitioner as an insurance agent. Respondent was licensed, pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code (Chapter 626, Florida Statutes) as a general lines agent, a health insurance agent, and a residential property and casualty joint underwriting association representative. In February 1990, Maria del Carmen Comas, who was subsequently known as Maria del Carmen Diaz (hereinafter referred to as Maria Diaz), was licensed by Petitioner as an insurance agent. By Final Order entered September 20, 1994, the licensure of Ms. Diaz was revoked by the Petitioner. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent and Ms. Diaz maintained a close personal and professional relationship. On October 12, 1990, an entity known as The First Assurance, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as FIRST) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of FIRST, which is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. FIRST operated out of offices located at 10680 Coral Way, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Coral Way location) until June 1994, when Respondent moved the office of FIRST to 8780 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida. On September 21, 1993, an entity known as The First Assurance of Miami, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as FIRST OF MIAMI) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida by Respondent and Maria Diaz. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of FIRST OF MIAMI, a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency doing business at 8780 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Sunset Drive location). Respondent and Ms. Diaz were equal owners of FIRST OF MIAMI until that corporation ceased its operation in February 1995. On August 26, 1994, an entity known as Marlin Insurance Agency, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as MARLIN) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent was the sole incorporator of MARLIN. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the president and sole officer of MARLIN, a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency doing business at the Sunset Drive location where Respondent operated FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI. MARLIN was originally incorporated for the purpose of purchasing the business of Rodal Insurance Agency in Hialeah, Florida. After the purchase of Rodal was rescinded by court order, MARLIN remained dormant until February 1995, when MARLIN began operating as a general lines insurance agency at the Sunset Drive location. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the supervising agent of MARLIN. As long as FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI maintained separate offices, Respondent managed the day to day affairs of FIRST and Ms. Diaz managed the day to day affairs of FIRST OF MIAMI. After FIRST moved its offices into those of FIRST OF MIAMI, the separation of management became less distinct. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Carlos Gonzalez was an employee of FIRST or of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Gonzalez was hired and trained by Respondent and worked under his direct supervision. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Mr. Gonzalez hold any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Alvaro Alcivar was an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI or of MARLIN. Mr. Alcivar acted under the supervision of either Maria Diaz or of Respondent. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Mr. Alcivar hold any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had sole signatory authority of the FIRST's account number Number33080870-10 (the FIRST expense account) and of FIRST's account Number0303043975-10, both maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had joint signatory authority with Maria Diaz of the FIRST's account number Number33095150-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had joint signatory authority with Maria Diaz of the FIRST OF MIAMI's account number Number33095630-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had sole signatory authority of the FIRST OF MIAMI's account number Number0303116492-10 maintained at Ready State Bank in Hialeah, Florida. All premiums, return premiums and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under his license were and remain trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. Respondent obtained a power of attorney from his customers as a routine business practice. Respondent has repeatedly issued checks in payment of fiduciary funds that have subsequently been dishonored by the bank because the account on which the checks were drawn had insufficient funds. ARCAMONTE TRANSACTION (COUNT ONE) On or about July 14, 1993, Susan Arcamonte of Miami, Florida, purchased a new car. Susan Arcamonte needed insurance for this automobile and discussed that need with Carlos Gonzalez, who was employed by FIRST. As a result of her discussions with Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Arcamonte agreed to purchase a policy of insurance that would be issued by Eagle Insurance Company. The annual premium quoted by Mr. Gonzalez for this policy totaled $1,618.00. Mr. Gonzalez advised her that there would be additional charges if the premium was paid by a premium finance company. Because she did not have the funds to pay the lump sum annual premium and did not want to finance the premium, she had her parents, Edmond and Nancy Arcamonte, pay the annual premium. As instructed by Carlos Gonzalez, this check was in the amount of $1,618.00 and was made payable to "The First Assurance, Inc." This check was in full payment of the annual premium for the automobile insurance policy that was to be issued by Eagle Insurance Company. After receiving the check from Mr. and Mrs. Arcamonte, Mr. Gonzalez issued to Susan Arcamonte an insurance card containing the name "The First Assurance, Inc." and binder numbers 12873 and 931374 written across the top. Mr. Gonzalez represented to Ms. Arcamonte that this was a binder of the coverage they had discussed. Mr. Gonzalez thereafter delivered the check and the completed application for insurance to FIRST. Respondent reviewed the application for insurance and signed the application. The Arcamontes' check was thereafter deposited by Respondent into the FIRST expense account at Ready State Bank, Hialeah, Florida. In July 1993, Respondent or some person in his employ at FIRST and acting with his knowledge under his direct supervision and control, affixed the signature of Susan Arcamonte to a Century Premium Insurance Finance Co., Inc. (Century PFC) premium finance agreement and, in the space provided for her address, filled in the office address of FIRST. Ms. Arcamonte's signature was affixed to this agreement without her knowledge or consent. Respondent personally signed the premium fiance agreement that was sent to Century PFC. Because the address of FIRST was inserted on the premium finance agreement, Ms. Arcamonte did not receive payment coupons, cancellation notices, and other correspondence from Century PFC. Consequently, the existence of the premium finance agreement was concealed from Ms. Arcamonte. The original application for insurance signed by Susan Arcamonte contained a power of attorney purporting to grant Respondent the authority to sign Ms. Arcamonte's name to "applications or similar papers including premium finance contracts". There was no disclosure that the signature on the premium finance agreement was not that of Ms. Arcamonte or that FIRST was executing her signature pursuant to a power of attorney. Respondent contends that the premium finance agreement was executed pursuant to the power of attorney because the check from Mr. and Mrs. Arcamonte was inadvertently separated from her application for payment and erroneously deposited into the FIRST expense account. This contention lacks credibility and is rejected. The fact that Respondent deposited the check in his expense account, that the paperwork for the premium finance agreement contained the FIRST address, that Respondent took no action to rectify this alleged error even after receiving correspondence from the finance company, and that Ms. Arcamonte's signature was forged on the application belie Respondent's contention that this was an innocent mistake. On or about September 20, 1993, the Eagle Insurance policy that Ms. Arcamonte purchased was cancelled for nonpayment of premiums because Respondent, or persons acting under his direct supervision and control, failed to make a regular installment payment on the premium finance agreement. Ms. Arcamonte never received the 10 Day Notice of Cancellation Notices that Century PFC mailed to FIRST's address. It was not until October 1993 when she received a Notice of Cancellation from Eagle mailed September 27, 1993, that she learned that her policy had been cancelled effective September 20, 1993. As a result of Respondent's actions and those of Carlos Gonzalez, Susan Arcamonte failed to timely receive automobile insurance, suffered a finance charge for automobile insurance without her knowledge or consent, had her automobile insurance cancelled, and incurred higher premium charges for subsequent coverage because of a gap in her coverage. Following a criminal complaint filed against him by Ms. Arcamonte, Respondent was arrested and placed in a pretrial intervention program. It was only after this action was taken that Respondent made restitution to the Arcamontes for the $1,618.00 premium they paid. At no time during the transaction, did the Arcamontes deal with anyone from the FIRST other than Carlos Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent during this transaction. Specifically, Carlos Gonzalez did the following: Was introduced to the Arcamontes as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Interviewed Susan Arcamonte to gather the information necessary to determine level of coverage and to quote a premium for that coverage. Discussed coverage options and requirements including whether Ms. Arcamonte needed personal injury protection. Discussed deductible options and answered general questions about insurance. Selected an insurer for Ms. Arcamonte, quoted a premium for that coverage, and made representations as to the quality of the insurer. Offered to bind insurance coverage for the automobile Ms. Arcamonte was in the process of purchasing and sent a binder to her at the automobile dealership via fax. