Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ralph Edward Carter, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a life and health insurance agent and general lines agent - property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous lines by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed as a property and casualty insurance agent for Bankers Insurance Company (BIC) and Underwriters Guarantee Insurance Company (UGIC). In March 1987 respondent purchased an insurance franchise and began operating an insurance firm under the corporate name of Mr. Auto of South St. Petersburg, Inc. Records on file with the Department of State reflect that effective June 25, 1988 the name of the corporation was changed to Reliable Insurance of South St. Petersburg, Inc. Since February 1989 the business has been located at 3135 18th Avenue, South, No. C- 3, St. Petersburg, Florida. The corporation was primarily engaged in doing business as a general lines insurance agency. Respondent has been licensed as an agent since 1968, and during his tenure as an agent, has worked in sales with several large insurance companies. In January 1988 Betty Andrews purchased from respondent liability and property damage coverage on her two automobiles, a 979 Ford station wagon and a 1980 Chrysler. The insurance was written through UGIC and was effective for the year beginning January 8, 1988. Shortly after May 16, 1988 Andrews received a notice from UGIC reflecting that she owed an additional $38.90 on her policy. For some undisclosed reason, Andrews did not pay the additional premium owed. On July 6, 1988 Andrews visited respondent's office for the purpose of adding comprehensive and collision coverage on her two automobiles. After respondent quoted a rate, she agreed to purchase the additional coverage, filled out an application, and gave respondent two checks totaling $166. These monies were deposited into respondent's business account. The balance was to be paid in three monthly payments of approximately $55 each month through a finance company. Respondent gave Andrews a document entitled "Receipt and Binder Certificate" reflecting she had comprehensive and collision coverage with "Bankers" effective from July 6, 1988 to January 6, 1989. "Bankers" was in fact Bankers Insurance Company. When Andrews did not receive a policy from BIC, she attempted to contact respondent on several occasions to ascertain its whereabouts. Andrews could not recall when or how many times she telephoned respondent's office but indicated she was never able to reach him. This was probably because respondent operated a one-man office with no clerical help and was frequently absent from his office. In late August 1988 Andrews received a notice from UGIC advising that UGIC intended to cancel her policy effective September 7, 1988 because she failed to pay the $38.90 premium still due. At about this same time Andrews' husband sold the station wagon and purchased a truck. Accordingly, Andrews needed to transfer her insurance to the new vehicle. She went to respondent's office in early September 1988 and asked him why she had never received the new policy. She also asked him to find out why her existing policy was being cancel led and requested him to transfer coverage from the station wagon to the new truck. In Andrews' presence, respondent made a telephone call to UGIC and learned that Andrews' husband had failed to disclose on the insurance application that he had received a traffic ticket. This in turn caused a $38.90 increase in the annual premium, and because that amount had not been paid, the policy was being cancelled. Respondent attempted to persuade UGIC to reinstate the policy but was unsuccessful. Dissatisfied, Andrews told respondent she intended to file a complaint with the Department of Insurance. Respondent then wrote her a check for $166 which represented a full refund of her monies. There is no evidence to establish that respondent intended to defraud Andrews or to evade the requirements of the insurance code. Despite the fact that Andrews did not receive a policy, she was covered until September 1988 by her original policy and respondent's errors and omissions policy. Through testimony by an underwriting manager for BIC, David R. Wardlow, it was established that respondent had entered into a correspondent agreement with an agent of BIC. Wardlow's review of BIC's records reflected that BIC had never received Andrews' application and premium nor was a policy written on her behalf. However, there was no evidence to establish how promptly respondent was required to remit a new application and premium to BIC or whether respondent violated BIC policy by retaining the application and monies for some sixty days until he learned that the existing policy had been cancel led. Respondent readily conceded that he never forwarded the application and premium monies to BIC. He explained his actions by pointing out that after Andrews left his office he decided to secure the coverage from UGIC rather than BIC in order to have the entire coverage with one company at a cheaper rate. When he later learned that UGIC intended to cancel Andrews' policy for nonpayment of premium, he thought he might be able to persuade UGIC to reinstate the policy but was unsuccessful. He offered no excuse except inadvertence as to why he had not promptly followed up on Andrews' application. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Johnnie Ruth Bell who purchased automobile insurance from respondent in October 1988. Although Bell's testimony was often vague and confusing, the following facts were established. On or about October 1, 1988 Bell went to respondent's office to purchase full insurance coverage on her 1987 Toyota Corolla. After discussing various options with respondent, Bell agreed to purchase a policy issued through Redmond-Adams, a Sarasota underwriter for UGIC. Bell gave respondent a check in the amount of $227 as a down payment and agreed to finance the balance through a finance company at a rate of $78 per month for eight months. These monies were deposited into respondent's bank account. Respondent issued a "Receipt and Binder Certificate" reflecting coverage with "Underwriter - Redmond Adams". Because Bell had financed the car with a local bank, it was necessary for respondent to furnish the bank with evidence of insurance. Through inadvertence, but not intentionally or willfully, respondent misplaced the application and never forwarded the application and premium to the insurance company nor did he notify the bank of Bell's insurance coverage. However, Bell was covered during this period of time by respondent's errors and omissions policy. After Bell did not receive a copy of her policy from Redmond-Adams, but received a number of telephone calls and notices from her bank, she met with respondent around December 2, 1988. Respondent accepted an additional $156 in cash from Bell and issued her a new binder effective that date which was identical to the first binder except for the date. It is unknown why the additional money was collected. He then tore up the first binder. When Bell had still not received her policy by April 1989, she filed a complaint with petitioner. After respondent learned that Bell had filed a complaint, he contacted her in May 1989 and refunded all of her monies. There was no evidence to establish how promptly respondent was required to submit applications and premiums to UGIC or how that company construed the term "in the regular course of business" in the context of agents remitting applications and premiums. Respondent blamed his problems on the fact that he is the sole employee of his office and, according to his estimate, services some 500 active clients per year and more than 1,500 accounts. He desires to continue in the insurance profession and points to the fact that, of the many insurance transactions handled by him over the last twenty-two years, the Andrews and Bell transactions are the only two that have spawned any significant problems. Moreover, he has never been disciplined by petitioner during his tenure as an agent. Respondent asks that any penalty be limited to a period of probation during which time he can have the opportunity to improve his management and bookkeeping skills. There was no evidence to establish whether respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the insurance profession. As to respondent's knowledge and technical competence to engage in the transactions authorized by his licenses, he conceded he lacks training in bookkeeping and management skills, both needed for a general lines agent, but denied that he lacks the necessary skills in the sales part of the business. This was not contradicted. Finally, respondent has taken curative steps to insure that applications are not misplaced and the customer receives the requested insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating sections 626.611(8) and 626.734 and that his general lines license be suspended for thirty days. All other charges should be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13 day of March, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 5-7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 8-11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. Respondent: A Partially adopted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Rejected since respondent did not move his office until February 1989. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. I. Partially adopted in findings of fact 3 and 8. Partially adopted in findings of' fact 7 and 8. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Note - Where a finding has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, cumulative, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner Plaza Level, The Capital Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Willis F. Melvin, Jr., Esquire 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Richard J. DaFonte, Esquire O. Box 41750 St. Petersburg, FL 33743-1750 Donald A. Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are (1) whether respondent's licenses as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, life agent, life and health agent, general lines agent and health agent should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the amended administrative complaint, and (2) whether respondent's applications for the issuance and renewal of a resident license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Stephen Schnur, was licensed and eligible for licensure as a life and health (debit) agent, life, health and variable annuity contracts agent, life agent, life and health agent, general lines agent - property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous lines, and health agent by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). When the events herein occurred, respondent was licensed as a property and casualty insurance agent for Clarendon National Insurance Company (CNIC) and had placed his license as a general lines agent with Devor Insurance Agency (DIA), an incorporated general lines insurance agency located at 6611 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida. He has been licensed by petitioner for approximately nineteen years. In August 1987 respondent was associated with Bill Ely Insurance (Ely) in Tampa, Florida. Because that firm was unable to write automobile insurance on young drivers, Schnur referred some of Ely's business to DIA, a firm owned by one Marcia Cline, who held no insurance licenses. In September 1987 Schnur received an offer from Cline of a weekly salary of $150 if he would place his property and casualty general lines agency license with DIA. After obtaining independent verification from petitioner that DIA had no pending "problems", and accepting Cline's representation, albeit false, that the firm had an errors and omissions policy, respondent accepted Cline's offer and placed his license with DIA effective that month. He continued to utilize his other licenses to sell insurance for Ely, his principal employer. It should also be noted that another unnamed general lines agent had placed her license at DIA during this same period of time. At first Schnur attempted to review all automobile insurance applications received by DIA. However, because of his duties at Ely, he was unable to devote more than a few hours per week to DIA. In view of this, he agreed to sign in blank applications and binders for Cline to use in his absence. In doing so, he relied upon Cline's honesty and integrity and assumed she would forward all applications and premiums to the insurance company and secure coverage for DIA's customers. Under this arrangement, Cline was considered to be an employee of DIA and operating under Schnur's direct supervision and control. In October 1987 five customers purchased various types of automobile insurance from Cline. 1/ Each customer gave Cline either cash or checks as payment for their policies. Although none of the customers met with or spoke with respondent, and dealt exclusively with Cline, each received a binder from Cline signed by respondent evidencing insurance with CNIC. In addition, Cline gave each customer a receipt of payment also carrying respondent's signature. As it turned out, Cline did not process the applications or forward them to CNIC. She also failed to remit any monies to the insurance company. Consequently, none of the customers received a policy from CNIC or any other insurance company. However, respondent had no reason to suspect anything since he periodically examined the office files during this period of time and found all documents in order. On January 3, 1988, respondent learned from other office personnel that there was a problem with Cline's handling of insurance applications. He immediately telephoned petitioner's Tampa district office the same day and advised that DIA applications were found unprocessed and in the waste basket. When Schnur asked if he should pull his license from DIA, he was told by petitioner's representative not to do anything. In the meantime, the other general lines agent at DIA pulled her license and left the state. On January 28, 1988 DIA sent a form letter to various customers, including the five who had purchased policies in October 1987. The letter read as follows: Dear We are writing you this letter concerning the insurance policy which you sought through our agency. Please consider this letter as official notification from our agency that you need to purchase insurance coverage from another agency or agencies as soon as possible. You have no insurance coverage on your vehicle or vehicles. Again, you must secure insurance on your vehicle or vehicles immediately, as in today!! Sincerely, Devor Insurance Agency It should be noted that none of the five customers received any refund of monies. In early February 1988 respondent pulled his license with DIA. Since then, he has worked full-time with Ely. Respondent has fully cooperated with the Department during the course of this investigation. At hearing, Schnur was can did and forthright and admitted he used extremely poor judgment in signing in blank the binders and receipts and relying on Cline's honesty. However, there was no intent on his part to violate the insurance code or otherwise harm the customers. He strongly desires to continue in the insurance profession, a field in which he has worked without a blemish for the last nineteen years. His present employer, Ely, has expressed complete trust and confidence in Schnur, allows him to handle all of the firm's money, and intends to reward him with a part ownership of that business. Other than the charges set forth in the pending amended administrative complaint, there is no basis upon which to deny the applications for renewal and issuance of a resident license.
