The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, respondent, James Brian Cantwell, was licensed by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department) as an insurance agent. At all times pertinent hereto, respondent was, pursuant to a written agreement of appointment dated January 11, 1993, appointed as an agent for Capital Security Life Insurance Company (Capital) to solicit applications for insurance on behalf of Capital. In exchange therefor, Capital obligated itself to pay respondent such commissions, progress and persistency bonuses, and service fees due under its schedule of compensation for policies issued as a result of applications submitted by respondent. Following respondent's resignation in October 1993, Capital undertook an audit of respondent's accounts. Such audit revealed that between March 17, 1993, and September 23, 1993, respondent submitted to Capital fifty applications for insurance in the name of fictitious or non-existent persons, and that in reliance on each application Capital had issued a policy of insurance and had paid respondent the total sum of $4,035.09 in first-year commissions, progress and persistency bonuses, and service fees for securing such policies. 1/ Such audit further demonstrated that each of the fifty policies lapsed following issuance due to nonpayment of premium. As a consequence, Capital lost the premiums it would have earned had the policies been predicated on legitimate applications and had they remained in effect; however, the value of that loss is not of record. The out-of-pocket loss to Capital as heretofore noted, of $4,035.09, has, however, been established.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order revoking the licenses and eligibility for licensure of respondent, James Brian Cantwell. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's insurance licenses based upon the alleged violations of the Florida Insurance Code set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently licensed in the state of Florida as life agent, health agent and life & health agent. Pursuant to a contractual agreement executed by the Respondent on September 23, 1988, the Respondent was employed by Independent Life as a debit agent and remained employed with the Company from September 26, 1988, through April 5, 1989. His responsibilities with the Company included sales and servicing of accounts. The Respondent's duties included collecting premiums from customers either weekly or monthly for remittance to the Company. Respondent and the other agents were specifically instructed that collected premiums were to be remitted on a daily basis. Independent Life agents were instructed that all premiums collected from insureds were to be recorded in the insured's premium receipt book. The agent was then required to record the collection on the Company's field accounting route list. The field accounting route list reflects the date the last premium payment was collected, the date the next premium is due, and whether the contract is on a monthly or weekly payment schedule. When a agent collects premiums from an insured on a different day than the date which is to be reflected on the field accounting route list, that information is recorded by the agent on a memo collection list. Finally, in those cases where an insured paid by mail, the payment was to be reflected on a mail pay receipt. Together, the mail pay receipt, the memo collection list and the field accounting list should reflect all payments recorded in the insureds' premium receipt book. In other words, the records contained in the premium receipt book should exactly balance the records which appear on the field accounting route list as supplemented by the mail pay receipts and memo collection list. When accounts are audited by the Company, the sales manager compares the entries in the premium receipt books with the records reflected on the Company's field accounting route list, mail pay receipts and memo collection list. If there is a discrepancy, then the Company conducts an investigation to determine if there is a shortage. Once a shortage has been discovered, it is recorded on the Company's balance due accounting form. This form reflects the shortages which occurred on each individual account. In addition, another balance due accounting form is prepared documenting all shortages on the agent's account. On on about April 5, 1989, Respondent collected the sum of $4.72 from Diana Brown. This sum represented the insured's monthly premium payment. The payment was recorded in the insured's premium receipt book, but was not remitted by Respondent to Independent Life and/or reflected on the field accounting route list or on a memo collection list. Thus, the Respondent collected the sum of $4.72, which represented the insured's premium for a period of one month, and converted the same to his own use and benefit. On or about December 8, 1988, the Respondent collected a monthly premium in the amount of $36.36 from Winnie Christopher. This payment of $36.36 was recorded in the insured's premium receipt book. However, only $27.27 was remitted to the Company and recorded on the Company's memo collection list. This evidence indicates that the Respondent misappropriated and converted to his own use and benefit the sum of $9.09 (which represented one week's premium payment by the insured.) During the month of February, 1989, Respondent collected the sum of $24.30 from Donza Queen, which represented her