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including binder numbers, as proof of insurance, and presented the identification card to Ms. Arcamonte. Presented Ms. Arcamonte with a business card that identified himself as a representative of FIRST. Respondent knew or should have known of the acts of Carlos Gonzalez. Respondent received from Mr. Gonzalez the application for insurance he had completed for Ms. Arcamonte so that all Respondent had to do was sign it. JOHNSON - MOREL TRANSACTION (COUNT TWO) On May 31, 1993, Linda E. Johnson and her husband, Miguel Morel, visited the residence of Wilfreido Cordeiro, an employee of FIRST who was acting on behalf of FIRST. As a result of their conversation with Mr. Cordeiro about their insurance needs, Mr. Morel and Ms. Johnson completed an application for automobile insurance from Armor Insurance Company (Armor) to be issued through FIRST. Mr. Cordeiro, who was not licensed by Petitioner for any purpose, held himself out to be an agent. He represented to these consumers that coverage with Armor was bound and gave them an identification card with the FIRST name on it that purported to be a binder of coverage. The FIRST insurance identification card was issued without authorization from Armor and in violation of the established policies and practices of Armor. Because Mr. Cordeiro was unlicensed, Respondent acted as the agent of record for this transaction. On or about May 31, 1993, Mrs. Linda E. Johnson tendered to Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, a check in the amount of $500.00 payable to FIRST as a premium down payment for the automobile insurance from Armor. On or about June 4, 1993, Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, deposited Mrs. Johnson's check in the FIRST expense account at the Ready State Bank. On or about June 29, 1993, Mrs. Johnson was contacted by her bank and informed that she had no automobile insurance. She immediately contacted Respondent who provided the bank with a certificate of insurance indicating coverage was placed with American Skyhawk Insurance (American Skyhawk) effective June 1, 1993. No authority to bind coverage had been extended by American Skyhawk prior to the submission of the application two and one-half months after the coverage effective date indicated on the certificate of insurance. On or about August 18, 1993, Respondent, or persons acting with his knowledge and under his direct supervision and control, completed a Century PFC and affixed thereto the signature of Mr. Morel without his knowledge or consent. This agreement reflected that Mr. Morel had paid the sum of $400.00 as a downpayment, despite the fact that Mrs. Johnson's check, in the amount of $500.00, had been received and deposited in the Respondent expense account. As a result of Respondent's action, Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Morel failed to timely receive automobile coverage; suffered a finance charge for automobile insurance without their knowledge or consent; and suffered the loss in at least the amount of $100.00. At no time during the transaction with FIRST did Mr. Morel or Mrs. Johnson knowingly execute a power of attorney. HWANG TRANSACTION (COUNT THREE) On August 29, 1992, Mr. Show Ming Hwang of Miami, Florida, purchased via telephone a policy of insurance for a car he was purchasing. Mr. Hwang called from a car dealership and spoke to an employee of FIRST who was acting under Respondent's direct supervision. Mr. Hwang tendered to FIRST a check in the amount of $869.00 as the full premium for this insurance, which was to be issued by an insurer named Security National. Respondent was the agen t of record for this transaction. Security National issued policy NumberSN00127048 providing insurance coverage for Mr. Hwang effective August 29, 1992. On December 22, 1992, Mr. Hwang asked FIRST to cancel his policy with Security National because he had moved and had secured other coverage. On January 15, 1993, Security National cancelled insurance policy NumberSN00127048 in response to Mr. Hwang's request. On January 26, 1993, Security National sent to Respondent its check Number216878 in the sum of $366.35 payable to Mr. Hwang. This check was a refund of the unearned premium for the cancelled policy. In addition to the unearned premium, Mr. Hwang was also entitled to a refund of the unearned commission from FIRST. The amount of the unearned commission was $64.55 and should have been paid by FIRST directly to Mr. Hwang. On February 8, 1993, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST acting under his direct supervision, endorsed the check from Security National in the name of Mr. Hwang and deposited that check in the FIRST expense account at Ready State Bank. Mr. Hwang was unaware that his name had been endorsed on the check and had not authorized such endorsement. This endorsement was not pursuant to a validly executed power of attorney. Mr. Hwang made repeated attempts to obtain the refunds to which he was entitled. Finally, he secured the intervention of the Petitioner. After that intervention, Respondent issued a FIRST check on December 17, 1993, payable to Mr. Hwang in the amount of $431.00 as payment of the refunds. Less than a month later, this check was dishonored because there were insufficient funds in the account on which it was drawn. After further intervention by the Petitioner, Respondent issued a cashier's check in the amount of $431.00 payable to Mr. Hwang. This check, dated March 22, 1994, was thereafter received and deposited by Mr. Hwang. Respondent failed to return the refunds to Mr. Hwang in the applicable regular course of business and converted the refund from Security National to his own use until the intervention of the Petitioner. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mr. Hwang failed to timely receive these refunds. MARIA DIAZ (COUNT FOUR) On September 20, 1994, the Petitioner entered a Final Order that revoked all licenses that it had previously issued to Maria Diaz (who was at that time known as Maria del Carmen Comas). In September 1994, Ms. Diaz, accompanied by Respondent, visited the Petitioner's office in Miami where she was told that the revocation of her license was forthcoming. After that information was given to them, Respondent and Ms. Diaz knew or should have known that the revocation of her licensure was imminent. There was insufficient evidence to establish when Ms. Diaz received a written copy of the order revoking her licensure. Ms. Diaz and Respondent assert that they did not know about the revocation until the end of January, 1995. The order entered in September 1994 prohibited Ms. Diaz from engaging in or attempting to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or appointment is required under the Insurance Code or directly owning, controlling, or being employed in any manner by any insurance agent or agency. After Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told that the revocation of her licensure was imminent, Ms. Diaz engaged in transactions requiring licensure and acting in violation of the order revoking her licensure. This activity included applying to Seminole Insurance Company (Seminole) in December 1994 seeking appointment as a general lines insurance agent by Seminole, the submission of a large number of applications to Seminole, and the mishandling of an insurance transaction with Johannah Rexach in July and August 1995. Ms. Diaz began a business as a travel agent at the MARLIN office and continued to be present in the MARLIN office long after she had received written notice of the revocation of her licensure by Petitioner. At least on one occasion in May 1995, Ms. Diaz answered the MARLIN telephone by saying "insurance". Ms. Diaz continued to greet her former insurance customers and mailed out renewal notices after both she and Respondent had actual knowledge of the revocation of her licensure. Respondent knew or should have known of Ms. Diaz's activities. While there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Diaz was formally on MARLIN's payroll, the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent permitted Ms. Diaz to share office space while she attempted to develop her travel agency and that, in return, Ms. Diaz helped out at the MARLIN office. Respondent employed the services of Ms. Diaz and he placed her in a position to engage in transactions that required licensure after he knew or should have known that her licensure had been revoked. MARTINEZ TRANSACTION (COUNT FIVE) On April 23, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Santiago Martinez of Miami, Florida, completed applications for automobile insurance from Fortune Insurance Company (Fortune) and Aries Insurance Company (Aries). The record is unclear as to whether the insurance was to be issued through FIRST or FIRST OF MIAMI. The individual with whom Mr. and Mrs. Martinez dealt was Alvaro Alcivar. This was during the time that FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI maintained separate offices and it was before Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told that her licensure was about to be revoked. The greater weight of the evidence established that Mr. Alcivar was, at that time, an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI and that he was working under the supervision of Maria Diaz. Succinctly stated, premiums paid by Mr. and Mrs. Martinez were deposited into a FIRST OF MIAMI bank account that showed First Assurance of Miami, Inc., d/b/a Complete Insurance as the owner of the account. The premium payment was not forwarded to the insurer. Because of this failure, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez did not receive insurance coverage for which they had paid. While Petitioner established that Mr. Alcivar and whoever was his supervising agent mishandled this transaction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was aware of this transaction until Mr. and Mrs. Martinez demanded a refund of the premium they had paid. At that juncture, he attempted to resolve the problem. Consequently, it is found that the evidence failed to establish that Respondent was responsible for these violations of the Florida Insurance Code. ZAFRANI TRANSACTION (COUNT SIX) In July 1992, Mr. Issac Zafrani and his son, Ramon, of Miami, Florida, purchased automobile insurance with Oak Casualty Insurance Company (Oak) after dealing with Carlos Gonzalez. The various documents associated with this transaction refer to the agency issuing this policy as FIRST, FIRST OF MIAMI, or