Conclusions Paragraph 2 of Petitioner's exceptions takes exception to the Hearing Officer's Statement of the Issues, Preliminary Statement, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation because none of these sections of the Recommended Order address the April 9, 1990 denial of the renewal of Respondent's resident license to represent C M Life Insurance Company as a life and health insurance agent. Petitioner filed a motion for consolidation regarding the April 9 denial on April 17, 1990. Although the record contains no Order ruling on-the last motion for consolidation, it appears that the parties agreed that the April 9 denial be considered together with the administrative complaint and the denial of Respondent's application to represent United States Life Insurance Company of NY as a life and health insurance agent (February 14, 1990) and the denial of Respondent's application to represent Acceleration Life Insurance Company as a life and health insurance agent (April 6, 1990). Because the three denials of Respondent's applications for licensure or renewal of licensure were based upon the allegations in the administrative complaint in this case, all three denials (February 14, April 6, and April 9, 1990) will be consolidated with the administrative complaint for disposition by this Final Order. Accordingly, Petitioner's exception numbered 2 is accepted. RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Paragraph 3 of Petitioner's Exceptions takes exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law numbered 4 because that Conclusion of Law refers to Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes, which was not alleged in the administrative complaint, and the Conclusion of Law does not refer to Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes. Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes addresses misrepresentations by insurance claims adjusters or agents in effecting claims settlements. Clearly, Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes has no application to the instant case, and violation of that section was not charged in the administrative complaint. On the other hand, Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes lists the demonstration of lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance as grounds for the-suspension or revocation of an insurance agent's license. This statute was included in the charges in each count of the administrative complaint. The hearing officer apparently considered Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes, in his Conclusions of Law numbered 3 and 4. Accordingly, the citation to Section 626.611(6), Florida Statutes is deemed to be a typographical error and it is assumed that Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes was the intended citation. In light of the foregoing, Petitioner's exception in Paragraph 3 is accepted. RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDATION Paragraph 4 of Petitioner's Exceptions takes exception to the Hearing Officer's Recommendation that Respondent's license be suspended for fifteen (15) days and that Respondent's applications for licensure be granted after the expiration of the fifteen-day suspension. After a complete evaluation of the record the hearing officer's recommended penalty of a 15-day suspension and acceptance of Respondent's applications after the 15-day suspension is hereby rejected for the following reasons: The Hearing Officer found, in Findings of Fact numbered 2, that Respondent accepted an offer to "place" his general lines insurance agent license with Marcia Cline, an unlicensed person. This finding is supported by the Respondent's testimony at hearing. (Tr. 71, 72) Respondent was compensated with a weekly salary of $150. (Tr. 72); The Hearing Officer found, in Findings of Fact numbered 3, that Respondent had signed, in blank, applications and binders for Cline to use in Respondent's absence. This finding is supported by Respondent's testimony at hearing. (Tr. 72, 79, 81); The Hearing Officer concluded, in Conclusions of Law numbered 4, that Cline wrongfully withheld premiums from the insurer, made willful misrepresentations to her customers, demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness, engaged in fraudulent and dishonest practices, and misappropriated monies belonging to others, as proscribed by sections 626.561(1), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9) and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer further concluded that Respondent is responsible for Cline's wrongdoing pursuant to Section 626.734, Florida Statutes. (Concl. of Law #4); The Hearing Officer was of the opinion that Respondent was "the victim of circumstances which happened to place his license with the wrong person at the wrong time, and because of poor judgment, is now saddled with Cline's misconduct." (Concl. of Law #5). This circumstance, together with the facts that Respondent immediately notified the Department when he learned that Cline had misused his license (Finding of Fact #6) and that Respondent was candid and forthright under oath at the hearing of this matter and admitted that he used poor judgment (Finding of Fact *8), led the Hearing Officer to recommend the 15- day suspension. It should be noted that Respondent voluntarily "placed" his license with an unlicensed individual. (Tr. 71, 72). Not only was this "placing" of the license the result of poor judgment, but it is prohibited by Section 626.441, Florida Statutes. That section provides: 626.441 License or permit: transferability.--A license or permit issued under this part is valid only as to the person named and is not transferable to another person. S626.441, Fla. Stat. Accordingly, it is illegal to place an insurance agent's license on the wall of an agency in order to assist unlicensed persons in selling or servicing insurance policies in the absence of the licensed agent. However, because a violation of Section 626.441, Florida Statutes was not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, this final order does not rule on that issue. Additionally, agents are prohibited from supplying blank forms, applications and other supplies to unlicensed persons for use in soliciting, negotiating, or effecting contracts of insurance. S626.342, Fla. Stat. Respondent admitted that he signed blank applications and binders for Cline, an unlicensed individual, to use in his absence. (Fact Stipulation of March 5, 1990; Finding of Fact *3). Violation of Section 626.342, Florida Statutes was not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and is not addressed by this Order. While Respondent was not charged with violation of Sections 626.342 and 626.441, Florida Statutes in the Administrative Complaint, his "poor judgment" in becoming involved in this illegal arrangement is an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor in this case. Accordingly, this aggravating factor should be considered together with the mitigating factors referred to by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer concluded that Respondent is liable for the acts of Cline while his license and signature were used by Cline, and that therefore, Respondent is guilty of violating five subsections of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes. Section 626.611, Florida Statutes compels the Department of Insurance to deny, suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew or continue the license of any agent who commits any of the acts listed in Section 626.611, Florida Statutes. However, the mitigating factors found by the Hearing Officer in Conclusion of Law numbered 5, namely Respondent's immediate notification of the Department when he learned of possible wrongdoing and Respondent's cooperation in the investigation, make the 15-day suspension an appropriate, if lenient, penalty in this case. However, the aggravating factor of the improper situation entered into by Respondent in "placing" his license and supplying forms to Cline renders acceptance of Respondent's applications at the end of the 15-day suspension period inappropriate in this case. Petitioner's exception to the Hearing Officer's Recommendation is therefore accepted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: That the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted in toto as the Department's Findings of Fact. That the Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted in toto with the exceptions noted above; That the recommendation of the Hearing Officer is hereby rejected for the reasons set forth in paragraph 4 above, Ruling on Petitioner's Exception to Recommendation; That Respondent is guilty of violating subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(1), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), and 626.611(10), Florida Statutes; That as a result of Respondent's violations of the above referenced statutes, the licenses and eligibility for licensure of Respondent, Steven Schnur, are hereby SUSPENDED for a period of fifteen (15) days, effective upon the date of this Order. The denial letters dated February 14, 1990, April 6, 1990, and April 9, 1990 are hereby AFFIRMED. Upon expiration of the suspension period, Respondent is free to reapply for any insurance licenses, and the Department of Insurance shall not deny Respondent's applications based upon any of the facts and circumstances at issue in this action. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120,68, Florida Statutes and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 412 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0300, and a copy of the same with the appropriate district court of appeal within thirty (30) days of the rendition this Order. ORDERED this 21 day of June , 1990. TOM GALLAGHER Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Honorable Donald R. Alexander Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Alan J. Kerben, Esquire 8814 Rocky Creek Drive Tampa, FL 33615 C. Christopher Anderson, III, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating subsections 626.561(1) and 626.611(5),(6),(9) and (10) that his licenses be suspended for fifteen days. The other charge should be dismissed with prejudice. It is further recommended that his applications for renewal and issuance of resident licenses be approved after the suspension is lifted. DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administative 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 19 day of April, 1990.
The Issue Whether the School Board of Broward County's award of a contract for Excess General and Auto Liability insurance coverage to United National Insurance Company is barred because of illegality?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Ranger Insurance Company, Petitioner, is the holder of a Certificate of Authority dated September 9, 1996 and issued by the Department of Insurance and Bill Nelson, Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer. Good through June 1, 1997, the certificate authorizes Ranger to write in a number of lines of insurance business, including, Private Passenger Auto Liability, Commercial Automobile Liability, Private Passenger Automobile Auto Physical Damage, Commercial Auto Physical Damage and Other Liability. As such, Ranger is an "authorized" or "admitted" insurer in the State of Florida. L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., is a joint venture and co- petitioner with Ranger in this proceeding through whom Ranger proposed to procure the Excess General and Auto Liability (“Excess GL/AL”) coverage. A timely proposal under Request for Proposal 97- 072S was submitted to the School Board of Broward County by the petitioners to provide the Excess GL/AL Insurance Coverage sought by the RFP. United National Insurance Company is an "eligible" surplus lines insurer, approved by the Florida Department of Insurance to transact all surplus lines coverages in the State of Florida and licensed as such. The Department has notified insurance agents of United Nation's eligibility as a surplus lines insurer since 1978. It is the insurer of the Excess General and Excess Auto Liability insurance coverage awarded by the School Board under RFP 97-072S. Arthur J. Gallagher & Company ("Gallagher,") is the eighth largest insurance broker in the world. It has four sales offices, nine service offices, and approximately 150 employees in the State of Florida alone. The office from which it conducted business related to this proceeding is in Boca Raton, Florida, an office for which Area President David L. Marcus is responsible. Gallagher submitted a timely proposal (the "Gallagher proposal,") in response to the RFP on behalf of United National. The School Board of Broward County is the authority that operates, controls, and supervises all free public schools in the Broward County School District, "[i]n accordance with the provisions of s. (4)(b) of Article IX of the State Constitution ...". Section 230.03(2), F.S. In accord with its powers, the School Board may contract directly to purchase insurance. It is not required by its purchasing rules to use a competitive bidding or procurement process to purchase insurance. Nonetheless, on Friday, April 26, 1996, it issued a request for proposals, the RFP at issue in this proceeding, for insurance coverages including for Excess GL/AL insurance coverages. Siver Insurance Management Consultants Siver Insurance Management Consultants ("Siver,") are the drafters of RFP 97-072S. The School Board relied on Siver to draft the RFP, particularly its technical sections. Technical review of the proposals made under the RFP was conducted by Siver. And Siver put together for the School Board's use a summary of the policies proposed by both United National and Ranger. The summary was considered by the School Board's Evaluation Committee when it evaluated the competing proposals. The determination of whether the competing proposers were properly licensed was made by Siver. The School Board's Evaluation Committee, indeed the School Board, itself, played no role in determining the licensing credentials of the proposers while the proposals were under consideration. Under the arrangement between Siver and the School Board, however, the School Board retained the primary responsibility for administering the RFP. The RFP Request for Proposal 97-072S was mailed to 324 vendors (prospective proposers) the same day as its issuance, April 26, 1996. None of the vendors knew the contents of the RFP until it was issued. The RFP sought proposals for seven coverages, each of which was severable from the remainder of the coverages and was allowed to be proposed separately. The scope of the request was described in the RFP as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida ... is seeking proposals for various insurance coverages and risk management services. To facilitate distribution of the underwriting data and the requirements for each of the coverages, this consolidated Request for Proposals ... has been prepared. However, each of the coverages is severable and may be proposed separately. The following are included: Boiler & Machinery Excess General and Automobile Liability Excess Workers' Compensation School Leaders Errors & Omissions Crime Including Employee Dishonesty - Faithful Performance, Depositor's Forgery Claim and Risk Management Services (Including Managed Care Services) Statutory Death Benefits Petitioner's Ex. 1, pg. I-1. Since the seven coverages are severable and no proposer had to submit a proposal on all seven coverages, one way of looking at RFP 97-072S is as a consolidated RFP composed of seven, separate proposals, each for a different type of insurance coverage. Of the 324 vendors to whom the RFP was sent, only two, Gallagher, on behalf of United National, and Ranger, through the action of the joint venture, submitted proposals with respect to the Excess GL/AL coverages. Reasons for Using an RFP The School Board, under the auspices of Siver, chose to seek insurance coverage through an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid, or what is colloquially referred to as a "straight bid," for a number of reasons. As one familiar with RFPs and Invitations to Bid might expect, the School Board and Siver were attracted to the RFP by the increased flexibility it offered in the ultimate product procured in comparison to the potentially less flexible product that would be procured through an invitation to bid. More pertinent to this case, however, Siver chose to use an RFP for the School Board in this case because "as explained ... by the Department of Insurance over the ... years, while there may... [be a] prohibition against any surplus lines agents submitting a straight bid, there would not be a prohibition against a ... [surplus lines] agent responding to a request for proposal " (Tr. 149.) The RFP approach was not chosen, however, in order to avoid any legal requirement or to circumvent the Insurance Code. As explained by Mr. Marshall, the approach was born of hard reality: Id. [O]ne of the primary motivations [for using an RFP rather than an Invitation to Bid] was to allow us [The School Board and Siver] to consider surplus lines companies because of the fact that very often they were the only insurers that would respond on the number of coverages and clients that we were working for. The Insurance Code and the Surplus Lines Law The Insurance Code in Section 624.401, Florida Statutes, requires generally that an insurer be authorized by the Department of Insurance (the "Department,") to transact business in the State of Florida before it does so: (1) No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to the insurer by the department, except as to such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in this code. One place in the code where transactions are "expressly otherwise provided for ...," is in the Surplus Lines Law, Section 626.913 et seq., Florida Statues. The purposes of the law are described as follows: It is declared that the purposes of the Surplus Lines Law are to provide for orderly access for the insuring public of this state to insurers not authorized to transact insurance in this state, through only qualified, licensed, and supervised surplus lines agents resident in this state, for insurance coverages and to the extent thereof not procurable from authorized insurers, who under the laws of this state must meet certain standards as to policy forms and rates, from unwarranted competition by unauthorized insurers who, in the absence of this law, would not be subject to similar requirements; and for other purposes as set forth in this Surplus Lines Law. Section 626.913(2), F.S. Surplus lines insurance is authorized in the first instance only if coverages cannot be procured from authorized insurers: If certain insurance coverages of subjects resident, located, or to be performed in this state cannot be procured from authorized insurers, such coverages, hereinafter designated "surplus lines," may be procured from unauthorized insurers, subject to the following conditions: The insurance must be eligible for export under s. 626.916 or s. 626.917; The insurer must be an eligible surplus lines insurer under s. 626.917 or s. 626.918; The insurance must be so placed through a licensed Florida surplus lines agent; and The other applicable provisions of this Surplus Lines Law must be met. Section 626.915, Florida Statutes, and then only subject to certain other conditions: No insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets all of the following conditions: The full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state ... . Surplus lines agents must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring a properly documented statement of diligent effort from the retail or producing agent. However, to be in compliance with the diligent effort requirement, the surplus lines agent's reliance must be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the risk. Reasonableness shall be assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by-risk basis. It is not possible to obtain the full amount of insurance required by layering the risk, it is permissible to export the full amount. Section 626.916, F.S. Authorized vs. Unauthorized Insurers Unlike authorized insurers, unauthorized insurers do not have their rates and forms approved by the Department of Insurance, (the "Department.") Similarly, unauthorized insurers are not member of the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, which guarantees payment of claims if an insurer becomes insolvent. Unauthorized insurers may qualify to transact Florida insurance business under the Surplus Lines Law and so, for purposes of the Surplus Lines Law, be considered "eligible" to transact surplus lines business in Florida. When a Surplus Lines insurer is eligible, Department of Insurance employees refer to the insurer in Surplus Lines terms as "authorized," a term in everyday English that is synonymous with "eligible." But an eligible surplus lines insurer remains an "unauthorized" insurer when compared to an "authorized" insurer for purposes of the Insurance Code and that part of the code known as the Surplus Lines Law. Submission and Review of Proposals Both L.B. Bryan & Company, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., and Benefactor Financial Group, Inc., (the "Joint Venture") and Gallagher submitted timely proposals with regard to Excess GL/AL coverage in response to the RFP. The Joint Venture's proposal was submitted, of course, on behalf of Ranger, an authorized insurer, and Gallagher's was submitted on behalf of United National, an insurer eligible to transact insurance in the State of Florida as a surplus lines insurer but otherwise an unauthorized insurer. The School Board's Insurance Evaluation Committee met on May 30, 1996, to evaluate proposals received pursuant to the RFP. Although briefly discussed by the Evaluation Committee, the issue of proper licensing was not determined independently by the committee. Instead of making that determination, the committee turned to its insurance consultant, Siver. Siver had determined that both proposers, Ranger and United National, were properly licensed for purposes of responding to the RFP and being considered by the committee. Siver communicated that determination to the committee. The committee relied on Siver's determination. Aside from receiving Siver's determination of proper licensing when "briefly discussed" (Tr. 108,) the Evaluation Committee did not address whether either Ranger or United National were properly licensed. Certainly, no issue of whether Ranger should take precedence over United National by virtue that it was an authorized insurer when United National was an unauthorized insurer and a mere eligible Surplus Lines insurer was ever discussed by the committee. In evaluating the proposals, the Committee awarded 73 points to the Gallagher proposal and 69 points to the Ranger proposal. Points were awarded on the basis of three criteria or in three categories: Qualifications (20 points maximum); Scope of Coverages/Services Offered (30 points maximum); and, Points for Projected Costs (50 points maximum.) The Ranger proposal outscored the Gallagher proposal in the "projected cost" category, 50 to 23, but it scored lower in the "qualifications" category, 14 versus 20 for Gallagher, and significantly lower in the "scope of coverages" category, five points versus 30 for Gallagher. The United National coverage was more than twice as costly as Ranger's, a $491,000 annual premium as opposed to Ranger's $226,799, which explains the points awarded in the "projected cost" category. The Gallagher proposal received more points than the Ranger proposal in the "qualifications" category because United National has provided the School Board with Excess GL/AL coverage for a number of years and Ranger has never provided the School Board with such coverage. The Ranger proposal fell so drastically short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/services offered" category primarily because of an athletic participation exclusion appearing in a rider to the specimen policy appearing in its proposal. Ranger had intended to cover athletic participation and the rider was included with the Ranger proposal in error. Ranger notified the School Board of its intent immediately after the tabulations were released. Nonetheless, the Evaluation Committee was never informed of the error and no attempt was made by the School Board to negotiate with Ranger to improve the coverages offered, despite authority in the RFP for the School Board to negotiate with any of the proposers. (The language used in the RFP is "with one or more" of the proposers.) The Ranger proposal also fell short of the Gallagher proposal in the "scope of coverages/service offered" category because the Gallagher proposal was made in several ways. One way was as to only Excess GL/AL coverage. Another way included School Leaders' Errors and Omissions ("E & O") coverage. The E & O coverage was offered by United National in the Gallagher proposal together with the Excess GL/AL coverage in a "combined lines" package, similar to United National coverages already existing for the School Board. Furthermore, the Ranger proposal expressly excluded coverage for Abuse and Molestation, a needed coverage due to the School Board's prior claims history. On June 5, 1996, the Evaluation Committee submitted its recommendations to the School Board's Purchasing Department. With regard to GL/AL coverage, the Evaluation Committee recommended the purchase of the GL/AL/E & O "combined lines" coverage offered by Gallagher through United National. The School Board posted its Proposal Recommendation/Tabulations adopting the recommendation, two days later, on June 7, 1996. Ranger Seeks Redress from the Department Following the School Board's award, Ranger, thinking that it should have received the award under the RFP as the only authorized insurer to submit a proposal for Excess GL/AL coverage, sought redress from the Department. On June 14, 1996, Ranger personnel met with the head of the Department's Surplus Lines Section, Carolyn Daniels, alleging a violation of the Insurance Code's Surplus Lines Law. On June 18, 1996, Ranger reiterated its complaint in writing and asked Ms. Daniels to find a violation that day. On June 24, 1996, Ranger, now through its attorneys, met with Ms. Daniels and her supervisor. Again, on July 4, 1996, Ranger's attorneys wrote to Ms. Daniels, further pleading for her to find a violation and asking for an administrative hearing if Ms. Daniels did not find in favor of the Ranger position. On a fifth attempt, Ranger wrote Ms. Daniels on July 11, 1996, requesting that she adopt Ranger's position. Ms. Daniels reviewed Ranger's five complaints with her supervisor, the Chief of the Bureau of Property and Casualty Solvency and Market Conduct. In a letter dated August 14, 1996, to the School Board's Purchasing Agent, Ms. Daniels announced her determination: I did not find any evidence to indicate that Mr. David L. Marcus of Arthur J. Gallagher & Company or United National Insurance Company violated the Surplus Lines Law in providing a quote for the School Board. Intervenor's Ex. No. 2. Ms. Daniel's determination was based on a number of factors, including the School Board's position in the transaction as an "informed consumer," (Tr. 422-423,) and that the School Board had possessed a United National policy for 13 years. But, the determination was primarily based on the fact that Gallagher had received three declinations from authorized insurers to provide Excess GL/AL coverage and so had performed that which was required prior to deciding that the coverage was eligible for export and provision by a surplus lines insurer: due diligence. Due Diligence Section 626.916(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, [n]o insurance coverage shall be eligible for export unless it meets ... the following condition[]: ... [t]he full amount of insurance required must not be procurable, after a diligent effort has been made by the producing agent to do so, from among the insurers authorized to transact and actually writing that kind and class of insurance in this state, and the amount of insurance exported shall be only the excess over the amount so procurable from authorized insurers. (e.s.) The statute goes on to require that the diligent effort, "be reasonable under the particular circumstances surrounding the export of that particular risk." Reasonableness is assessed by taking into account factors which include, but are not limited to, a regularly conducted program of verification of the information provided by the retail or producing agent. Declinations must be documented on a risk-by- risk basis. Section 626.916(1)(a), F.S. "'Diligent effort' means seeking coverage from and having been rejected by at least three authorized insurers currently writing this type of coverage and documenting these rejections." Section 626.914(4), F.S. Under this definition, the "producing agent should contact at least three companies that are actually writing the types of clients and the business in the area [that they are] wanting to write." (Tr. 268.) A specific form to help insurance agents document their three rejections is adopted by Department rule. The rule provides: When placing coverage with an eligible surplus lines insurer, the surplus lines agent must verify that a diligent effort has been made by requiring from the retail or producing agent a properly documented statement of diligent effort on form DI4-1153 (7/94), "Statement of Diligent Effort", which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. Rule 4J-5.003(1), F.A.C. Fully aware of the requirement for documentation of diligent effort to find authorized insurers, and cognizant that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer could be found based on experience, Gallagher began soliciting proposals for coverage in the middle of April, 1996, several weeks before the School Board had issued the RFP. In fact, at the time that Gallagher started soliciting bids, the School Board had not yet assembled or distributed the underwriting data needed by bidders. Nonetheless, with good reason based on experience, Gallagher expected that the School Board would seek a "combined lines" package of GL/AL/E & O coverages like the School Board then received through United National, and that it would be unlikely that an authorized insurer would step forward to propose coverage. Gallagher, therefore, used the policy form current in April of 1996, that is the form providing Excess GL/AL/E & O coverage in a "combined lines" package, "as an example of what the School Board had been looking for this type of program and seeking a program similar to that and similar in coverage." (Tr. 242.) But it also sought Excess GL/AL without combination with E & O coverage. As Mr. Marcus testified, when seeking coverage from authorized insurers beginning in April of 1996, Gallagher "would be looking at a variety of different ways, whether they were package or not." (Tr. 243.) One authorized insurer, Zurich-American, declined to quote because it could not offer a combined line SIR program (a package of excess general liability and excess auto liability coverages) as requested by the RFP. Furthermore, the School Board risk was too large for Zurich-American to handle. A second authorized insurer, American International Group, declined to quote due to the School Board's adverse loss experience. A third authorized insurer, APEX/Great American, declined to provide a quote to Gallagher due to the large size of the School Board account. The responses of these three authorized insurers were listed in a Statement of Diligent Effort provided to Ms. Daniels, which she considered in determining that Gallagher and Mr. Marcus had committed no violation of the Surplus Lines Law. Gallagher also provided Ms. Daniels with a second Statement of Diligent Effort. The statement documented the attempt to attract quotes by adding a school leaders errors and omission component to the Excess GL/AL coverage. It, too, was used by Ms. Daniels in making her determination of no violation of the Surplus Lines Law by Gallagher. The same three insurers refused to quote for the "combined lines" program. Attempts by other Authorized Insurers Gallagher requested that any responses to its requests for quotes be submitted by May 10, 1996, so that it could prepare and submit its proposal by the RFP's deadline for submission of original proposals by all vendors, 2:00 p.m. May 16, 1996. One insurer, Discover Re/USF&G attempted to submit a quote on May 15, 1996, one day before the RFP deadline but five days after May 10. By then, Gallagher had already started printing its 625 page proposal. Furthermore, the company failed to provide the required policy forms until the day after the School Board's deadline for filing proposals. Coregis Insurance Company offered coverage of up to $700,000 for each claim and for each occurrence, but like Discover Re/USF&G, failed to provide the required policy forms until after the RFP deadline. Furthermore, definitive coverage under the Coregis policy would only be provided on the condition that the Florida Legislature pass a Legislative Claims bill, a limiting condition not authorized in the RFP or requested by Gallagher. American Home Assurance Company never responded to Gallagher with the School Board's required quote or policy forms. Rather, the company merely provided an "indication" that the company declined to provide a quote. An "indication" consists of an approximate premium rate, without any terms or conditions. A "quote," on the other hand, includes the terms and conditions of a policy. The Department places with the producing agent the responsibility of determining whether an insurer's communication constitutes and "indication" or a "quote." An agent, according to Ms. Daniels, can only violate the Surplus Lines Law if the agent receives a reliable quote. Gallagher even requested a quote from Ranger, despite never having been appointed to transact insurance on its behalf. But Ranger declined. In response to a request by Gallagher's minority business partner, McKinley Financial Services, Ranger, through E. Michael Hoke on American E & S letterhead, wrote in a letter dated May 6, 1996, "[w]e have received a prior submission on this account so we are returning the attached." Intervenor's Ex. No. 7. The Petition Ranger's petition for formal administrative hearing is the letter dated June 19, 1996, to the Director of Purchasing for the School Board under the signature of E. Michael Hoke, CPCU, Assistant Vice President of AES/Ranger Insurance Company. The letter asks its readers to "bear[] in mind we are not attorneys," p. 1 of the letter, before it outlines three protest issues. The third protest issue is the one about which Ms. Daniels made her determination that no violation of the statute had been committed by Gallagher or its employees: "3) Florida Statute 626.901 (Representing or aiding unauthorized insurer prohibited)." The other two issues deal not with the propriety of Gallagher's actions but the legality of the School Board's award to an unauthorized insurer, United National, when coverage was available from an authorized insurer, Ranger: Florida Statute 626.913 (Surplus Lines Law). . . Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer ... Its proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested coverage was procurable. United National Insurance Company is an unauthorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida ... . The United National Insurance Company proposal and/or its offer to extend it's current policies appear to us as "unwarranted competition." Ranger Insurance Company is protected from unwarranted competition from United National Insurance Company in accordance with the Florida Statute 626.913. Florida Statute 626.913 (Eligibility for Export) ... Our Position * * * Ranger Insurance Company is an admitted authorized insurer under the laws of the State of Florida. ... It's proposal for excess general and auto liability is proof that the Board requested amounts were available. The proposal and/or contract extensions offered by United National are for the full amount of coverage sought and not excess over the amount procurable from Ranger, an authorized insurer. The petition, therefore, set in issue not just whether Gallagher acted illegally but whether the School Board acted illegally when it made the award to United National, an unauthorized insurer when Ranger, an authorized insurer, had also submitted a proposal. Extension As soon as the School Board was made aware of the Ranger protest, it extended the existing insurance contracts procured under RFP 92-080S, awarded approximately five years earlier. The extension was on a month-to-month basis until resolution of the protest. The extension was necessary to avoid a lapse in the School Board's coverage during this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the award to United National under the Gallagher proposal in response to RFP 97-072S be rescinded. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Christopher B. Lunny, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the School Board Attorney K.C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue - 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 A. Kenneth Levine, Esquire Blank, Risby and Meenan, P.A. Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Dr. Frank Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Teresa Jean Watson, at all times material to this proceeding was licensed as an ordinary life agent, a disability insurance agent and a general lines insurance agent. She was the only general lines agent licensed to sell insurance at the T. J. Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. and all insurance sold by that firm at times pertinent hereto was sold and issued under authority of her license. During times material to this proceeding, Teresa Jean Watson sold insurance coverage under authority of her general lines license either as direct agent for various insurance companies for whom she was general agent or, on behalf of MacNeill and Son, Inc. (MacNeill), her managing agency, which represented various insurance companies for whom the Respondent wrote coverage. Between February 1st and February 15, 1982, a homeowner's insurance policy was sold to Tony and Martha Williams by the Respondent's agency under the authority of the Respondent's general lines insurance agent's license. That homeowner's policy required a premium of $211.00. The policyholder, Tony Williams, wrote two checks to the T. J. Watson Agency dated January 22, 1982 and February 12, 1982. Those two checks totalled $174.00. The checks were cashed by the Respondent's agency on January 26, 1982 and on February 6, 1982. The Independent Fire Insurance Company issued the policy to Tony and Martha Williams and on August 4, 1982 a representative of the Independent Fire Insurance Company wrote the Respondent to advise her that she owed that company a balance of $179.35, as of May 1982. Petitioner asserts that the $179.35 represents the amount of Tony Williams' premium owed to the insurer, less the Respondent's commission, which if added together would equal the $211.00 premium on the Williams' policy. Although it was established that $179.35 was owed by the Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company, and never paid, it was not established that it represented the premium due specifically for the Williams' policy as was charged in count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. For instance, the checks paid by the Williamses to the Watson Agency total $174.00 and therefore there is a discrepancy between the total of those checks and the $179.35 amount Independent Fire Insurance company was owed by the Respondent. This fact coupled with the fact that the dates on the checks from the Williamses (January and February) substantially predate the May 1982 billing date to Respondent from Independent Fire, renders it unproven that the checks written to the Watson Agency which Respondent negotiated and retained the benefit of, related to the amount of unremitted premium owed by Respondent to the Independent Fire Insurance Company. In short, it was established that $174.00 was paid the Respondent and her agency by the Williamses. But, it was not established that the premium paid by the Williamses became misappropriated fiduciary funds converted by the Respondent to her own use and benefit. It was merely established that as of May 1982 the Respondent owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company $179.35 as a past-due account It was not established that the Williamses ever suffered a lapse of insurance coverage or were otherwise harmed by the Respondent's failure to pay Independent Fire the $179.35. Indeed, the $179.35 figure was not proven to be more than a mere debt owed by Respondent to Independent Fire Insurance Company. The figure was not shown to have been related to any particular policy. The Respondent and her insurance agency in the regular course of business wrote insurance coverage for companies represented by MacNeill and Son, Inc., the Respondent's managing agency. The regular business practice between the Respondent and MacNeill was for the Respondent to write coverage on behalf of insurers represented by MacNeill and to remit on a regular open account" basis insurance premiums due MacNeill on behalf of its insurance company principals on a monthly basis. The Respondent became delinquent in submitting premiums to MacNeill and Son in November 1981. After unsuccessful efforts to collect the delinquent premium funds from the Respondent, MacNeill and Son, Inc. suspended T. J. Watson Insurance Agency and the Respondent from writing further coverage for companies they represented in January 1982. The Respondent purportedly sold her agency to one Thomas Zinnbauer in December 1981, but had already fallen into a pattern of failing to remit insurance premiums over to MacNeill before that time. In any event, the purported sale to Thomas Zinnbauer was a subterfuge to avoid collection of delinquent premiums inasmuch as the Respondent held herself out, in correspondence with MacNeill, (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) to be the president of the agency at least as late as April 1982 and, at that time and thereafter, the agency continued to sell insurance under the aegis of the Respondent's license. After the Respondent made up the delinquency in premium remissions to the MacNeill Agency that agency restored her underwriting authority in January 1982. Shortly thereafter however, the Respondent and the T. J. Watson Agency again became delinquent in remitting insurance premiums to the MacNeill Agency and followed a quite consistent pattern of failing to forward these fiduciary funds to MacNeill for some months. Ultimately the Respondent and her agency failed to forward more than $6500.00 in premium payment funds to MacNeill and Son, Inc. as was required in the regular course of business. MacNeill and Son, Inc. made repeated futile attempts to secure the misappropriated premium payments from the Respondent and her agency. MacNeill made several accountings of the amount of the acknowledged debt to the Respondent. The Respondent communicated with MacNeill concerning the delinquent premium payments and acknowledged the fact of the debt, but sought to reach an amicable arrangement for a repayment schedule. Re- payment was never made, however, and ultimately the Petitioner agency was informed of the deficiencies and prosecution resulted. The Respondent knew that the premiums had been collected by herself and her agency and had not been forwarded to those entitled to them. She knew of and actively participated in the improper withholding of the premium payments. This withholding and diversion of premium payments from the agency and companies entitled to them was a continuing pattern of conduct and Respondent failed to take action to halt the misappropriation of the premium payments. Further, it is established by the testimony of Matthew Brewer, who investigated the delinquent premium accounts for MacNeill, that Ms. Watson failed to advise MacNeill of the purported sale of her agency until November of 1982, almost a year after it is supposed to have occurred and then only in response to Brewer's investigation. When confronted by Mr. Brewer concerning the ownership of her agency Ms. Watson refused to tell him to whom she had sold the agency. When Mr. Brewer learned that Thomas Zinnbauer had apparently bought the agency from the Respondent Mr. Brewer conferred with him and he refused to release the agency records unless Ms. Watson gave her permission. This fact, together with the fact that Ms. Watson held herself out as president of the agency some four months after she had purportedly sold the agency to Zinnbauer, establishes that Respondent, by representing to Brewer and other personnel of MacNeill and Sons, Inc. that she had sold her agency, was attempting to evade liability for failure to forward the fiduciary premium funds obtained under the authority of her agent's license. As a result of the failure to forward the above- mentioned premium payments some of the insureds who had paid those premiums suffered lapses in coverage and cancellations of policies because MacNeill and Company and the insurers they represented believed that no premiums had ever been paid. Ultimately, MacNeill and Company learned that the premiums had been paid by the policyholders, but not remitted by the Respondent and her agency and undertook steps to reinstate coverage, but those policyholders in some instances had substantial periods of time when their coverage was lapsed due to the Respondent's failure to remit the premium funds to the managing agency and the insurance companies involved. MacNeill and Company ultimately reimbursed the appropriate insurers and insureds at its own expense, incurring substantial financial detriment as a result of the Respondent's failure to have premium payments obtained under her licensed authority properly forwarded. Had the insureds who had their policies cancelled suffered losses for which claims could have been filed during the period of the lapses of coverage, they could have encountered substantial financial difficulty.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the General Lines Insurance Agent's license of Respondent Teresa Jean Watson be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX RULING OF PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Accepted. Accepted, although the amount represented by the two subject checks totalled $174.00 instead of $175.00. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible evidence adduced. Rejected inasmuch as it was not established that the amount of $179.35 owed the Independent Fire Insurance Company represented the premium on the Williamses' insurance policy. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, although the last sentence in that Proposed Finding constitutes, in reality, mere argument of counsel. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence actually before the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Respondent submitted a post-hearing document entitled "Proposed Findings of Fact." There are few actual Proposed Facts in that one-and-a-half page pleading which is interlaced throughout with argument of counsel. However, to the extent the six paragraphs of that document contain Proposed Findings of Fact they are ruled on as follows: This Proposed Finding is rejected, but for reasons delineated in the above Conclusions of Law, Count 1 has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. This Finding is accepted but is immaterial and irrelevant to, and not necessary to, the Findings of Fact reached herein and the Conclusions of Law based thereon. Paragraph Number 3 does not really constitute a Proposed Finding of Fact or even multiple Proposed Findings of Fact in the same paragraph. In reality, it constitutes argument of Respondent's counsel concerning admissibility of certain documents into evidence which have already been ruled to be admissible by the Hearing Officer during the course of the hearing. To the extent that the last two sentences in the third paragraph of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are proposed findings of fact, they are accepted, but are immaterial, irrelevant and unnecessary to the findings of fact made herein and the conclusions predicated thereon and recommendation made herein. Rejected as not being in accordance with the competent, substantial credible testimony and evidence adduced. Rejected as constituting mere argument of counsel and not being in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence adduced. Rejected as not in accordance with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented as to Count 2. In reality, counsel obviously intended to refer to the two checks referenced in Count 1 of the complaint which has been recommended to be dismissed anyway. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark A. Steinberg, Esquire Post Office Box 2366 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to remit premiums or submit applications for insurance; misappropriated and converted funds for her own use and benefit or unlawfully withheld monies belonging to insureds as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein signed August 2, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Margaret Ann Edwards, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in Florida as a health insurance agent, and was so licensed at all times relevant to these proceedings. During times material, Respondent served as a general agent for LHCA. Respondent operated through a corporate entity known as Chartered Financial Advisors, Inc., which served as a clearing house for insurance agents. Insurance agents who operate as general agents are well versed in operating an insurance agency. On or about March 4, 1991, LHCA and Respondent entered into an agency agreement whereby Respondent agreed to solicit insurance products on behalf of LHCA. The agreement provided in relevant part: (2) ACCOUNTING All monies received for the Company by the General Agent for premiums, by reason of this Agreement, shall belong to the Company and shall be received and held by the General Agent in a fiduciary capacity only. The initial premiums shall be forthwith paid and delivered to Chartered Financial Advisors, Inc. All other premiums shall be forthwith paid and delivered to the Company. (5) INDEBTEDNESS If the Company, for any reason, refunds the premium on any Authorized Policy solicited by the General Agent, Representatives or employees, the General Agent shall refund to the Company any monies received by the General Agent, Representatives or employees by reason of the payment of such premiums. To the extent not refunded, said amount shall constitute an indebtedness by the General Agent to the Company. Prior to its agreement with LHCA, Respondent had been involved in the insurance business for an extended period of time and was familiar with the duties and obligations of a general agent. General agents who have good credit histories are granted "netting" authority. Netting authority is a procedure whereby the agent is given the authority to receive gross premiums from applicants for insurance and to withhold their net "commissions" from the gross premiums and remit the balance, or net premiums, to the company (LHCA). Respondent maintained a business bank account with Barnett Bank, and she was the sole signator on that account. The account was used to conduct her insurance business and to implement the netting authority arrangement that she had with LHCA. During August, 1992, LHCA became increasingly concerned about Respondent's failure to timely remit premiums due to LHCA on policies issued by the company, as well as premium refunds not being made by the Respondent to insurance consumers. LHCA made Respondent aware of these concerns by telephonic messages and by written communiques. LHCA's concerns about Respondent were not resolved and during January, 1993, LHCA terminated its agency agreement with Respondent. After termination of the agency agreement, LHCA was contacted by insurance consumers, Austin Jenkins, Bernice Caldwell, Mrs. Robert Bolling, and Robert Stopford about either policies that they had applied for and had never received or about policies which they were desirous of cancelling and/or obtaining a refund. LHCA demanded an explanation from Respondent about the complaints from the referenced consumers. Respondent thereafter sent a check to LHCA in the amount of $9,841.02 which Respondent represented as being owed to LHCA for the premium payments for insurance applications previously solicited and sold to the consumers. Respondent's check, which represented the refund of net premiums which was due and owing to LHCA, did not clear the bank and was returned for insufficient funds. Jonathan Miller of LHCA contacted the Respondent and attempted to amicably resolve the matter. Respondent advised Miller to redeposit the check as the funds were now in her account. Miller followed Respondent's directive and the check failed to clear the bank the second time due to insufficient funds. Miller did not authorize Respondent to cover refunds by using net commissions which were owed to LHCA. During this period, LHCA began receiving numerous inquiries from additional insurance consumers about the status of health insurance policies purchased through Respondent or her subagents, but for which the company had no record and had received no net premiums. The number of policies involved was approximately twelve. LHCA conducted an investigation and instructed the inquiring consumers to provide, among other things, proof of payment and other pertinent evidence to substantiate their claims. As a result, LHCA refunded premium payments to each individual consumer, including consumers Jenkins, Caldwell, Bolling, and Stopford. Austin Jenkins made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA through a subagent of Respondent and tendered a check in the amount of $3,868.00 made payable to LHCA. This check was deposited into Respondent's business account maintained at Barnett Bank. Bernice Caldwell, another consumer, also made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA through a subagent under contract with Respondent, and tendered a check in the amount of $7,072.00 made payable to LHCA. The check was deposited into Respondent's business account with Barnett Bank. Robert Bolling made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA of America, through a subagent under contract with Respondent, and tendered two checks in the amounts of $3,195.68 and $2,525.20, respectively, made payable to LHCA. These two checks were deposited into Respondent's business bank account maintained at Barnett Bank. Robert Stopford made application for insurance to be issued by LHCA through a subagent under contract with Respondent, and tendered a check in the amount of $3,996.20 made payable to LHCA. This check was also deposited into the business bank account maintained by Respondent at Barnett Bank. All of the above mentioned checks were negotiated and cleared their respective banks. The funds were thereafter transferred and credited to Respondent's business bank account maintained at Barnett. Insurance consumers Jenkins, Caldwell, Bolling, and Stopford intended their checks to be the initial premium for insurance policies which they applied for with LHCA. LHCA never received any applications for insurance or premium payments from Respondent on behalf of the above named consumers. The premium refunds made by LHCA to insurance consumers, Jenkins, Caldwell, Bolling, and Stopford were reflected on Respondent's account current statements with LHCA. As of December 31, 1993, Respondent owed LHCA the sum of $53,227.65. This sum represented premiums received by Respondent for insurance policies, but which remained unremitted to LHCA. LHCA has demanded payment from Respondent for the above refunds without success. In an attempt to recover its funds paid on behalf of Respondent, LHCA filed a civil suit in Sarasota County Circuit Court, Case No. 93-003262-CI-018. On March 9, 1994, a Summary Final Judgement was entered in the circuit court case filed against Respondent in the amount of $53,225.43. As of the date of hearing, the judgment remains unsatisfied. Respondent was involved in an automobile accident during April, 1992. The accident was the source of injuries to Respondent and limited her ability to actively engage in the operation of her agency. Under the subagency agreement Respondent utilized to hire subagents, Respondent kept approximately fifty-three percent (53 percent) of the net commission and she paid her agents amounts ranging from forty-seven percent (47 percent) up to, and in some cases, sixty percent (60 percent) of the net commissions that she received. When policies were cancelled and the subagents refused to return the premiums which they had been advanced, Respondent found herself financially unable to remit the payments either to the insureds or to LHCA as demanded. Respondent contends that Miller advised her to pay refunds from other net commissions due LHCA. As noted, Miller denies making any agreement with Respondent to use LHCA's net funds. Respondent's contention that she was told by LHCA's representative, Jonathan Miller, to deduct company net premiums from other policies to pay for refunds that were due to other consumers is not credible. In this regard, the agency agreement between Respondent and LHCA provides the procedure whereby LHCA was entitled to a refund from any premiums advanced on behalf of any authorized policies solicited by any general agent, as Respondent, or Respondent's representatives or employees. This procedure is set forth in subparagraph 5 of the agency agreement in effect between Respondent and LHCA. Additionally, the accounting procedures section of the agreement between Respondent and LHCA clearly states that all monies received for the company, as LHCA, by the general agent (Respondent) for premiums, by reason of their agreement, belong to LHCA and shall be received and held by the general agent in a fiduciary capacity only. Given these clear provisos in the agreement between the parties, Respondent's contention that she had entered into other oral agreements with LHCA for return of the premiums does not withstand scrutiny and is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licenses be suspended for nine (9) months, pursuant to Rule 4-231.080, Florida Administrative Code. It is further RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order requiring that Respondent make satisfactory restitution to Life and Health Insurance Company of America prior to any request for reinstatement of her insurance licenses as authorized pursuant to s. 626.641, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of October, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX to RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5080 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 20, adopted as modified, paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 22 and 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 18 and 22, Recommended Order. Paragraph 24, rejected, legal argument and/or conclusionary. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1, adopted as relevant, paragraph 10-13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 6, adopted as modified, paragraph 3, Recommended Order. Paragraph 9, rejected, as a restatement of testimony. Paragraph 10, adopted as modified, paragraphs 1 and 3, Recommended Order. Paragraph 14, rejected, irrelevant and not probative. Paragraphs 16 and 18, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 8 and 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 21-26, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 2,5,7, and 23, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 27 and 28, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 19 and 20, Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 John L. Maloney, Esquire 5335 66th Street North, Suite 4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33709 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record filed herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: During times material, Respondent was licensed and/or qualified for licensure as a General lines (2-20), Ordinary Life, and Health Insurance (2-18) Agent in Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material to the allegations herein, 1/ Respondent was an officer and director of White Insurance Agency, Inc. (White Insurance). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On June 20, representatives of Great Wall Chinese Restaurant (Great Wall) entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown Premium Finance, Inc., (Crown), through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage for Great Wall would be provided and issued through Service Insurance Company and Corporate Group Services. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub. "a"). On June 20, Respondent signed the premium finance agreement as broker- agent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub "a"). On June 22, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of eight hundred ninety-four dollars ($894.00) which was subsequently deposited into Respondent's bank account. (Petitioner's 3, sub B). On July 13, a representative of Service Insurance Company notified Crown that they had not received the full annual premium for Great Wall and a binder charge of $81.00 was sent to White Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 sub C). On July 13, representatives of Service Insurance Company notified Respondent that coverage was bound for Great Wall's risk for only 33 days and a charge of $81.00 was sent to White Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub D). On July 13, representatives of Service Insurance Company mailed a cancellation notice to Great Wall and Crown indicating an $81.00 charge as due and owing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub) On September 14, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Corporate Group Services and Service Insurance Company. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub H & I). On November 8, representatives of Corporate Group Services notified Crown that an application for insurance was received but was rejected and returned to the agent's (Respondent) office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, sub F). Neither Service Insurance Company nor Corporate Group Services issued a policy for the consumer, Great Wall. Respondent refuses to return the premium monies received for the Great Wall coverage to Crown. Respondent owes Crown for the premium monies submitted by Crown. COUNT II On July 8, representatives of Chateau Madrid, Inc., a restaurant, entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through Respondent, which indicated the insurance coverage would be issued through Casualty Indemnity Exchange. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub A). On July 8, Respondent signed the premium finance agreement as broker/agent. On July 25, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to Respondent in the amount of three thousand five hundred eight dollars (3,508.00). The check was deposited into White Insurance's bank account. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub b). On August 30, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Chateau Madrid and Casualty Indemnity Exchange and their managing general agents, Program Underwriters. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub D). As a result of the standard cancellation notice, the policy was reduced to a short-term policy which was effective July 15 and expired September 13, 1983. On March 13, 1984, Program Underwriters notified Crown that they had not received a premium payment concerning this particular policy and that neither Respondent nor White Insurance was an authorized agent for Casualty Indemnity Exchange. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4, sub e). Respondent never returned the premium monies he received to Crown. Respondent owes Crown for the premium monies he received from Crown. COUNT III On September 16, a representative of Tennis Trainer, Inc. requested that Respondent secure a multi-peril insurance policy for Tennis Trainer. Respondent secured a binder for Tennis Trainer indicating the insurance would be issued through Service Insurance Company. On September 16, Respondent signed the binder as an authorized representative. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, sub b). On September 16, Respondent was not authorized to represent Service Insurance Company. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13, sub a and b). On September 15, Jeffrey Rider, Vice President of Tennis Trainer issued a check in the amount of three hundred five dollars ($305.00) to White Insurance representing the downpayment necessary to secure the agreed business insurance coverage. Thereafter, Respondent, took no measures to secure insurance for Tennis Trainer other than issuing the binder. Respondent has failed to submit the premium to secure the agreed upon insurance coverage on behalf of Tennis Trainer. Additionally, Respondent refused to return the premium payments to Tennis Trainer despite its demand (from Respondent) to do so. Tennis Trainer has directly forwarded the remainder of the premium to Service Insurance to secure the multi-peril coverage. Service Insurance Company is owed a balance due of approximately $305.00 from Respondent. COUNT VI On May 5, Donald Powers entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance. Pursuant to the agreement, the insurance coverage would be provided through Progressive American Insurance (Progressive). On May 9, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of two hundred ninety-nine dollars ($299.00) which was subsequently deposited into Respondent's bank account. On October 1, the consumer, Donald Powers, requested that the policy be cancelled. On October 25, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Progressive. On October 19, Progressive notified both Crown and White Insurance that the gross unearned premium of two hundred twenty-six dollars ($226.00) was applied to the Agent's (White Insurance) monthly statement and Crown must therefore collect this amount from the Agent. Progressive American never received any premium payments from Respondent concerning the subject policy. On November 25, 1986, Progressive notified Petitioner that the policy was originally accepted on May 7, 1983 at an annual premium of four hundred sixty dollars ($460.00) and was cancelled on October 1, 1983, with Two Hundred twenty-six Dollars ($226.00) credited to Respondent's statement. Progressive never received any premium payment for this policy. Respondent has failed to return to Crown the returned premium credit received on behalf of the Donald Powers' policy. COUNT VII On November 28, Russell Lung entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown through White Insurance. The insurance coverage for Lung was to be provided and issued through Interstate Underwriters. On November 29, pursuant to the premium finance agreement with Russell Lung, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one hundred sixty-seven dollars (167.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On February 14, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Interstate Underwriters. The policy for Russell Lung was cancelled before its normal expiration date and the unearned premium was credited to Respondent's account. Respondent has not returned to Crown the unearned premium credit received for Lung's policy. COUNT VIII On December 6, representatives of Thomson's Lawn Care (Thomson) entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Northeast Insurance and Southern Underwriters as managing general agents. On December 8, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one hundred fifty-one dollars ($151.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On January 25, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both the consumer and Northeast Insurance Company/Southern Underwriters. On February 8, 1984, Southern Underwriters notified Crown that they were never paid by White Insurance for Thomson's insurance. On October 16, 1984, Crown was notified by representatives of Thomson's that immediately after making the down payment to White Insurance, Thomson notified White Insurance that the policy should be cancelled immediately since Thomson never operated as a business. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, sub e). Crown received the returned premium payment from Southern Underwriters even though the original payment to White Insurance by Crown was never forwarded to Southern Underwriters. Respondent refuses to return the unearned premium payment to Crown. COUNT IX On October 15, representatives of Comfort Inn entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Protective National Insurance Company and Interstate Fire and Casualty Company. On November 4, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of one thousand six hundred sixty dollars ($1,660.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On March 1, 1984, Crown sent a standard cancellation notice to both Comfort Inn and the Insurance Companies involved. On February 6, 1984, Comfort Inn's counsel, James W. Martin, forwarded a letter to the insurance companies involved and simultaneously notified Crown that White failed to remit funds to the insurance companies involved and as a result, the policy was cancelled and subsequently reinstated only after his client, Comfort Inn paid the premium directly to the respective insurers. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8, sub e). On February 23, 1984, Irwin Lonschien of Crown responded to attorney Martin's letter and advised that the one thousand six hundred sixty dollars premium payment was forwarded to White Insurance pursuant to the premium finance agreement on November 4, 1983. On July 23, 1984, William Edwards, a representative of Comfort Inn, wrote a letter to Dan Martinez of Eagle Underwriters advising that Comfort Inn had paid a premium to White Insurance and Comfort Inn no longer desired White Insurance to represent them in insurance matters. Respondent, has not returned premiums received from Crown and is therefore indebted to Crown in the amount of one thousand six hundred sixty dollars. COUNT X On April 14, representatives of Royal Palm Motel entered into a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance which indicated insurance coverage would be provided through Casualty Indemnity- Exchange. On April 18, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of nine hundred seventy- seven dollars ($977.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. COUNT XI On March 16, 1982, representatives of Flip's of West Broward entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance which indicated the insurance coverage would be provided through Service Insurance Company. On March 19, 1982, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White in the amount of six hundred forty-eight dollars ($648.00) which was subsequently deposited in a bank account controlled by Respondent. Sometime between March 1982 and June 20, 1982, White Insurance forwarded a premium payment for this coverage to Service Insurance Company. On June 20, 1982, Crown sent a standard cancellation to the consumer and Service Insurance indicating the policy was to be cancelled. By letter dated January 7, Service Insurance notified White Insurance that the policy had been cancelled and the returned premium for the policy was credited to the account of White Insurance. Respondent, as agent/director of White Insurance has failed and refused to return to Crown the returned premiums received for Flip's of West Broward. COUNT XII On November 7, Paula Wilcoxon entered a premium finance agreement with Crown, through White Insurance, indicating the insurance coverage would be issued through Universal Casualty. On November 8, pursuant to the premium finance agreement, Crown issued a check made payable to White Insurance in the amount of two hundred ninety-five dollars ($295.00) which was subsequently deposited into a bank account controlled by Respondent. On December 15, Crown notified the consumer and Universal Casualty, by standard cancellation notice, that the policy was being cancelled. Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to return the unearned premium to Crown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a Final Order revoking all licenses and qualifications for licensure of Respondent, Kenneth Everett White, as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1987.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of various violations of the Insurance Code and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent has been licensed as a Life & Variable Annuity Agent (2-14), Life, Health and Variable Annuity Agent (2-15), Life Agent (2-16), Life and Health Agent (2-18), General Lines, Property and Casualty Agent (2-20), and Health Agent (2-40). Respondent holds license number A164221. Petitioner has disciplined Respondent on two prior occasions. By Consent Order filed November 28, 2000, Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $7500 against Respondent and placed her licenses on probation for two years. The Consent Order arose out of allegations that Respondent failed to place insurance coverage and failed to supervise adequately her employees. By Consent Order filed April 30, 2002, Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $2000 against Respondent. The Consent Order does not describe the underlying allegations. At all relevant times, Respondent has been a director, officer, and sole owner of AIA. She has owned the corporation since 1993. At all relevant times, Respondent was the only signatory on the AIA bank accounts. Customarily, Respondent markets the insurance and then sends customers to one of the AIA customer service representatives. A high-volume agency with over 15,000 active clients, AIA, which employs 10 persons, has issued about 50,000 policies since November 2001. For most, if not all, of the relevant period, AIA employed Tony Decambre as the primary agent, and customer service representatives performed much of the work in processing insurance applications. Petitioner attempted to prove that Respondent was the primary agent. Rather than produce copies of forms by which Respondent may have designated herself as the primary agent, Petitioner offered only copies of prints of screens of data maintained by Petitioner. The Administrative Law Judge excluded from evidence these data compilations. Respondent testified that Mr. Decambre was the primary agent. Petitioner's investigator testified that Respondent was the primary agent, at least the last time that he had checked. The investigator's testimony failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was the primary agent. On December 28, 2001, Fernando Gomez visited AIA to pay for a workers' compensation insurance policy to be issued by Florida United Businesses Association/Workers Compensation (FUBA). Respondent met with Mr. Gomez, who required the presence of another employee to translate into and from Spanish. As the producer, Respondent signed the application. FUBA bound the coverage on December 31, 2001. Among the three persons present on December 28, only Respondent testified. The application bears the date "December 28, 2001," although this handwriting is lighter than the remainder of the handwriting on the application and could have been written at a date subsequent to the date on which the application was taken. Petitioner contends that Respondent took the application on November 6, 2001, or somehow tried to bind FUBA as of November 6, 2001. The sole evidentiary basis for this contention is Petitioner Exhibit 9, which purports to be a certificate of liability insurance, bearing a date of December 28, 2001, but showing effective dates for general liability and workers' compensation coverage for Mr. Gomez of November 6, 2001. The certificate holder is stated to be Universal Drywall & Plastering, and the producer is stated to be AIA. The workers' compensation insurer is stated to be FUBA. Petitioner Exhibit 9 was admitted solely to prove what Universal Drywall & Plastering sent to FUBA to confirm the existence of Mr. Gomez's workers' compensation coverage. The certificate is false because it confirms workers' compensation insurance as of a date that neither FUBA nor AIA contends is correct. However, the failure to obtain testimony from Mr. Gomez, the AIA employee who translated, or an employee of Universal Drywall & Plastering who could explain how he or she obtained a copy of the certificate precludes a determination that Respondent is in any way responsible for the production or transmission of this false certificate. The certificate suggests that the person responsible for its preparation may not have had Respondent's presumed level of familiarity with FUBA. The person preparing the false certificate used a policy number that is not of a type used by FUBA to identify the workers' compensation policies that it issues. The false certificate bears an expiration date of November 6, 2002. In fact, the actual coverage issued by FUBA ended on April 1, 2002, because all of its workers' compensation policies expire each year on April 1. It appears that Universal Drywall & Plastering presented the false certificate to FUBA on January 2, 2002, so, as of that date, Mr. Gomez had workers' compensation coverage from FUBA. The record also fails to disclose why Mr. Gomez might have desired an earlier effective date. The information might have facilitated a determination of who was responsible for the fraudulent preparation of the certificate. Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Count I. On October 25, 2002, AIA issued an Evidence of Property Insurance to Meryl Levin, showing an effective date of October 25, 2002 for homeowners and flood insurance in the amount of $114,000. The document states that "United" would provide the homeowners insurance at $910 per year and flood insurance at $247 per year. On October 30, 2002, AIA received a check in the amount of $910 from Stephen J. Allocco, P.A., and AIA deposited that check into its noninterest-bearing bank account at Wachovia Bank. On November 8, 2002, United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (United) sent Mr. Levin a notice that he owed $810 for his insurance policy, which bore an effective date of November 8, 2002. The due date is "upon receipt." On January 14, 2003, United canceled the insurance because it never had received the $810. United received a check for $810 on February 26, 2003, but the accompanying package failed to contain a "no loss" statement, which would have assured United that the insured had not suffered a loss between the purported coverage date and the date of receipt of the premium check. Absent such an assurance, United routinely declines to provide coverage because it will not cover losses retroactively. United thus returned the check. Mr. Levin did not testify as to this transaction, nor did anyone from AIA except Respondent, who disclaimed any direct involvement with the matter. There is no evidence of any loss suffered by Mr. Levin, nor is there any evidence of any intentional wrongdoing by Respondent. The determination as to whether Respondent negligently failed to satisfy all applicable duties imposed on her is frustrated by Petitioner's failure to call an expert witness who could have explained office practices in insurance agencies and proved what is reasonable and unreasonable to expect of Respondent. The record does not establish that United sent a copy of its November 8 statement to AIA. Count II portrays a single case in which AIA failed to pay a premium to an insurer for over three months--nothing more. The determination of whether Respondent has demonstrated unfitness for this omission is impossible absent a basis for determining an appropriate minimum standard of agency office practice. Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Count II. On October 9, 2002, Respondent sent a letter to Gerald Kirby bearing the letterhead of AIA stating that "we" have reviewed your homeowner needs and "determined the best possible rate for you." Showing homeowners coverage of $518,000, as well as associated coverages, the letter quotes a total policy premium of $3278. The letter warns that "this quotation is an estimate and is not legally binding." At the bottom of the letter is: "Thanks!!!Joanne." The record reveals no other persons employed at AIA named "Joanne" besides Respondent. On the same date, AIA produced an evidence of property insurance, which shows homeowners and flood insurance with the same effective date of October 11, 2002, in the respective amounts of $518,000 and $250,000, and bearing respective premiums of $3278 and $411 annually. On October 11, 2002, AIA received a check in the amount of $3278 from Capital Abstract & Title and deposited that check into its noninterest-bearing bank account at Wachovia. AIA was to use these funds to purchase homeowners insurance from United, with coverage of $518,000 and an effective date of November 11, 2002 (according to the parties' stipulation, which misstates the year as "2001"). However, the premium for $518,000 of coverage from United was $1890 at the time. The proper amount of premium due for $518,000 of coverage was mooted by the fact that AIA, like all of United's agents at the time, lacked authority to bind United to more than $300,000 coverage without specific approval from a United representative. Such approval required, among other things, documentation of the value of the insured property. AIA sent United a check for $1777, which United received on November 12, 2002. This check was the proper premium for $300,000 of coverage. At the same time, AIA sent paperwork for the issuance of coverage to $587,000, but failed to send the documentation that United required. Thus, United issued only $300,000 of coverage, and Mr. Kirby was due a refund of $1501, which is the difference between the premium that he paid and the cost of the insurance that he received. AIA paid Mr. Kirby $1501 on February 24, 2003. After AIA or a United marketing representative submitted the required documentation, United approved on February 19, 2003, the increase of coverage to $518,000. It is unclear who paid the additional premium--AIA or Mr. Kirby. For the same reasons discussed in Count II, Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Count III. Although AIA's handling of the Kirby transaction was flawed, again, the acts and omissions are not so stark as to eliminate the necessity of expert testimony to establish the minimum standard, against which to measure Respondent's performance of her duties. Mr. Kirby appears to have suffered no loss, and there is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. Even though, as to this transaction, Respondent clearly had some personal involvement, it is impossible to determine her degree of responsibility for the uneven handling of the insurance transaction and short delay in sending the refund to Mr. Kirby or even whether these two aspects of the transaction demonstrate unfitness to transact insurance business. The remaining counts involve refunds from Pro Premium Finance Company (Pro Premium) to AIA and refunds from AIA to its customers. Pro Premium provides financing to persons purchasing insurance. Several customers of AIA borrowed money from Pro Premium to pay for insurance they were buying through AIA. For various reasons--typically, the cancelation of coverage--Pro Premium refunded portions of the premium to AIA, which subsequently refunded the unearned portion of the commission to the customer. Every two weeks, Pro Premium sends AIA refunds and statements, which clearly identify the insured, date of cancelation, amount of refund, and amount due the insured. The time that elapsed from when AIA received the refunds from Pro Premium to when AIA sent the customers their share of the refunds ranged from two to twelve months. AIA received the refunds from Pro Premium between April 15, 2003, and February 15, 2004, and AIA sent its customers their shares of the refunds between April 5, 2004, and May 12, 2004. The customer refunds are concentrated in a relatively short period of time because AIA discovered all of the unrefunded monies during a self-audit that it conducted during this six-week period. AIA performed the self-audit due to an audit underway at Pro Premium. Except as noted below, Respondent was not personally involved in any of these refund transactions. At the time of all of the Pro Premium transactions described in this recommended order, the policy of AIA was for the customer service representative to write the client within one week of receiving the refund from Pro Premium and ask for directions whether to apply the refund to new or existing insurance or to pay it to the customer. The customer service representatives were supervised by the agency manager, not Respondent. It is unclear what AIA's policy was if the customer did not respond. When AIA paid refunds, its policy at the time was for the agency manager to prepare the refund check, which Respondent would sign. In May 2004, AIA changed its handling of refunds by directing all Pro Premium refunds directly to the bookkeeper, who expedites the preparation of the refund checks, which can now be signed by Respondent or one of two other employees. As to Count IV, on April 15, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1361.03, which AIA deposited on May 7, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$117.21--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Erikna Guzman. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Guzman of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Ms. Guzman did not respond. On May 10, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Guzman a check for $117.21. Twelve months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Guzman the money due her. As to Count V, on May 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1538.36, which AIA deposited on June 10, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$43.83--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Shannon Campbell. By letter sent after obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Campbell of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Ms. Campbell did not respond. On April 17, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Campbell a check for $43.83. Ten and one-half months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Campbell the money due her. As to Count VII, on an unspecified date, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $720.38, which AIA deposited on July 8, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$347.35--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Marie Philippe. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Philippe of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Ms. Philippe did not respond. On April 5, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Philippe a check for $347.35. At least nine months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Philippe the money due her. As to Count VIII, on June 30, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1729.80, which AIA deposited on July 8, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$380.40--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Fernando Garcia. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Mr. Garcia of the refund and asked him to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. The first letter was returned by the postal service as undeliverable. Mr. Garcia had sold his house and moved. However, on April 7, 2004, AIA sent Mr. Garcia a check for $380.40. Nine months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Mr. Garcia the money due him. As to Count IX, on August 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1552.84, which AIA deposited on September 9, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$102.07--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Girline Reid. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Reid of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Ms. Reid instructed AIA to apply the refund to insurance issued to her husband, which AIA did. However, Respondent did not testify when AIA applied the refund to the account of Ms. Reid's husband. On May 7, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Reid a check for $102.07. Eight months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Reid the money due her. As to Count X, on August 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1552.84, which AIA deposited on September 9, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$169.06--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Guillermo Diaz, who is a significant customer of AIA. Respondent spoke with him shortly after AIA received the refund, and he instructed her to apply the refund to other insurance issued to him. Again, Respondent did not testify when Mr. Diaz instructed her to apply the refund to other insurance, but, given his importance as a repeat customer, he probably spoke with her shortly after AIA received the refund. However, on April 17, 2004, AIA sent Mr. Diaz a check for $169.06, to which he may not have been entitled. Eight and one-half months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Mr. Diaz the refund check. As to Count XI, on November 30, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $4994.25, which AIA deposited on December 9, 2003, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$143.18--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Bernardo Archibald. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Mr. Archibald of the refund and asked him to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Mr. Archibald directed AIA to keep the money to apply to insurance for which he owed additional premium because he had not yet obtained a four-point inspection (heating, wiring, roofing, and plumbing) of an older home, so as to be entitled to a reduced premium. However, Respondent did not testify when AIA received this direction from Mr. Archibald, although only five months elapsed from AIA's receipt of the refund from Pro Premium to its issuance, on May 7, 2004, of a check to Mr. Archibald for $143.18. As to Count XII, on an unspecified date, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $3881.67, which AIA deposited on January 13, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$488.83--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Danette Piscopo. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Piscopo of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that AIA sent a refund check, but Ms. Piscopo never cashed it. However, Respondent did not testify when it sent the earlier check, although only about three months elapsed from AIA's receipt of the refund from Pro Premium to its issuance on April 15, 2004, of a check to Ms. Piscopo for $488.83. As to Count XIII, on December 31, 2003, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $1988.58, which AIA deposited on January 13, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$294.60--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Allam Masief. Respondent testified that AIA mistakenly issued two policies to Mr. Masief for the same coverage from two insurers and mistakenly paid Pro Premium twice, even though Mr. Masief paid only one premium. Both policies were canceled. Mr. Masief asked AIA to reinstate one policy, but it was unable to do so. Respondent did not testify when these discussions with Mr. Masief took place, but only four and one-half months elapsed from AIA's receipt of the refund from Pro Premium and to its issuance, on May 12, 2004, of a check to Mr. Masief for $294.60. As to Count XIV, on January 31, 2004, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $3260.03, which AIA deposited on February 10, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$886.74--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Geraldine DeStefanis. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. DeStefanis of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Ms. DeStefanis "probably" asked AIA to try to reinstate the canceled policy, but AIA was unable to do so. On May 7, 2004, AIA sent Ms. DeStefanis a check for $886.74. Three months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. DeStefanis the money due her. As to Count XV, on an unspecified date, Pro Premium sent AIA a check in the amount of $4750.53, which AIA deposited on March 9, 2004, into its noninterest-bearing account at Wachovia. Part of these funds--$343.38--represented unearned commission, which was due the insured, Leslie Ramrattan. By letter sent within one week of obtaining the Pro Premium refund, AIA informed Ms. Ramrattan of the refund and asked her to instruct AIA as to whether to apply it to new insurance or send her a refund. Respondent testified that Ms. Ramrattan asked AIA to try to reinstate the policy, but AIA was unable to do so. On May 7, 2004, AIA sent Ms. Ramrattan a check for $343.38. About two months elapsed from when AIA received the refund and when it sent Ms. Ramrattan the money due her. Petitioner has failed to prove the material allegations of Counts IV-V and VII-XV, with one exception each as to Counts VI, V, and VII. In general, there is no evidence of any intentional wrongdoing by anyone at AIA, nor is there evidence that Respondent should have known of the failure of her staff to promptly refund the monies due their insureds. In several of these transactions in which AIA held the customers' refunds for relatively long periods of time, the record demonstrates that this was in accordance with the customers' directions or otherwise justified. For the shorter periods-- five months or less--the record provides no basis for determining that Respondent should have known of this failure within this relatively short period of time. In several counts, AIA failed to meet its obligation, under Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-196.010(2)(b), which is cited below, to refund or apply the unearned commissions within 15 days of receipt of the refund and statement from Pro Premium. These are Counts IV, V, VII, XIV, and XV. It is impossible to determine if AIA violated this rule in Count VIII, where the insured had moved; Counts IX-XI, where the insureds told AIA to apply the refunds to new or other insurance and presumably AIA did so, perhaps within the required 15 days; and Count XIII, where AIA appears to have paid for one policy out of its own funds and the insured may have received a windfall. As to Counts IV, V, VII, XIV, and XV, the question is whether Respondent is professionally responsible for the violations by AIA. These counts fall into two groups. In Counts IV, V, and VII, AIA wrongfully retained the refunds for long periods--12 months, 10 and one-half months, and at least nine months, respectively. In Counts XIV and XV, AIA wrongfully retained the refunds much shorter periods--less than three months and less than two months, respectively. Perhaps expert testimony could have established that Respondent should have detected, within a period of less than 90 days, the wrongfully retained funds, but, absent such testimony, an inference to this effect is impossible, especially when the standard is clear and convincing evidence. However, expert testimony is unnecessary to establish Respondent's professional responsibility for failing to detect this situation for 9-12 months. Given the long durations of time, the clarity of the Pro Premium's refund statements, the relatively small number of employees, Respondent's integral involvement in the daily operations of AIA as the only person authorized to sign checks, and the importance of restoring funds of customers to customers promptly, it is a reasonable inference that Respondent should have known that AIA staff had wrongfully failed to send these refunds to its customers for 9-12 months. Any suggestion by Respondent that the absence of a response from these customers justified retaining these moneys fails to account for the fact that AIA later sent the refund checks to the customers, even though they had still not contacted AIA, according to the record. Thus, for Counts IV, V, and VII, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has demonstrated her unfitness to transact insurance business.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing Counts I-III and VIII-XV of the Administrative Complaint; finding Respondent guilty of three violations (Counts IV, V, and VII) of demonstrating unfitness to engage in the insurance business, in violation of Section 626.611(7), Florida Statutes; and suspending her insurance licenses for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Sevices The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Robert Alan Fox Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Thompkins W. White White & Chang, P.A. 1650 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 1013 Tallahassee, Florida 32317
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and 626.611(13), Florida Statutes (2008),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaints, Mr. Holliday, III, was a licensed Florida surplus lines (1-20) agent, a life and health (2-18) agent, a general lines (property and casualty) (2-20) agent, an independent adjuster (5-20), and agent in charge at International Brokerage and Surplus Lines, Inc. (IBSL). Mr. Holliday, III, had been associated with IBSL since its inception in 1993. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, IV, was licensed in Florida as a general lines (2-20) agent. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday, IV, were officers and owners of IBSL. Most recently, Mr. Holliday, III, was the secretary of IBSL. He handled the underwriting and risk placement for the agency. From approximately March 1993 to April 2009, Mr. Holliday, IV, was the president of IBSL. As president of IBSL, Mr. Holliday, IV's, duties included signing agreements which established IBSL's business function as that of a general managing agent and signing agreements which empowered IBSL to collect premiums on behalf of insureds. IBSL ceased doing business on May 1, 2009. In the insurance industry, a common method of procuring insurance involves a retail producer, a wholesale broker, and a program manager. A customer desiring insurance contacts its local insurance agent, which is known as a retail producer, and applies for insurance. The retail producer has a producer agreement with a wholesale broker, who has a producer agreement with a program manager. The program manager represents insurance companies. The retail producer sends the customer's application to the wholesale broker, and the wholesale broker contacts the program manager and forwards the application to the program manager. The program manager will provide a quote if the insurance company is willing to insure the customer. The quote is passed back to the customer via the wholesale broker and the retail producer. If the customer decides to take the insurance, the program manager will issue a binder to the wholesale broker, who will submit the binder to the retail producer. The wholesale broker will issue an invoice for the premium to the retail producer. The program manager pays a commission to the wholesale broker pursuant to its producer agreement with the wholesale broker, and the wholesale broker pays a commission to the retail producer pursuant to its producer agreement with the retail producer. When the retail producer sends the premium payment to the wholesale broker, the retail producer will deduct its commission. The wholesale broker sends the premium amount to the program manager less the wholesale broker's commission. If the customer is unable to pay the entire amount of the premium, part of the premium may be financed through a premium finance company. The premium finance company may pay the premium to the retail producer or to the wholesale broker. International Transportation & Marine Agency, Inc. (ITMA), is a program manager and is engaged in the business of selling, brokering, and servicing certain lines of policies of insurance written or issued by insurance companies. ITMA is a program manager for Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Association (Pennsylvania Manufacturers), an insurance company. IBSL, a wholesale broker, entered into a producer's contract with ITMA on January 4, 2008. Wimberly Agency, Incorporated (Wimberly), is a retail producer located in Ringgold, Louisiana. In 2008, Wimberly had a producer's agreement with IBSL. Carla Jinks (Ms. Jinks) is the administrative manager for Wimberly. In October 2008, R.L. Carter Trucking (Carter) was a customer of Wimberly and applied for motor truck cargo insurance with Wimberly. Wimberly submitted an application to IBSL and requested that coverage be bound effective October 28, 2008, for Carter. IBSL contacted ITMA and received a binder for a policy with Pennsylvania Manufacturers. The cost of the policy was $9,500.00 plus a policy fee of $135.00 for a total of $9,635.00. Carter paid Wimberly $2,500.00 as a down payment and financed the remainder of the cost with Southern Premium Finance, LLC, who paid the financed portion directly to Wimberly. Wimberly deducted a ten percent commission of $950.00 and sent the remainder, $8,635.00 to IBSL. The check was deposited to IBSL's clearing account. On January 22, 2009, Carter contacted Ms. Jinks and advised that he had received a notice of cancellation effective January 22, 2009, due to non-payment to Pennsylvania Manufacturers. On the same date, Ms. Jinks received a facsimile transmission from IBSL, attaching the notice of cancellation and stating: "There was some confusion with the payment we send [sic] and we are working on getting it reinstated." There were some e-mails between Wimberly and Mr. Holliday, III, concerning the placement of coverage with another company. IBSL was unable to place coverage for Carter. By e-mail dated January 30, 2009, Ms. Jinks advised Mr. Holliday, III, that she had been able to place coverage for Carter and requested a return of the premium paid on a pro rata basis. She advised Mr. Holliday, III, that the return premium should be $7,651.35. By e-mail dated January 30, 2009, Mr. Holliday, III, stated: We will tender the return as quickly as it is processed by accounting. I do sorely regret the loss of this account, and our inability to get the Travelers quote agreed on a timely basis. By February 19, 2009, Wimberly had not received the return premium from IBSL. Ms. Jinks sent an e-mail to Mr. Holliday, III, on February 19, 2009, asking that the return premium be rushed to Wimberly so that it could be used to pay for the replacement policy. As of the date of Ms. Jinks' deposition on November 16, 2009, neither Mr. Holliday, III; Mr. Holliday, IV; nor IBSL had given the return premium to Wimberly. K.V. Carrier Services, Inc. (K.V.), is a retail producer located in Medley, Florida. In 2007, K.V. and IBSL entered into a business arrangement with IBSL. Under the arrangement, K.V. was the retailer, IBSL was the wholesale broker, ITMA was the program manager, and Pennsylvania Manufacturers was the insurance company. K.V. collected the down payments for the policy premiums from its customers and sent the down payments to IBSL. The remainder of the premiums were financed by financing companies, who sent the remainder of the premiums to IBSL. IBSL was supposed to send the monies paid for the premiums to ITMA. The following customers made down payments to K.V. and financed the remainder of their premiums with a financing company. E & E Trucking Service OD Transport, Inc. Fermin Balzaldua Eduardo Bravo Carlos Ramirez Edwin Bello Janet Rodriguez UTL, Inc. Prestige Transport USA JNL Transportation, Inc. Valdir Santos DJ Express PL Fast Carrier Ysis Transport K.V. sent the down payments for these customers to IBSL. The financing company sent the remainder of the premiums for these customers to IBSL. The total amount of premiums sent to IBSL for these customers was $19,768.45. IBSL did not send the premium payments for these customers to ITMA. The policies for these customers were cancelled for non-payment. K.V. found another company that was willing to insure K.V.'s customers. K.V. paid the down payments for the new policies from its own funds, hoping that IBSL would repay the finance company with any unearned premiums that would be returned to IBSL as a result of the cancellations. ITMA sent an invoice called an Account Current Statement to IBSL for the business conducted in the month of November 2008. The total amount owed to ITMA was listed as $55,116.32. The invoice included the premium for the policy issued for Carter, less IBSL's commission. The premiums for the policies issued to Eduardo Bravo; Fermin Bazaldua; JNL Transportation, Inc.; Janet Rodriguez; OD Transport, Inc.; and Prestige Transport USA were also included in the Account Current Statement for the business that IBSL conducted in November. IBSL was required to pay the $55,116.32 by December 15, 2008, but did not do so. ITMA received a check from IBSL dated December 31, 2008, for $25,000.00. A notation on the check indicated that it was a partial payment for the November business. The check was unallocated, meaning IBSL did not state to which premiums the partial payment should be applied. Mr. Holliday, III, claimed that IBSL had sent a bordereaux along with the check showing to which policies the payment applied. Mr. Holliday, III's, testimony is not credited. Donald Kaitz (Mr. Kaitz), the president of ITMA, communicated with one of the Respondents, who advised Mr. Kaitz that he needed another week or so to collect some premiums from his retail producers. On January 12, 2009, ITMA received a telephone call from IBSL, stating that IBSL could not pay the balance owed to ITMA and that ITMA should take whatever action it felt necessary. As a result of the communication from IBSL, ITMA issued notices of policy cancellation on all applicable policies listed in the Account Current Statement which was to be paid on December 15, 2008. Copies of the cancellation notices were sent to the insureds and IBSL. ITMA issued pro rata return premiums based on the number of days that each policy had been in effect. The return premiums were sent to IBSL by a check for $18,790.06. Additionally, ITMA sent IBSL a list of the policies that had been cancelled, showing the earned premiums which had been deducted from the $25,000.00. IBSL received and retained a net of $30,116.32, which was owed to ITMA. This amount is derived by deducting the $25,000.00, which IBSL sent to ITMA, from the $55,116.32, which was owed to ITMA. By letter dated April 2, 2009, IBSL sent K.V. a check for $524.80, which stated: We have totaled all amounts owing to IBSL by KV Carrier Service, and we have totaled all pro rated commissions owing by IBSL to KV Carrier Services for the benefit of your clients and have