premium payment for February and March of 1989. This payment was recorded in the insured's premium receipt book. However, the Respondent only recorded $12.15 in the Company's field accounting route list and that sum was the total remitted to the Company. Respondent has failed to properly account for the total amount collected for the account of Donza Queen and has unlawfully misappropriated and converted the same to his own use and benefit. On or about December 8, 1988, the Respondent collected the sum of $27.41 from Georgia Curry. This sum, which represented the insured's monthly premium payments, was recorded in her premium receipt book. However, the field accounting route list prepared by Respondent for the week of December 5, 1988, did not reflect that this collection was applied to the insured's account. Thus, Respondent unlawfully misappropriated and converted to his own use and benefit the sum of $27.41 which should have been applied to the account of Georgia Curry. During the month of January, 1989, Harold Timmerman mailed to Independent Life the sum of $31.71, which represented his premium payment for a period of three (3) months. Pursuant to Company procedures, the office staff recorded the above payment in the insured's premium receipt book, mailed the premium receipt book to the premium payer and issued a mail pay receipt to the Respondent to be applied to Mr. Timmerman's account. The Respondent failed to apply this money to the insured's account. As a result, the policy lapsed in January, 1989, for failure to pay the required premium. The insured was without coverage for a period of three (3) months until Independent Life discovered the discrepancy. In January, 1989, the Respondent collected the sum of $18.43 from William Chambliss, which represented the insured's weekly premium payment. This collection was recorded in the insured's premium receipt book. However, the Respondent failed to apply the above payment to the insured's account. Thus, the Respondent unlawfully misappropriated and converted to his own use and benefit, the sum of $18.43 which should have been applied to the account of William Chambliss. On April 4, 1989, the Respondent collected $23.80 from Claudia Hester. This payment was recorded in the insured's premium receipt book, but it was not remitted to the Company and/or reflected on the field accounting route list. Therefore, the Respondent misappropriated and converted to his own use and benefit, the sum of $23.80 which should have been applied to the account of Claudia Hester. From September, 1987 to February, 1990, Anita Campbell was the Staff Sales Manager for Independent Life. Her duties as the Staff Sales Manager included, in part, assisting other agents who had difficulty collecting their debits. During a routine review of the Respondent's accounts, Ms. Campbell ascertained that the Respondent's arrears were very high and that collection percentages were very low. As a result and in accordance with her responsibilities as Staff Sales Manager, Ms. Campbell accompanied Respondent in the collection of his debit beginning the week of April 4, 1989. Although Ms. Campbell's purpose in accompanying Respondent on his debit route was to help him get his records in order, she soon determined that, in numerous cases, the insured's premium receipt books had been marked as reflecting the payment of premiums even though the premiums were not recorded on the Company's field accounting route list, memo collection list, or other company documents. Ms. Campbell unsuccessfully attempted to discuss this matter with the Respondent who became angry and threatened to walk off the job. On April 5, 1989, the Respondent did not return to work and he was subsequently terminated. Ms. Campbell's responsibilities as Staff Sales Manager also included collecting affidavits from numerous insureds on Respondent's debit route to determine whether documented shortages existed. Her investigation uncovered numerous cases where Respondent collected money but failed to record the premium in the insured's premium receipt book. Some insureds who claim that they made their payments lost their coverage because there was no record of the payment so the Company was unable to give them credit. In other instances, payments were recorded in the premium payer's receipt book, but were not recorded in the Company's field accounting route list. Ms. Campbell completed a report regarding the numerous deficiencies and gave it to Mr. Roy Young, the District Sales Manger, who forwarded the information to the home office for further action. An audit of Respondent's agency was conducted and revealed a deficit in the amount of $1,312.31. It appears that there may be additional shortages which can not be documented. Independent Life recovered the sum of $878.88 by withholding the Respondent's last paychecks. However, there is still a documented shortage due and owing to the Company of approximately $433.43. In an effort to recover these funds, Mr. Thomas Hisle from Independent Life sent a demand letter to the Respondent dated June 14, 1989. That letter notified Respondent that $433.43 was due and owing to Independent Life. Respondent has failed to pay any portion of this outstanding balance owed to the Company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's licenses as an insurance agent in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of April, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner has submitted a Proposed Recommended Order. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. 3. Adopted 4 and 5. in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Jordan, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 34953 Charles Neil Newman 2931 S. W. Brittle Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neill General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent has been licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance as an ordinary life, including disability, agent and a general lines agent. During the years 1977 and 1978, the Respondent operated an insurance agency known as Florida Commercial Underwriters. During May, 1977, the Respondent was a general lines agent providing insurance coverages for The Fronton, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida. During June, 1977, The Fronton, Inc., delivered a check to the Respondent in the amount of $41,229.00 as a premium payment for various insurance coverages to be provided by the Respondent. Approximately $23,795.00 of that amount represented the premium payment for Policy No. 7485844, issued by the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania issued the policy to The Fronton, Inc., for the policy period from May 1, 1977, through May 1, 1978. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania had a firm policy during this period that premiums would be due within forty-five days from inception of the policy, or within fifteen days from the date of billing, whichever was later. Due to errors on its part, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania did not submit its bill to the Respondent until November 30, 1977. The notice on the face of the bill itself indicated that the premium was due within fifteen days of the date of the bill. The Respondent did not pay the premium in accordance with the bill. By notice dated January 31, 1978, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania advised The Fronton, Inc., that its policy would be cancelled effective February 17, 1978, because the premium had not been paid. Donald Roberts, the Assistant General Manager of The Fronton, Inc., immediately contacted the Respondent. The Respondent advised Roberts that the problem was apparently of a bookkeeping sort, and that the premium had been paid. Within four or five days of the time that he received the Notice of Cancellation, Roberts again contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent produce the cancelled check verifying that the premium had been paid. Roberts followed that telephone contact with a visit to the Respondent's office approximately forty-five minutes later. The Respondent searched for a cancelled check, but told Roberts that he would need to get it from the bank. Roberts told him to produce the cancelled check later that day. When the Respondent failed to do that, Roberts took the matter to the office of the State Attorney. Despite the fact that he told Roberts that the policy had been paid, the Respondent had not paid the premium. In fact, he did not pay the premium until May 8, 1978, after he had raised some money from another source. He paid the premium by delivering the check personally to the insurance company's office in Atlanta. Apparently mindful of the fact that the Respondent was acting as its agent, and that the Respondent's receipt of the premium was thus binding upon it, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania reinstated the policy, and has acknowledged that despite its Notice of Cancellation, the policy was in full force and effect during its entire term. The Respondent had suffered financial reverses during this period of time. He had apparently forgotten that the premium had not been paid between the time that he received the check from The Fronton, Inc., and the bill from the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. When he received the bill, he did not have sufficient funds available to pay it. He had in effect used the money paid by The Fronton, Inc., to cover other debts that he had. Since May, 1978, the Respondent has been working as an employee with another insurance agency. His employer assisted him in paying off the obligations that the Respondent incurred in connection with his former business. It does not appear that the Respondent has had problems of this sort in his new position, and he currently teaches an insurance agent's course at a local school.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent failed to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for employees and, if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("Division") is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement within the state that employers cover employees with workers' compensation insurance. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2009). Respondent, Jurgenson Trading Corporation, is owned, in part, by Julio Raudsett, and operates a "Subway" sandwich restaurant franchise in Hialeah, Florida. It is a family-owned business with a total of five employees, three of whom are related. Cesar Tolentino, an investigator for the Division, conducted a field interview of Raudsett, who admitted that he did not carry workers' compensation insurance. Tolentino checked the database in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS"), and there were no records showing workers' compensation coverage for the Subway employees, nor any notices of applicable exemptions. Martha Aguilar, Tolentino's supervisor authorized the issuance of a Stop-Work Order that was personally served on Raudsett by Tolentino by hand-delivery on April 17, 2009. At the same time, Tolentino served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Raudsett provided his business records, including payroll journals and unemployment tax returns. Based on Aguilar's review of the business records, the Division issued its Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Order") on June 8, 2009, with an assessed penalty of $19,873.79. Aguilar determined the amount of the penalty, using the following steps: (1) assigning each employee the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code that was applicable for restaurant workers; (2) determining how much the employee had been paid from April 2006 to April 2009 (the period of non-coverage); and (3) assigning the rate to the gross pay to calculate the insurance premium that should have been paid, then multiplying that by 1.5, as required by rule. The NCCI class codes for employees administrative staff as compared to restaurant workers are lower and, therefore, their workers' compensation insurance premiums would be lower. The business records available to Aguilar did not distinguish among employee's responsibilities. Absent that information, the penalty is, by law, calculated using the highest NCCI class code associated with that kind of business, and was correctly done in this case. Raudsett has entered into a payment plan with the Division. He objected only to that portion of the penalty that was based on his earnings, and those of his wife, Maribel Medina, who works part-time, and his father-in-law, Rolando Medina. He claims an exemption for the three of them as owners and managers of the corporation. Excluding their salaries and associated penalties, according to Joseph Cabanas, Respondent's accountant, would reduce the penalty by $10,267.67, to $9,606.12. Cabanas testified that Raudsett, an immigrant from Venezuela, was not aware of workers' compensation laws, and that was why the three owners/officers of the Respondent's corporation failed to file a Notice of Elections to be Exempt from coverage until after the Division's investigation began.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, that upholds the assessment of a penalty of $19,873.79. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307 Douglas D. Dolan, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Joseph Cabanas 10520 Northwest 26 Street, Suite C-201 Doral, Florida 33172
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed on his licenses and appointments as a life, life and health, and health agent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action, Respondent, Louis Francis Robert, Jr. (Respondent), was a licensed insurance agent and under the jurisdiction of Petitioner, the Department of Insurance (Department). Respondent has been licensed in the State of Florida for fifteen years. Grace Newson is an elderly widow, presently age eighty- one (81) who lives alone and who lived alone at all times material to the occurrences in this matter. Mrs. Newson first met Respondent on September 10, 1998, when he made an unannounced visit to her home in Plant City, Florida. During this initial visit, Respondent told Mrs. Newson that he was in the area and the purpose of his visit was to see if she wanted to change her annuity policy. Respondent's initial visit with Mrs. Newson was about two months after Mrs. Newson's husband died. Mrs. Newson had never met or spoken with Respondent prior to his September 10, 1998, visit to her home. However, it was apparent to Mrs. Newson that based on Respondent's comments to her during the visit that he knew her husband had recently died. Moreover, it was also apparent to Mrs. Newson that at the time of Respondent's initial visit, he was aware that she owned an annuity policy. The annuity policy owned by Mrs. Newson prior to and at the time she met Respondent had been issued by Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company (Fidelity and Guaranty). The policy number was 1-00127454. After his initial visit to Mrs. Newson's house, Respondent continued to visit Mrs. Newson whenever he was in the Plant City area and/or to call her. Each time Respondent contacted Mrs. Newson, he attempted to sell her another annuity policy. In response, Mrs. Newson repeatedly told Respondent that she did not need another policy. Nonetheless, Mrs. Newson's credible testimony was that Respondent was "insistent in trying to put [Mrs. Newson] in a new product." At one point, Mrs. Newson told Respondent that she wanted her deceased husband's name removed from her annuity policy that had been issued by Fidelity and Guaranty. Mrs. Newson told Respondent that the annuity was for her handicapped nephew and that the reason she wanted her husband's name removed from the annuity was so that her nephew would not have difficulty receiving the benefits after her death. Respondent agreed to have Mrs. Newson's deceased husband's name removed from the annuity and requested that she give him the annuity documents in her possession. Mrs. Newson complied with this request. After Mrs. Newson told Respondent to have her deceased husband's name removed from the annuity, he went to her house and delivered two documents for her to sign. Mrs. Newson assumed that the two printed documents were necessary only for the purpose of removing her deceased husband's name from the existing annuity. At no time did Respondent