Rodal Insurance Agency. Mr. Gonzalez was an employee of FIRST and operated under the direct supervision of Respondent. The entire transaction was completed by Mr. Gonzalez at the automobile dealership where Mr. Zafrani was purchasing an automobile. All subsequent dealings by Mr. Zafrani was through Mr. Gonzalez by telephone or at locations other than the offices of FIRST. Mr. Gonzalez held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent during this transaction. Specifically, Carlos Gonzalez did the following: Was introduced to the Zafranis as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options. Selected an insurer for the Zafranis, deter- mined the premium for the coverage, and accepted the payment for the premium. Personally completed an insurance identifi- cation card, including what purported to be proof of insurance, and presented the identification card to the Zafranis. Presented the Zafranis with a business card that identified himself as a representative of FIRST. The Zafranis paid for the renewal of their policy through FIRST each year on an annual basis. On September 1, 1994, the Zafranis tendered to Mr. Gonzalez their check in the amount of $1,748.00 as payment in full of the annual premium for the policy year 1994-95. This check was made payable to FIRST OF MIAMI and was deposited in the FIRST Expense Account at Ready State Bank ( Number0303080870- 10). Respondent was the only person with authority to sign on this account. On September 30, 1994, an employee of FIRST completed a premium finance agreement that purported to finance the Zafranis' premium for the Oak Casualty insurance and forged Issac Zafrani's signature to that agreement. This false document reflected that the total premium was $1,748.00 and that the Zafranis had made a downpayment of $524.00 and had an unpaid balance of $1,224.00. This action was taken without Issac Zafrani's knowledge or consent. Mr. Zafrani had not executed a power of attorney to authorize these acts. Respondent knew or should have known of this act. On September 30, 1994, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST working under his direct supervision, issued a premium finance draft from Artic to Oak in the amount of $1,485.80 based upon this false application. A few weeks after they paid the renewal premium, the Zafranis complained to Mr. Gonzalez that they had not received their renewal policy from Oak. Mr. Gonzalez advised them that the company had cancelled their policy in error. He promised that he would investigate the matter and take corrective action. On December 23, 1994, Respondent, or an employee of FIRST acting under his direct supervision, submitted an automobile insurance application to Seminole Insurance Company indicating that coverage had been bound for Issac Zafrani. On December 23, 1994, Respondent issued FIRST check Number1196 payable to Seminole in the amount of $1,681.65 in payment of the policy he was attempting to secure on behalf of the Zafranis. On or about December 27 1994, Mr. Gonzalez issued to the Zafranis a FIRST card with what purported to be a binder number from Seminole Insurance Company. No authorization to bind that coverage had been issued by Seminole. On January 3, 1995, Artic issued a cancellation notice on the Oak Casualty policy because of missed payments on the premium finance agreement. The Zafranis did not know about this premium finance agreement and Respondent failed to make the payments. In January 1995, FIRST check Number1196 that had been tendered to Seminole was dishonored by Respondent's bank because the account on which the check was drawn had insufficient funds to pay the check. As a result of these actions, the Zafranis failed to timely receive automobile insurance for which they had fully paid and suffered the loss of the sum of $1,748.00. Respondent knew or should have known of these actions. DEBT TO WORLD PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY (COUNT SEVEN) On August 29, 1995, a final judgment was entered in a Dade County Court action brought by World Premium Finance Co., Inc. (World PFC) against FIRST OF MIAMI and the Respondent, individually, as defendants. This final judgment awarded damages against FIRST OF MIAMI in the sum of $7,203.03 and awarded damages against both defendants in the sum of $15,000 plus attorney's fees of $1,000. The World PFC complaint was based on worthless checks FIRST OF MIAMI and Respondent had issued in connection with premium finance contracts and included debts for unpaid downpayments and unearned commissions on premium finance contracts that had been cancelled. Respondent's assertion that these debts were the responsibility of Maria Diaz is rejected. While Ms. Diaz initially made the arrangements for FIRST OF MIAMI to finance through World PFC and was the agent responsible for some of these transactions, it is clear that Respondent was the agent for many of these underlying transactions. Further, some, if not all, of these worthless checks were drawn on accounts for which Respondent was the only person with signatory authority. The downpayments and unearned commissions constitute fiduciary funds for which Respondent is responsible. Respondent has failed to pay these fiduciary funds to World PFC after repeated demands for payments. GUTIERREZ TRANSACTION (COUNT EIGHT) On October 11, 1993, Ms. Madalina N. Gutierrez of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance. Aries Insurance Company was the insurer for this policy and FIRST was the insurance agency. The premium for this policy was to have been $574.00. The person with whom Ms. Gutierrez dealt with was Carmen "Mela" Babacarris, an employee of FIRST OF MIAMI. Ms. Babacarris has never held any license or appointment under the Florida Insurance Code. Ms. Gutierrez paid to FIRST the sum of $287.00 on October 11, 1993, when she applied for this insurance. On that date, Ms. Babacarris gave to Ms. Gutierrez an insurance card that purported to bind coverage with Aries. She returned on November 1, 1993, and paid to FIRST the balance owed of $287.00. Both of these payments were tendered to and received by Ms. Babacarris on behalf of FIRST. The sums paid by Ms. Gutierrez for this insurance coverage were not remitted by the FIRST to Aries or to any other insurer. As a consequence, Ms. Gutierrez did not receive the insurance coverage for which she had paid. Ms. Gutierrez was unable to obtain a refund of the sums that she had paid to FIRST. Respondent knew or should have known of the acts pertaining to this transaction by Ms. Babacarris since the transaction was processed through the FIRST, the agency for which Respondent was the sole supervising agent. RICO TRANSACTION (COUNT NINE) On June 27, 1994, Mr. Rafael Rico of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance from Aries Insurance. It is unclear from the documents whether this insurance was to be issued through FIRST or through FIRST OF MIAMI. This confusion in the record is attributable to the fact that the persons involved in this transaction and associated with these two agencies made little distinction between the two agencies. This application was completed at the automobile dealership from which Mr. Rico was purchasing the vehicle to be insured. The individual with whom Mr. Rico dealt was Alvaro Alcivar. At all times during the transaction with Mr. Rico, Mr. Alcivar held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent. Specifically, Mr. Alcivar did the following: Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options and answered Mr. Rico's general insurance questions. Selected the insurer for Mr. Rico's coverage. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including a policy number, as proof of insurance and provided it to Mr. Rico. Indicated that coverage was bound immediately and gave to him a card that purported to be a Florida Automobile Insurance Identification Card indicating that Mr. Rico had insurance coverage through Aries. Developed the premium and downpayment. Accepted payment from Mr. Rico. Presented Mr. Rico with a business card identifying himself as a representative of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Alcivar was the only representative of the FIRST or of the FIRST OF MIAMI with whom Mr. Rico dealt. On June 27, 1994, Mr. Rico tendered to Mr. Alcivar the sum of $947.00 as payment for this insurance with the sum of $500.00 being paid in cash and the balance being charged to Mr. Rico's Mastercard. This Mastercard entry was processed through the account of the FIRST, not that of the FIRST OF MIAMI. Despite the payments by Mr. Rico, the premium to which Aries was entitled for this coverage was not remitted by FIRST or by FIRST OF MIAMI. As a result of this failure, Aries cancelled the binder that had been issued to Mr. Rico. Mr. Rico was damaged as a result of this failure. He lost the premium he had paid and the lending institution that financed his vehicle placed insurance on the vehicle at a higher premium than that charged by Aries. Based on the relationship between FIRST and FIRST OF MIAMI, the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Diaz, the repeated references to FIRST in the documentation of this transaction, and the deposit of at least $447.00 in the Mastercard account of FIRST, it is concluded that Respondent knew or should have known about this transaction. CHERI TRANSACTION (COUNT ELEVEN) On November 19, 1994, Mr. Dieuseul Cheri of Miami, Florida, completed an application for automobile insurance that was to be issued by Seminole Insurance Company as the insurer. The application for insurance reflects that Maria Diaz was the agent for this transaction, but the name of the agency is FIRST, not FIRST OF MIAMI. Likewise, the premium finance agreement pertaining to this transaction reflects that FIRST is the producing agency. The entire transaction was handled by Alvaro Alcivar at an automobile dealership where Mr. Cheri was purchasing a vehicle and occurred after Ms. Diaz had been told in September that the revocation of her licensure was imminent. Mr. Cheri gave to Mr. Alcivar the sum of $205.00 in cash as the downpayment for the premium for this Seminole policy. At all times Mr. Alcivar held himself out to be and acted as an insurance agent. Specifically, Mr. Alcivar: Was introduced to Mr. Cheri as an insurance agent and did not correct that misidentification. Personally completed the insurance application and related paperwork. Discussed coverage and deductible options and answered Mr. Cheri's general insurance questions. Selected the