included our check # 1025 in the final amount of $524.80 to settle the account. All net unearned premiums for other than unearned commissions which are funded herein you must contact the insurance carriers involved and request payment under the provisions of Florida Statutes #627.7283. Federal Motor Carriers Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (FMC), is an insurance company, which sells commercial auto liability insurance, specifically targeted to intermediate and long-haul trucking companies. CBIP Management, Incorporated (CBIP), is a managing general underwriter for FMC. FMC had an agreement effective June 1, 2008, with IBSL, allowing IBSL to act as a general agent for FMC. As a general agent for FMC, IBSL was given the authority to accept risk on behalf of FMC. IBSL was given a fiduciary responsibility to accept insurance applications, provide quotes, and bind coverage. Once IBSL binds a policy for FMC, FMC issues a policy and is responsible for the risk. IBSL would receive the down payment from the retail agency, and, in most cases, the finance company would pay the balance of the premium directly to IBSL. The agreement between FMC and IBSL provided that IBSL was to provide FMC a monthly report of premiums billed and collected, less the agreed commission. The report was due by the 15th of the month following the reported month. In turn, FMC was to issue a statement for the balance due, and IBSL was required to pay the balance due within 15 days of the mailing of the statement following the month in which the policy was written. In August 2008, FMC began to notice that IBSL was selling premiums lower than FMC's rating guidelines. IBSL owed FMC approximately $186,000.00, which was due on August 15, 2008. IBSL sent FMC a check, which was returned for insufficient funds. FMC contacted IBSL and was assured that the check was returned due to a clerical error and an error by the bank. Assurances were given to FMC that funds would be transferred to FMC the following day; however, FMC did not receive payment until five days later. In September 2008, Joseph Valuntas (Mr. Valuntas), the chief operating officer for FMC, paid a visit to Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday, IV. Mr. Valuntas expressed his concerns about the delay in receiving payment in August. He also pointed out that IBSL had taken some risks which were not rated properly and that there were some risks in which IBSL was not following the underwriting guidelines. After his visit with the Hollidays, Mr. Valuntas wrote a letter to IBSL, restricting IBSL to writing in Florida and limiting the amount of gross written premium to no more than $100,000.00 per month. IBSL did not adhere to Mr. Valuntas' instructions. An example of IBSL's conduct involved the writing of a policy for Miami Sunshine Transfer, which is a risk category designated as public delivery. Public delivery was not a standard that FMC insured and, as such, was not covered by FMC's reinsurance. Beginning on or about September 21, 2008, FMC began getting complaints from policyholders and retail agents about cancellations of policies that had been paid timely and in full. Although the retail agents had paid the premiums in full to IBSL, IBSL had not forwarded the premiums to FMC. By October 2008, IBSL owed FMC approximately $120,000.00 in past due premiums. FMC officially terminated the IBSL agreement in October 2008. IBSL sued FMC for breach of contract. On December 22, 2008, FMC received a check from IBSL in the amount of $25,122.80, but IBSL did not specify what premiums were being paid by the check. From February 1, 2006, through November 20, 2008, IBSL had a business relationship with Markel International Insurance Company Limited (Markel), an entity for which IBSL was writing insurance. IBSL was a coverholder for Markel, meaning that IBSL could produce insurance business for Markel and had the authority to collect and process premiums and bind insurance on Markel's behalf. Once the premiums were collected by IBSL, they were to be reported to Markel, and, within a maximum of 45 days, IBSL was to remit to Markel the aggregate gross written premiums less IBSL's commission. T. Scott Garner (Mr. Garner) is an expert auditor and financial analyst who currently works for Northshore International Insurance Services (Northshore), an insurance and reinsurance consulting firm. Markel retained Mr. Garner to determine the amount of money that IBSL should have sent to Markel for business transacted by IBSL for the period between February 1, 2006, and November 20, 2008. In doing his analysis, Mr. Garner used the bordereauxs which IBSL prepared and provided to Markel. Bordereauxs are monthly billing reports or accounts receivable reports. Mr. Garner also used data from Omni, which is a software system that was used by IBSL. Mr. Garner used the following procedure to determine what IBSL owed Markel. He determined how much risk IBSL wrote during the time period, that is, the gross written premium. He identified the amount of money that Markel had received from IBSL for the time period. Next he determined the amount that should have been received from IBSL, the gross written premiums minus IBSL's commissions. He compared what should have been remitted to Markel with the amount that was actually received by Markel. Based on his analysis, Mr. Garner calculated that IBSL owed Markel $1,208,656.61. Mr. Garner's analysis is credited. Respondent submitted a FSLSO Compliance Review Summary, which was done by the Florida Surplus Lines Office. At the final hearing, Mr. Holliday, III, viewed the report to mean that Markel was incorrect in the amount of money that was owed to it by IBSL. The report does not indicate that the policies on which the premium variances were noted were policies issued by Markel. Additionally, in his review, Mr. Garner eliminated duplicate transactions in determining the amount owed to Markel. The report did give a long list of policies, which should have been reported to Florida Surplus Lines Office, but IBSL had failed to report the policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondents committed the violations alleged in Counts I through V of the Administrative Complaints, dismissing Count VI of the Administrative Complaints, and revoking the licenses of Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Maria Amelia Pou (Respondent) was licensed as a general lines insurance agent. Pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, the Department of Insurance (Petitioner) has jurisdiction over Respondent’s insurance license and appointments. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of General Insurance Group, Inc. (GIG), located in Hialeah, Florida. GIG is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an officer of Victoria Insurance Agency, later changed to General Insurance Group II, both hereinafter referred to as GIG II, located at 4583 NW 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33126. GIG II is a Florida incorporated general lines insurance agency. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for the wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she knew or should have known were committed by any person, over whom she had direct supervision and control, acting on behalf of GIG II. Respondent was, and is, personally and fully liable and accountable for wrongful acts, misconduct, or violations of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code that she committed. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained an escrow account, with account no. 008-1027286, at Republic National Bank of Miami in Miami, Florida. Respondent had joint signatory authority over the escrow account. Premiums, returned premiums, and other funds belonging to insureds, insurers, and others received in transactions under Respondent's license are trust funds held by Respondent in a fiduciary capacity. On November 22, 1994, Carlos Vidal and his wife, Teresa Vidal, purchased a new vehicle from Ocean Mazda, a Mazda dealership located on Lejeune Road, Miami, Florida. Before leaving the dealership with his new vehicle, Mr. Vidal attempted to obtain insurance coverage for the vehicle from his insurance company, State Farm. However, when he went to State Farm's office, no one was present and it appeared to be closed. Mr. Vidal returned to the dealership and informed the dealer's salesperson, Mr. Munoz, of his problem. The salesperson called several insurance companies without success before reaching GIG II. Mr. Munoz engaged in all communication over the telephone with GIG II. Neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal spoke with GIG II. Mr. Munoz obtained a quote of $997 from GIG II for the annual premium for the insurance coverage on the vehicle and informed Mr. Vidal of the cost. Mr. Vidal requested his wife to complete a check to GIG in the quoted amount. She complied. The check was given to and accepted by Mr. Munoz. GIG II faxed an insurance binder to Mr. Munoz. He gave the binder to Mr. Vidal. The binder indicated that the insurance was to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. Having obtained the insurance binder, Mr. and Mrs. Vidal left the dealership with their new vehicle. Although the premium was paid in full, GIG II completed an insurance premium finance contract (finance contract) to finance the premium with World Premium Finance Company (WPF), dated November 22, 1994, for Mr. Vidal. Ninety-five percent of Respondent's premiums are premium financed. The finance contract reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the finance contract. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed the names of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the finance contract. Respondent signed the finance contract as the broker or agent. Also, the finance contract reflects GIG II as the agent and the insured as both GIG II and Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, with only GIG II's address as the address for both GIG II and the Vidals. Further, the finance contract reflects a premium of $907, cash down payment of $273, and three monthly payments of $225.18. The monies totaled $948.54 for the finance contract price. The $997 check was deposited into GIG II's escrow account. At all times material hereto, the money remained in the escrow account. GIG II completed an application for the insurance coverage, dated November 22, 1994, with Associated Insurance Brokers, Inc. (AIB) to be issued by Clarendon National Insurance Company. The application reflected a total policy premium of $907. Respondent signed the application as brokering agent. Also, the application reflects the alleged signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Vidal. However, neither Mr. Vidal nor Mrs. Vidal signed the application. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that GIG II signed Mr. and Mrs. Vidal's names to the application. Approximately, two to three days after November 22, 1994, Mr. Vidal brought the vehicle to GIG II for pictures to be taken of it for insurance purposes. A Florida Motor Vehicle Preinsurance Inspection Report, dated November 22, 1994, reflects the alleged signature of Mr. Vidal. To the contrary, Mr. Vidal did not sign the Report. Regarding the premium for the insurance, Respondent utilized computer software to compute the premium. The software requires a vehicle's VIN number. Respondent's software was not current due to her not having received, at the time of the transaction, the updated software which would reflect a recent rate increase. The total premium by the software was lower than the premium should have been. It is customary in the insurance industry to use the computer software used by Respondent for the insurance premiums. Also, it is not unusual for a delay to occur for the updated software to be received by an insurance company after a rate increase is approved and effective. In the insurance industry, it is not unusual for a miscalculation of a premium to occur. No gross miscalculation occurred in this instance which would cause the miscalculation to be unusual and suspect. Due to the miscalculation of the premium, by letter dated January 12, 1995, AIB notified Mr. Vidal that an additional $120 was due on the premium. Further, the letter provided that he had three options: (1) pay the $120 by February 10, 1995; or (2) cancel the insurance policy by February 26, 1995, and demand return of unearned premiums; or (3) take no action and the insurance policy would be cancelled by February 26, 1995. Mr. Vidal decided to cancel the insurance policy. On January 30, 1995, Mr. Vidal went to GIG II and executed a Cancellation Request Form cancelling his insurance. Respondent's signature appears on the Form as the agent. At some point in time, the cancellation form was forwarded by GIG II to AIB. By notice dated February 6, 1995, WPF notified Mr. Vidal, among other things, that he had ten days to pay his monthly installment ($225.18) due on February 1, 1995, 1 plus a late charge of $10, totaling $235.18 and that, if he failed to pay, his insurance would be cancelled. The address for Mr. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By notice dated February 16, 1995, WPF notified Mr. and Mrs. Vidal, among other things, that their insurance policy was cancelled due to nonpayment of the monthly installment. The address for Mr. and Mrs. Vidal on the notice was GIG II's address. By letter dated February 14, 1995, to AIB, Mr. Vidal notified AIB that he had chosen to cancel his insurance policy and had executed a cancellation form on January 27, 1995, 2 and demanded a refund of the unearned premiums. Further, Mr. Vidal indicated in the letter that he had neither heard from AIB or received a refund and that he was notifying it of his cancellation and demand for a refund. As a result of the cancellation by Mr. Vidal, AIB issued WPF a check dated February 22, 1995, in the amount of $549.67. Subsequently, on or about March 1, 1995, WPF issued GIG II a check in the amount of $79.31 Even after Mr. Vidal cancelled the insurance coverage and Respondent had received a refund from WPF, Respondent failed to adjust her conduct to conform with the Vidals' situation which was that the insureds, the Vidals, had paid the quoted premium in full. Not having received a refund, on April 17, 1995, approximately two and one-half months after signing the cancellation form, Mr. Vidal filed a request for assistance with Petitioner. By check dated July 10, 1995, more than five months after Mr. Vidal signed the cancellation form, Respondent issued Mr. Vidal a refund in the amount of $239.33 for insurance coverage that he had in effect for a little over two months. The refund check was issued from GIG II's escrow account. The refund monies included $49 which represented the difference between what the Vidals paid for the coverage ($997) and the finance contract price ($948.54). Consequently, Mr. Vidal was assessed the interest charged on a finance contract which never should have existed in his situation as the quoted premium was paid in full. In a premium finance situation in which a refund is due an insured, it is customary in the insurance industry for a three-step process to take place: (1) the insurance company issues a check to the premium finance company for the refund and forwards the check to the premium finance company which may take at least 30 days; (2) the premium finance company issues a check to the agent for the refund and forwards the check to the agent which may take at least another 30 days; and (3) the agent issues a check to the insured for the refund and sends the check to the insured. The same refund procedure was followed in this situation but with less time involved for steps (1) and (2). Moreover, in this instance, an important factor which makes this situation different is that Respondent had in her escrow account the full premium paid by the insureds, the Vidals. After receiving Mr. Vidal's request for assistance, Petitioner conducted an investigation. At first, Petitioner determined that no violation of the Insurance Code had occurred and Petitioner closed its file. However, subsequently, Petitioner re-opened its investigation which led to the filing of the administrative complaint against Respondent. After filing of the administrative complaint and more than one year after Respondent refunded the $239.33 to Mr. Vidal, Respondent acknowledged that more monies were due Mr. Vidal. Having reviewed the computations with Petitioner, Respondent refunded the additional monies to Mr. Vidal. An individual who is not licensed by Petitioner may qualify for a license by experience. Petitioner prescribes the activities in which an unlicensed person may engage. Over the years, Respondent has had unlicensed employees who were attempting to qualify for licensure by experience. Respondent identified two unlicensed employees, Maria Cancio and Maritza Inclant, who provided premium quotes to customers. Approximately ten percent of Ms. Cancio's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. However, more than ten percent of Ms. Martiza's time was devoted to providing premium quotes. Petitioner presented no evidence as to the time periods, i.e., six months or twelve months to which the percentages were applicable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order Finding in Count I that Maria Amelia Pou violated Subsections 626.561(1), 626.611(4), (5), (7), (10) and (13), 626.621(2) and (12), and 626.9541(1)(k)1 and (o) 1 and 2; Dismissing Count II; and Suspending the license of Maria Amelia Pou for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April 1997.