insurer for Mr. Cheri's coverage. Personally completed an insurance identification card, including a policy number, as proof of insurance and provided it to Mr. Cheri. Completed a named driver exclusion agreement for Mr. Cheri's policy, which had a significant effect on the coverage provided under the policy, and completed a vehicle inspection. Developed the premium and downpayment. Accepted payment from Mr. Cheri on behalf of FIRST OF MIAMI. Presented Mr. Cheri with a business card identifying himself as a representative of FIRST OF MIAMI. Mr. Alcivar was the only representative of the FIRST or of the FIRST OF MIAMI with whom Mr. Cheri dealt. FIRST OF MIAMI failed to bind coverage with Seminole on Mr. Cheri's behalf until November 22, 1994. As a result, there was a lapse in Mr. Cheri's coverage from November 17 until November 22, 1994. On November 19, 1994, FIRST OF MIAMI submitted a premium finance agreement on Mr. Cheri's insurance policy to World Premium Finance Co., Inc. (World PFC). The World PFC contract as well as the application were signed by Maria Diaz. Ms. Diaz never met Mr. Cheri. The premium finance agreement submitted to World PFC by FIRST OF MIAMI indicated that he had made a premium downpayment of only $105.00 despite the fact that Mr. Cheri had made a downpayment of $205.00. The evidence is not clear that Respondent knew or should have known of this transaction because of the involvement of Ms. Diaz. Instead, this is an example of the Respondent permitting Ms. Diaz to continue to participate in insurance transactions that require licensure after Respondent and Ms. Diaz had been told in September 1994 that revocation was imminent. ALVARO ALCIVAR (COUNT TWELVE) Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Alvaro Alcivar performed acts and made representations to consumers that require licensure pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code. Petitioner also established that Respondent knew or should have known of these acts and that he aided and abetted these violations by Mr. Alcivar. CARLOS GONZALEZ (COUNT THIRTEEN) Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Carlos Gonzalez performed acts and made representations to consumers that require licensure pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code. Petitioner also established that Respondent knew or should have known of these acts and that he aided and abetted these violations by Mr. Gonzalez.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner revoke all licensure and appointment held by Respondent pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code and that it impose against Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 15th day of April 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0317 The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 139, 140, 141, and 142 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The testimony at the formal hearing that the office was moved in June 1994. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 17, and 81 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26, 32, 72, 74, 75, 76, 83, 129, 130, 131, 136, 137, 143, and 144 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 46, 61, 82, and 124 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 77, 78, 79, 80, 128, 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 64, 72, and 73 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected in part since Respondent moved the offices of the FIRST from Coral Way to Sunset Drive at a time pertinent to this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6 and 52 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 11, 21 and 27 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by credible evidence. The evidence that supports these proposed findings lacks credibility. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 31 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent the proposed findings mischaracterize the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the finding that they knew that the revocation of Ms. Diaz's licensure was imminent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 25, 28, 30, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 29 and 57 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 31 are rejected since they contain an inference that Respondent told Ms. Diaz to move as soon as he knew of her interaction with insurance customers. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 42 are rejected as being a mischaracterization of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 48, 63, 68, and 70 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Dunphy, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley and Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 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, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent’s insurance license held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes? Although Respondent was unlicensed at the time of the specific insurance transactions enumerated in the Administrative Complaint, she since has become licensed. It is the existing license of Respondent that Petitioner seeks to discipline in this action.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner was created in accordance with Section 20.13, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been conferred general power by the Legislature to regulate the insurance industry in Florida, in accordance with Section 624.307, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, grants Petitioner the authority to license and discipline insurance agents doing business in Florida. At times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent was not licensed by Petitioner to transact insurance. (Pet. Ex. 2) Respondent was employed by Beck-De Pratter, Inc., a Florida Corporation, doing business as William Dye Insurance, Inc./Brentwood (hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”) from 1996 until 2004. Count I: Aaron Curtis On August 16, 2000, Aaron Curtis came into the Agency to re-new the insurance on his vehicle. Respondent took down the information necessary for Curtis to re-new his insurance. The company that had insured Curtis' vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Curtis' coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count II: Stacy Collier On October 7, 2002, Collier came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Collier to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Collier's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Collier's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count III: Ruby Hubbard On October 11, 2002, Ruby Hubbard came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Hubbard's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Hubbard's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent. Count IV: Mary Kennedy On March 6, 2002, Mary Kennedy came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed the related vehicle inspection report. Count V: Charles Howard On September 10, 2001, Charles Howard came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed the related vehicle inspection report. Count VI: Not appointed as Customer Representative Petitioner’s official records reveal that Respondent was not appointed as customer representative by any insurance agency at the time the preceding transactions occurred. Respondent’s employer, John Beck, testified that he never appointed Respondent as a customer representative. Count VII: John Kennedy On March 2, 2001, John Kennedy came into the Agency to re-new his automobile insurance. Respondent took down the information necessary for Hubbard to re-new the insurance. The company that had insured Kennedy's vehicle was no longer writing coverage in Florida, and the Agency placed Kennedy's coverage without significant alternation with another carrier. John Beck signed this application as agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the allegations contained in the administrative complaint against Respondent, Sharon G. Taylor. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __ STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Jed Berman, Esquire Infantino and Berman Post Office Box 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent complied with Sections and 440.38, Florida Statutes, with regard to workers' compensation insurance for his subcontractors, and if not, the appropriate amount of penalty that should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Hernandez, Inc., is a contractor based in the Jacksonville, Florida area, and is in the business of installing dry wall, among other construction related activities. The Department of Financial Services is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Workers' Compensation Law. This duty is delegated to the Division of Workers' Compensation. On February 5, 2004, Hernandez, Inc., was engaged in installing drywall in the Bennett Federal Building in Jacksonville, Florida. Hernandez, Inc., was a subcontractor for Skanska, Inc., who was the general contractor for the building. Hernandez, Inc., was accomplishing the installation of drywall by using two subcontractors, GIO & Sons (GIO), of Norfolk, Virginia, and U&M Contractors, Inc., (U&M), of Charlotte, North Carolina. Hernandez, Inc., was also using its own personnel, who were leased from Matrix, Inc., an employee leasing company. Prior to contracting with GIO and U&M, Hernandez, Inc., asked for and received ACORD certificates of insurance, which on their face indicated that the subcontractors had both liability coverage and workers' compensation coverage. It is the practice of Hernandez, Inc., to ensure that certificates of insurance are provided by subcontractors and the office staff of Hernandez, Inc., tracks the certificates so that they are kept current. Since the beginning of 2001, Hernandez, Inc., has received approximately 310 certificates of insurance from subcontractors. These certificates listed Hernandez, Inc., as the certificate holder. Though most of the producers and insureds on these certificates are from Florida, a substantial number are from other states. Hernandez, Inc., relied on the certificates as evidence that the subcontractor's workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance. Hernandez, Inc., has relied on certificates of insurance for more than twenty years and, with the exception of this case, has never known an instance where the underlying policy was invalid. On February 5, 2004, Katina Johnson, an investigator with the Division, made a routine visit to the Bennett Federal Building with another investigator. She observed personnel from Hernandez, Inc., and its subcontractors, installing dry wall. On February 5, 2004, Ms. Johnson determined that Hernandez, Inc., also had a contract to install dry wall as a subcontractor participating in the construction of the Mayport BEQ. L. C. Gaskins Company was the general contractor engaged in the construction of the Mayport BEQ. U&M worked at both the Bennett Federal Building site and the Mayport BEQ site as a subcontractor of Hernandez, Inc. Ms. Johnson issued a Stop Work Order on February 26, 2004, to Hernandez, Inc., GIO, and U&M. By the Stop Work Order, Hernandez, Inc., was charged with failure to ensure that workers' compensation meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, was in place for GIO and U&M. The Stop Work Order indicated that the penalty amount assessed against Respondent would be subject to amendment based on further information provided by Hernandez, Inc., including the provision of business records. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 19, 2004, was served on Hernandez, Inc., which referenced the Stop Work Order of February 26, 2004. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was in the amount of $157,794.49. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reached back to September 29, 2003. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 22, 2004, was served on GIO. This Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was in the amount of $107,885.71. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment with a March 2004 date (the day is obscured on the document by a "filed" stamp), was served on U&M. This Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was in the amount of $51,779.50. The sum of these numbers is $159,665.21. However, the parties agreed at the hearing that the amount being sought by the Division was $157,794.49, which represented the total for GIO and U&M. Hernandez, Inc.'s, employees leased from Matrix were covered by workers' compensation insurance through a policy held by Matrix. The Matrix policy did not cover the employees of GIO and U&M. Although Skanska, Inc., and L. C. Gaskins Company had workers' compensation insurance in force, their policies did not cover the workers used by Hernandez, Inc., or the employees of GIO or U&M. GIO and U&M employees were considered by the Division to be "statutory employees" of Hernandez, Inc., for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law. This meant, according to the Division, that Hernandez, Inc., was required to ensure that the employees of GIO and U&M would receive benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law if a qualifying event occurred, unless the subcontractors had workers' compensation insurance policies in force that satisfied the Division. GIO had a policy of workers' compensation insurance evidenced by an ACORD certificate of liability insurance for the period December 3, 2002, until December 3, 2003. The policy was produced by Salzberg Insurance Agency in Norfolk, Virginia. It listed Hernandez as the certificate holder. The policy was issued by Maryland Casualty Company, a subsidiary of the Zurich American Insurance Company. These companies are admitted carriers in Florida. The Classification of Operations page of this policy indicated class code 5022, masonry work. GIO employers were installing drywall during times pertinent. Rates for drywall installation are substantially higher than for masonry work. In the policy section titled "Other States Insurance," Florida is not mentioned. William D. Hager, an expert witness, reviewed the certificate of insurance and the policy supporting the certificate. Mr. Hager is a highly qualified expert in insurance and workers' compensation coverage. Among other qualifications, he is an attorney and a former member of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners by virtue of his position as Insurance Commissioner for the State of Iowa. He concluded that this policy did not conform to the requirements of Chapter 440 because the policy was Virginia based and did not apply Florida rates, rules, and class codes. Mr. Sapourn, testified as an expert witness. Mr. Sapourn has a degree from the University of Virginia in economics with high distinction and a juris doctorate from Georgetown. He is a certified insurance counselor and owned an insurance agency in the District of Columbia area. As an insurance agent he has issued tens of thousands certificates of insurance and written hundreds of workers' compensation policies. Mr. Sapourn, opined that this certificate represented workers' compensation coverage that complied with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Upon consideration of the testimony of the experts, and upon an examination of the documents, it is concluded that the policy represented by the certificate of insurance for the period December 3, 2002, to December 3, 2003, did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 440. Subsequently, someone forged an ACORD certificate of liability insurance, which indicated that it was produced by Salzberg Insurance Agency, and that indicated that GIO was covered from December 4, 2003, until December 4, 2004. The forged certificate was presented to Hernandez, Inc., upon the expiration of the policy addressed above. It was accepted by Hernandez, Inc., and considered to be a valid certificate. Both of the experts pointed out that with their practiced eye they could easily determine that the certificate was a forgery. However, there was no evidence that Mr. Hernandez, or his employees, had training in forgery detection. Accordingly, it was reasonable for them to accept the certificate as valid. U&M presented Hernandez, Inc., with an ACORD certificate which indicated insurance coverage from October 24, 2003, until October 24, 2004. The producer was Insur-A-Car Commercial Division of Charlotte, North Carolina. The insurer was The St. Paul, an admitted carrier in Florida. The insured was U &M. The certificate holder was Hernandez Enterprises, Inc. William D. Hager reviewed the certificate of insurance and the policy supporting the certificate. He noted that The St. Paul policy upon which the certificate was based did not apply in Florida because U&M was not working temporarily in Florida and because it included a policy endorsement that stated: "The policy does not cover work conducted at or from 3952 Atlantic BLVD #D-12 Jacksonville, FL 32207." U&M's mailing address in Jacksonville was 3952 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite D-12. The information page of the policy, at Part 3.A. states that Part One applies to North Carolina. Part 3.C., Other States Insurance states that Part 3 of the policy applies to the states listed, and then refers to the "residual market limited other states insurance." Mr. Hager testified that the policy did not indicate compliance with Chapter 440, because the policy is North Carolina based, applies only North Carolina rates, and does not provide Florida coverage. Mr. Sapourn, on the other hand, opined that the policy provided workers' compensation that complied with Chapter 440. Although it is possible that a worker who was injured during times pertinent may have received benefits, it is clear that the policy did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 440. The Division instituted a Stop Work Order against U&M and sought to impose penalties upon it for failure to comply with Chapter 440 for offenses committed at the exact times and places alleged in this case. U&M demanded a hearing and was provided one. In a Recommended Order entered April 7, 2005, an Administrative Law Judge recommended that the Division enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and assessing a penalty in the amount of $51,779.50. See Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation vs. U and M Contractors, Inc., Case No. 04-3041 (DOAH April 7, 2005). The recommendation was adopted in toto by the Department of Financial Services on April 27, 2005. See In the Matter of: U and M Contractors, Inc., Case No. 75537-05 WC (DFS April 27, 2005). The evidence taken as a whole demonstrates that U&M did not have workers' compensation coverage in Florida that complied with the requirements of Chapter 440, during times pertinent. Mr. Sapourn testified that the theory behind ACORD certificates of insurance is that they provide a uniform document upon which business people may rely. This testimony is accepted as credible. In order to continue working on a project not addressed by the Stop Work Order, Hernandez, Inc., entered into and agreement with the Division which provided for partial payments of the penalty in the amount of $46,694.03. This payment was made with the understanding of both parties that payment was not an admission of liability.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
Findings Of Fact For Petitioner: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 For Respondent: Michael S. Moreland, Esquire Post Office Box 1992 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES Whether the Respondent committed the alleged multiple violations of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Virginia Louise Williamson be found guilty of nine violations of Section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes, and nine violations of Section 626.21, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's licenses as General Lines Insurance Agent, Life Insurance Agent, and Health Insurance Agent and eligibility for licensure be suspended for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA D. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4553 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. See HO #3 and #18. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #7 Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Improper Summary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. See HO #3. (Respondent's answer and prehearing statement.) Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. 8.-10. Accepted. Rejected. See HO #5. Rejected. Conclusion of Law. Contrary to existing law. See White v. Allstate Insurance Company, 530 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). 13.-16. Accepted. 17.-28. Accepted. See HO #6. 29.-34. Accepted. See HO #7. 35.-36. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7. 37. - 43. Accepted. See HO #8. 44. Rejected. See HO #8. 45-50. Accepted. See HO #9. 51.-52. Accepted. 53.-64. Accepted. See HO #10 and #11. 65.-76. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. 77.-83. Accepted. See HO #14. 84.-91. Accepted. See HO #15. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Office of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Michael S. Moreland, Esquire Post Office Box 1992 Fort Myers, Florida 33992 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, currently is eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, general lines property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous agent, and health insurance agent. The Respondent moved to Florida from Michigan in September, 1983. In January, 1984, the Respondent and a partner bought Guaranteed Underwriters, Incorporated, a corporate general lines insurance agency doing business as Security Insurance Agency (Security) in New Port Richey, Florida. The Respondent's background was primarily in the life and health insurance business; his partner's background was primarily in property and casualty insurance. They planned to divide responsibilities for Security's operations along the lines of their respective areas of expertise. However, the partnership dissolved, leaving to the Respondent responsibility for all of the operations of the agency. After the dissolution of the partnership, the Respondent delegated to unlicensed employees most of the day-to-day responsibilities for the property and casualty and workmen's compensation side of the agency's business. The Respondent was personally involved primarily in the day-to-day operations of the health and life insurance side of the business, as well as in selected large commercial accounts. The conduct of Security's business, as described above, went smoothly (there were no charges of any license violations) until two disruptive factors entered into the picture. One was financial in nature; the other was personal. In 1986, Security bought an existing insurance agency (Sunland Insurance Agency) in Holiday, merged it into Security, and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. In 1987, Security bought another, large agency (Village Insurance Agency) and also merged it into Security and attempted to operate it as part of Security's overall business. At this point, the Respondent essentially was attempting to operate three insurance agencies, something he never attempted before. With the purchase of Sunland and Village, in addition to Security, the Respondent incurred significant debt which had to be met for his business to just break even. By approximately 1988, the Respondent owed approximately $150,000 still outstanding on the purchase of Security, $100,000 borrowed to finance the purchase of Village, $43,000 to three different relatives and $3,500 to the NCNB bank on loans made in connection with the business. Payments on these debts, together with payroll, rent and other business expense left Security with a monthly operating budget of almost $12,000. At this expense level, the business was losing money. In calendar year 1989, the business lost between approximately $12,600 and (counting unpaid bills outstanding at the end of the year) $17,900. At the end of 1988, severe personal problems added to the Respondent's financial woes. In December, 1988, the Respondent's wife had to be hospitalized in Tampa for eight weeks for treatment for symptoms of mental illness. During this time, in addition to trying to supervise the operations of Security, the Respondent was required to travel back and forth to Tampa (about an hour drive by car, each way) to visit his wife and also make arrangements for the care of his eighteen month old son (either by himself or by a baby-sitter). As if the Respondent's personal problems were not enough, when his wife was discharged from the hospital (with a diagnosis of a chemical imbalance), she informed him that she wanted a divorce. She took up a separate residence in Tampa where she lived pending the dissolution of the marriage. As a result of the his personal problems, the Respondent delegated more and more responsibility to his unlicensed employees. He would go to the office only for an hour or two a day. Sometimes he was not able to get into the office at all. Judy Nelson (Count V). Judy Nelson, who is self-employed doing business as Pedals 'N' Presents, used Security for her insurance needs since 1986. In January, 1989, she applied through Security for renewal of a special multi-peril (SMP) insurance policy with American Professional Insurance for another year beginning January 21, 1989. On January 10, 1989, she gave Security her check for $485 as partial payment for the coverage. The $485 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. Security never processed Nelson's application or secured the coverage. On or about March 10, 1989, Nelson received notice from American Professional that no application for renewal of coverage or premium had been received and that coverage was being cancelled. Nelson immediately contacted Security regarding the notification, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees acknowledged an error on Security's part but assured Nelson that Security would correct the situation and have Nelson's coverage reinstated. Security never got the policy reinstated, and the policy was cancelled on March 21, 1989. On or about April 8, 1989, Nelson's business was burglarized, and Nelson made a claim on her MPS policy. At this point, in handling the claim, the Respondent realized that the policy had been cancelled and that Nelson had no coverage. But, instead of telling her the facts, the Respondent paid the claim himself. Nelson thought the claim was paid under the terms of her SMP policy and still thought she had coverage. Later, Nelson had a question about a signature on her policy and telephoned the Professional American to get her question answered. Professional American told her that she had no coverage. At about the same time, Nelson was contacted by a Department investigator, who asked her not to contact the Respondent yet as he would make arrangements for a refund for her. On or about December 6, 1989, after the Department investigator cleared it, Nelson telephoned the Respondent and asked for a refund. This time, the Respondent acknowledged that Nelson had no coverage and agreed to a refund. The Respondent paid Nelson the refund at the end of December, 1989, or the beginning of January, 1990. Nelson still does business with Security. She has in force workmen's compensation insurance through Security. Fred J. Miller (Count VI). On or about February 24, 1989, Fred J. Miller came into the Security offices to get commercial automobile insurance for the vehicles he uses in his recycling business. He dealt with one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees. Several application and other papers for coverage with Progressive American Insurance Companies were prepared and were signed by Miller. Miller also made a partial payment for the coverage in cash in the amount of $296, for which the employee gave Miller a receipt. As he left the office, the Security employee assured him that he had coverage. A few days later, on or about February 28, 1989, Security contacted Miller and told him an additional $606 was needed to obtain the coverage for which he had applied. Miller returned to Security and gave the employee he was dealing with an additional $606 cash, for which he was given another receipt. It was not proven, and is not clear, whether the cash received from Miller was placed in the Security operating account. Security never submitted Miller's application for insurance. Contrary to Miller's understanding, Miller had no insurance on his vehicles. As of April 6, 1989, Miller had neither a policy (or copy of one) nor an insurance identification card. On or about April 6, 1989, Miller bought a new vehicle and had to contact Security to get an insurance policy number in order to have the vehicle registered in his name. The Security employee speaking to Miller discovered that Miller's undated application still was in the "pending matters" file and told Miller he could not get the policy number at that time. Miller said he had to have the policy number immediately. At that point, the employee brought the problem to the Respondent's attention. The Respondent had the employee tell Miller they would call right back. Security then dated Miller's application April 6, 1989, telephoned Progressive American to secure coverage effective April 6, 1989, and called Miller back with the policy number he needed. Security then processed Miller's application to secure the coverage for a year, through April 6, 1990. Miller has renewed the Progress American coverage through Security and still has his vehicles insured under the policy. Donald E. Wilkins (Count IV). Donald E. Wilkins, President of Apple Paradise Landscaping, Inc., used Security for his general liability and automobile insurance needs. He has no complaint about, and no issue is raised in this proceeding, as to Security's handling of those coverages. (The evidence is that the coverages Wilkins applied for were placed in the normal course of business.) On or about March 9, 1989, Wilkins decided he wanted a workmen's compensation insurance certificate. He went to Security's office, and one of the Respondent's unlicensed employees completed an application for the insurance and for premium financing. Wilkins gave her a $250 check "just for the certificate." The check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. On March 9, 1989, Wilkins also specifically requested that Security furnish to Hawkins Construction of Tarpon Springs, Florida, a certificate of insurance. In response to the request, Security furnished to Hawkins Construction a certificate that Apple Paradise with the "S. Atlantic Council on Workers Compensation." A policy number appears on the certificate, and the certificate states that coverage was effective March 13, 1989, to expire on March 13, 1990. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. The evidence did not prove whether Wilkins ever got any workmen's compensation insurance. The Department proved that Security never processed the premium financing application, and Wilkins testified that he never got a payment book or other request for payment from any premium financing company. But the representative of the National Council on Compensation Insurance gave no testimony on Wilkins or Apple Paradise. Wilkins himself did not appear to have any complaint against the Respondent or Security. Theoharis Tsioukanaras (Count III). Theoharis (Harry) Tsioukanaras owned and operated Harry's Painting and Enterprises, Inc. He had been doing business with the Respondent to meet his business and personal insurance needs since the Respondent first bought Security (and did business with the prior owner for a year before that). He had his business and personal automobile insurance, as well as his workmen's compensation insurance through Security. In the normal course of their business relationship, either Harry would telephone Security when he had insurance needs or Security would telephone Harry when it was time to renew insurance. Harry would then drop by the office to complete the necessary paperwork and pay the premium. When Harry did not have the necessary premium money when it was time to buy or renew insurance, the Respondent regularly loaned Harry premium money and Harry would pay the Respondent back later. Harry usually dealt with the Respondent's unlicensed employees, not with the Respondent directly. On or sometime after July 7, 1989, Harry telephoned Security for proof of insurance on a 1987 Subaru so that he could avoid having to pay for lender insurance on the vehicle at a bank where he was seeking to obtain financing. One of the Respondent's unlicensed employees gave Harry a purported insurance identification card for "Progressive American," listing a purported insurance policy number and purported policy effective dates of July 7, 1989, to January 7, 1990. The lending institution did not accept the card. In fact, no Progressive American policy had issued on the vehicle. At some point, Harry came by the Security office and told the Respondent that he (Harry) was due a $640 refund for automobile insurance renewal premium money on a policy that never issued. By the Respondent's own admission, he checked with his records and his unlicensed employees and confirmed that Harry was owed the money. On September 28, 1989, he gave Harry a check for $640. 1/ Despite the circumstances that resulted in the false Progressive American insurance identification card, in Harry's need to buy Allstate insurance on a vehicle he thought was insured through Security, and in Harry's need for a $640 refund from Security, Harry continues to do his insurance business with the Respondent and Security and also refers friends to the Respondent for insurance needs. John Stuiso (Count I). On or about June 7, 1989, John Stuiso, a self-employed building contractor, applied for both general liability and workmen's compensation insurance through Security. (Stuiso had been insured through Security for the preceding four years with no apparent problems.) Stuiso paid Security $3,250 as partial payment of the premiums on the policies and also applied for premium financing through Security. At least $3,000 was paid by check; the evidence is not clear how the other $250 was paid. The $3,000 check was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. It is not clear what happened to the other $250. It was understood between Stuiso and Security that Security would have the applications processed and would inform Stuiso if there was any problem with coverage. Not having heard anything to the contrary, Stuiso believed he had the general liability and workmen's compensation insurance for which he had applied. In fact, Security never processed either application for insurance or either application for premium financing. In late July or early August, 1989, Stuiso requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to a customer, APCO Building Systems of Oldsmar, Florida. On August 4, 1989, Security issued to APCO a certificate that Stuiso had both general liability insurance with American Professional Insurance Company and workmen's compensation insurance with "South Atlantic Council on Work Comp." Purported policy numbers also appeared on the certificate. When Stuiso never received a payment book for his premium financing, he became concerned about his coverage and was about to approach the Department for assistance when he received a telephone call from a Department investigator who had been investigating the Respondent (unbeknownst to the Respondent.) The investigator told Stuiso that he had no coverage. Stuiso then approached the Respondent and asked for a refund. The Respondent checked his records and asked his unlicensed employees about Stuiso's claim that he had paid for and applied for insurance that never issued. He learned for the first time the facts about Stuiso and immediately wrote Stuiso two refund checks, one for $3,000 and one for $250. Due to the financial problems the Respondent was having, his $3,00 check was returned for insufficient funds. The Respondent tried to borrow the money to cover the $3,000 check from a friend who declined on advice of counsel. Stuiso then went to the police and had the Respondent charged with writing a worthless check. The Respondent was advised of this and turned himself in to the police. He was given a week to make good on the check. The Respondent was able to borrow the money from another friend and paid Stuiso in full. However, his encounter with the police brought home to him the depths to which he had sunk. He decided to commit suicide by monoxide poisoning but changed his mind before it was too late. He telephoned his wife in Tampa to report what he had just done, and she initiated steps to have him committed involuntarily for treatment for mental illness under Florida's Baker Act. He spent four days in the Community Hospital in New Port Richey, Florida, where he was diagnosed as having "adjustment reaction." He was released to the custody of his wife and spent the next week to ten days with her in Tampa. After the Respondent recovered, he decided to do whatever was necessary to save his business and pay off his debts. He laid off office staff and, to take up the slack, himself assumed the responsibilities he had been delegating to his unlicensed employees. He also decided, in light of the Harry's and Stuiso matters, to himself investigate to see if there were any other Security customers who did not have insurance coverage for which they had paid. He found Wanda Mae Riley (Custom Plumbing of Pasco, Inc.). Wanda Mae Riley (Count II). In about August, 1988, the Respondent himself called on Wanda Mae Riley of Custom Plumbing of Pasco County to advise her that the company's general liability and automobile insurance policies for its fleet of four trucks were up for annual renewal on August 24, 1988. The Respondent filled out applications for renewal of the policies and for premium financing and accepted Riley's check in the amount of $3,244 as down payment for the renewal policies. The $3,244 was deposited into Security's general operating account which Security used to pay the operating expenses of the business. The Respondent telephoned American Professional Insurance Company to bind the coverage. He or his office also issued proof of insurance identification cards for Custom Plumbing. But, for reasons he cannot explain (having no recollection), he never processed the applications and the binders expired when the applications were not processed and policies were not issued in the normal course of business. Having had a lapse of memory as to the matter and as to Security's responsibilities to Custom Plumbing, the Respondent did not know and never told Riley or Custom Plumbing that the insurance policies were not renewed and that Custom Plumbing did not have the coverage it thought it did. Later in 1988, Security also arranged for workmen's compensation insurance for Custom Plumbing. The evidence did not prove that there were problems in the way Security obtained this coverage for Custom Plumbing. In approximately April, 1989, Custom Plumbing requested that Security furnish a certificate of insurance for him to provide to the Barnett Bank of Hernando County. On April 21, 1989, Security issued to the bank a certificate that Custom Plumbing had automobile insurance with American Professional Insurance Company. The expired binder number (which perhaps was the same as the policy number of the prior year's policy) appeared on the certificate as the purported policy number. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally was involved in providing this certificate of insurance. When, in approximately late October or early November of 1989, the Respondent discovered that Security had not obtained the coverages for which Custom Plumbing had made down payments in August, 1988, he telephoned Riley to inform her 2/ and tell her that he would refund the down payments Custom Plumbing had made in August, 1988. When the refund was not made promptly, Riley went to a lawyer to have a promissory note drawn for the Respondent's signature. The promissory note reflected the $3,244 the Respondent owed to Custom Plumbing, payable $500 a month. On or about December 9, 1989, the Respondent signed the note, which was paid in full in accordance with the terms of the note. (As previously found in Finding 14, by this time the Respondent also had heard from Nelson.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Robert Charles Anderson, guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, III, V and VI of the Administrative Complaint, as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, above; and (2) suspending the Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure for six months. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against him, as modified at hearing, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' Statement of Facts Admitted3: Respondent has been employed by Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc. (Direct General) for the past five years. He is the manager of a Direct General office located at 7558 West Commercial Boulevard, Lauderhill, Florida. This has been Respondent's principal business address since September 2005. Prior to September 2005, Respondent was the manager of a Direct General office located at 8300 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. Respondent did not notify Petitioner of this September 2005 change of his principal business address within 60 days of the change. He assumed, erroneously it turns out, that Direct General's "licensing department" would inform Petitioner of the change. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent, as a licensed agent acting on behalf of Direct General, sold automobile insurance, along with three ancillary or "add-on" products. The three "add-on" products Respondent sold were an accident medical protection plan, a travel protection plan, and a term life insurance policy (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Add-Ons"). From September 2003 to May 2006, Respondent sold these Add-Ons to approximately 1300 customers, including Ms. Roberts- Hall, Mr. Bentivegna, and Mr. Moore. For his efforts on behalf of Direct General, Respondent was paid an hourly wage, plus a commission for each of the Add- Ons he sold. He did not receive a commission for any automobile insurance policy sales he made. Direct General had sales goals with respect to Add-Ons that it expected its agents to meet. How well an agent did in meeting these goals was an "important factor" in the job performance evaluation the agent received annually from his supervisor (as Respondent was aware). An agent's failure to meet a particular goal, however, did not inevitably lead to the "fir[ing]" of the agent. Nonetheless, it was obviously in the agent's best interest to sell as many Add-Ons as possible. Respondent's supervisor was Sara Silot, a Direct General District Manager. In addition to an annual job performance evaluation, Ms. Silot provided Respondent, as well as her other subordinates, with regular feedback during the course of the year regarding their Add-On sales numbers. Each of the customers (Ms. Roberts-Hall, Mr. Bentivegna, and Mr. Moore, hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Complaining Customers") referenced in Counts I through VII and XV through XVIII of the Amended Administrative Complaint (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "remaining sliding counts") purchased the policies referenced in these counts in person at Respondent's office, where they were given paperwork to review and to then initial, sign, and/or date in numerous places in order to consummate the transaction. This paperwork consisted of, depending on the transaction, as few as 14, and as many as 20, pages of various documents (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Transactional Paperwork"). The Transactional Paperwork clearly and conspicuously informed the reader, consistent with what Petitioner orally explained at the time of purchase to each of the Complaining Customers, that the Add-Ons being purchased were optional policies that were separate and distinct from the automobile insurance policy also being purchased and that these Add-Ons carried charges in addition to the automobile insurance policy premium. In providing his oral explanation to the Complaining Customers, Respondent circled (with a writing utensil) language in the Transactional Paperwork that conveyed this information about the Add-Ons. His purpose in doing so was to bring this language to the attention of the Complaining Customers. In view of the contents of the Transactional Paperwork, including the portions highlighted by Respondent, and what Respondent told the Complaining Customers concerning the Add-Ons, it was reasonable for Respondent to believe that the Complaining Customers were informed about the Add-On products they were being sold and were (by executing the paperwork) consenting to purchase them. The Transactional Paperwork included, among other things, a one-page Accident Medical Protection Plan form; a one- page Accident Medical Protection Plan Application form; a one- page American Bankers Insurance Company Optional Travel Protection Plan form; a one-page Statement of Policy Cost and Benefit Information-One Year Term Life Insurance Policy form; a one-page Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown form; a multi-page Premium Finance Agreement; and a one-page Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure form. Among the information contained on the top half of the Accident Medical Protection Plan form was the cost of the plan. The bottom half of the form read as follows: THIS IS A LIMITED POLICY. READ IT CAREFULLY. I the undersigned understand and acknowledge that: This Policy does not provide Liability Coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, nor does it meet any Financial Responsibility Law. I am electing to purchase an optional coverage that is not required by the State of Florida. My agent has provided me with an outline of coverage and a copy of this acknowledgment. If I decide to select another option or cancel this policy, I must notify the company or my agent in writing. I agree that if my down payment or full payment check is returned for any reason, coverage will be null and void from the date of inception. Insured's Signature Date I HEREBY REJECT THIS VALUABLE COVERAGE: Insured's Signature Date The Accident Medical Protection Plan Application form indicated what the annual premium was for each of the three categories of coverage offered: individual, husband and wife, and family. The top half of the American Bankers Insurance Company Optional Travel Protection Plan form summarized the benefits available under the plan. The bottom half of the form read as follows: Please Read Your Policy Carefully for a Full Explanation of Benefits Purchasing the Optional Travel Protection Plan is not a condition of purchasing your automobile liability policy. I hereby acknowledge I am purchasing an Optional Travel Protection Plan, and that I have received a copy of this acknowledgement. ___ ____ Insured's Signature Date I HEREBY REJECT THIS VALUABLE COVERAGE: Insured's Signature ____ Date The Statement of Policy Cost and Benefit Information- One Year Term Life Insurance Policy form noted the amount of the "Annual Premium for this policy" and that the "Annual Premium included a $10.00 policy fee that [was] fully earned." On the Explanation of Policies, Coverages and Cost Breakdown form, the Add-Ons were listed under the heading of "optional Policies" and the cost of each Add-On was separately stated. The first page of the Premium Finance Agreement also contained an itemization of the cost of each Add-On, as did the Insurance Premium Financing Disclosure form. On this latter form, the Add-Ons were included in a section entitled "Optional insurance coverage." The form also advised, in its prefatory paragraph, that: Florida law requires the owner of a motor vehicle to maintain Personal Injury Protection and Property Damage liability insurance. Under certain circumstances as provided in Chapter 324, Florida Statutes, additional liability insurance may be required for Bodily Injury liability. Also, additional insurance is usually required by a lienholder of a financed vehicle. Florida law does not require other insurance. The direct or indirect premium financing of auto club membership and other non-insurance products is prohibited by state law. Each of the Complaining Customers was capable of reading the above-described documents and understanding that purchasing the Add-Ons was optional, not mandatory, and involved an additional cost.4 Respondent gave each of them as much time as they wanted to read these documents, and he did not refuse to answer any of their questions. Ms. Roberts-Hall rejected the travel protection plan, and signed and dated the American Bankers Insurance Company Optional Travel Protection Plan form so indicating, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Mr. Bentivegna rejected the term life insurance policy, as documented by his signature next to the word "Rejected," which was written in by hand at the bottom of the Statement of Policy Cost and Benefit Information-One Year Term Life Insurance Policy form. As noted above, unlike Mr. Bentivegna, Ms. Roberts- Hall and Mr. Moore each signed up for a term life insurance policy. On Mr. Moore's Application for Life Insurance, his three children, Melissa Moore, Kenneth Moore, Jr., and Timothy Brown-Moore, were named as "Beneficiar[ies]." While Kenneth Moore, Jr., and Timothy Brown-Moore were listed as "Members of Applicant's Household" on Mr. Moore's application for automobile insurance, Melissa Moore (who, at the time, was away at college) was not. Elsewhere on Mr. Moore's Application for Life Insurance, in the "Insurability Data" section, the question, "Have you during the past two (2) years had, or been told you have, or been treated for . . . a) Heart trouble or high blood pressure?" was answered, incorrectly, in the negative. Mr. Moore placed his initials next to this answer. Several days after her May 2004 purchases, Ms. Roberts-Hall telephoned Respondent and told him that she was having second thoughts about her accident medical protection plan purchase. Respondent suggested that she come to his office and speak with him in person, which she did. During this follow-up visit, Respondent went over with her the benefits of the plan, after which she told him that she was going to keep the coverage. Ms. Roberts-Hall took no action to cancel either of the Add-Ons (the accident medical protection plan and term life insurance policy) she had purchased in May 2004. In fact, she renewed these coverages in May 2005 and again in May 2006 (along with her automobile insurance policy). Prior to these renewals, in February 2005, when contacted by one of Petitioner's investigators who was conducting an investigation of possible "sliding" by Respondent, Ms. Roberts-Hall had expressed her displeasure that Respondent had "given her these additional products." Mr. Bentivegna and Mr. Moore were also contacted by Petitioner's investigative staff to discuss the Add-On purchases they had made from Respondent. Mr. Moore was contacted approximately ten months after his May 2004 purchases. The three Add-Ons he had purchased were still in effect at the time, but he took no action to cancel any of these policies. He did not renew them, however; nor did he do any other business with Respondent following his May 2004 purchases. Petitioner's policy is have its investigators "make it very clear from the beginning," when interviewing aggrieved consumers, that no promises are being made that these consumers will be "getting their money back" if they cooperate in the investigation. It does not appear that there was any deviation from this policy in Petitioner's investigation of Respondent. The investigation of Respondent led to the charges against him that are the subject of the instant case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of committing the violation of Section 626.551, Florida Statutes, alleged in Count X of the Amended Administrative Complaint, fining him $250.00 for such violation, and dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2007.