advise Mrs. Newson that the documents he was requesting her to sign were for a new annuity policy and for a death claim benefit. Mrs. Newson signed the documents on the designated signature lines and next to the hand-written "X" on each of those lines, as instructed by Respondent. At the time Mrs. Newson signed the documents, she believed that the documents were for the purpose of removing her deceased husband's name from her annuity issued by Fidelity and Guaranty. Accordingly, she did not thoroughly review or read the documents. One of the documents that Respondent gave to Mrs. Newson to sign was an application form which requested information regarding the "premium amount paid with the application." In the space provided for the response to that inquiry, there is a hand-written "0" with a diagonal line drawn through it that had been scratched out. Immediately below the scratched out "0" was written $32,282.04 and the word, "TRANSFER." Next to the space on the application form that requested "the premium amount paid with the application" was another space that requested "additional information." In that space, the following was written: "Funds coming from death claim on policy #1127454." This was the number of Mrs. Newson's annuity policy that she owned prior to and at the time she met Respondent. The documents were completed by Respondent and signed by Mrs. Newson. However, it is unknown whether all the hand- written information on the documents was on the forms when they were delivered to Mrs. Newson for her signature. In or around October 1998, Respondent processed the forms signed by Mrs. Newson to cause a death claim on the existing annuity previously issued by Fidelity and Guaranty, and to use the proceeds therefrom for the purchase and issuance of a new annuity by that company. Respondent's actions were taken without Mrs. Newson's knowledge or consent. After the forms were processed, Respondent delivered to Mrs. Newson a newly numbered policy issued by Fidelity and Guaranty. Mrs. Newson assumed that the policy simply eliminated her deceased husband's name from the annuity that she owned when she first met Respondent. Based on that assumption, Mrs. Newson merely filed that policy and did not know or understand that it was a new annuity policy which Respondent had caused to be issued without her knowledge. Subsequently, Mrs. Newson received a Form 1099 from the Internal Revenue Service, calling to her attention that her initial annuity had been caused to be surrendered and the proceeds therefrom had been used for the purchase of a new annuity. This was her first knowledge of this occurrence. Immediately, Mrs. Newson immediately contacted Fidelity and Guaranty to inform the company that she did not authorize the purchase of a new annuity policy. She further advised the company that she desired to be immediately returned to ownership of her previously existing policy. During Mrs. Newson's discussions with staff of Fidelity and Guaranty, it was confirmed that Respondent had filed a death claim against her Fidelity and Guaranty annuity, surrendered her initial annuity, and issued a new policy in Mrs. Newson's name. After Mrs. Newson confirmed Respondent's actions, she demanded that Fidelity and Guaranty straighten out the matter. In response, Fidelity and Guaranty canceled the new policy that Respondent had issued to Mrs. Newson and reinstated her original annuity policy. Respondent collected a commission in the amount of $3,758.43 for issuing the new policy to Mrs. Newson. However, Respondent had to reimburse the company for the commission he received as a result of his issuing a new policy to Mrs. Newson, which she had not authorized or requested. Had Mrs. Newson not discovered what had occurred relative to her initial annuity and had the new annuity policy rescinded, Respondent would have received a substantial commission from the transaction. Mrs. Newson never authorized or directed Respondent to file a death claim against her annuity. According to Mrs. Newson, she had no reason to do so because her husband's funeral had been pre-paid and he had a government policy. Furthermore, Mrs. Newson never agreed to purchase a new annuity from Respondent and had repeatedly declined his offers to sell her a new annuity. Erma Clark is an elderly woman, presently aged eighty- eight (88), who lives alone and lived alone at all times material herein. Prior to meeting Respondent, Mrs. Clark was the owner of two (2) annuity policies issued by IDS Life Insurance Company. The policy numbers were 9300-425987 and 9300-04085461. In or around early 2001, Respondent came to the home Mrs. Erma Clark unannounced and without a prior appointment, and asked to see her existing annuities. Respondent then proceeded to attempt to persuade Mrs. Clark to surrender her existing policies and purchase a new annuity that would earn more interest. Mrs. Clark refused to surrender her existing policies and to purchase a new annuity from Respondent. After his initial visit to Mrs. Clark's home in early 2001, Respondent returned to Mrs. Clark's home several times and continued to attempt to convince her to surrender her existing policies and purchase a new annuity policy. Mrs. Clark repeatedly informed Respondent that she did not wish to nor would she do so. On one of Respondent's subsequent visits to Mrs. Clark's home, she told Respondent that she wanted to change the beneficiaries presently reflected on her existing annuities. Respondent agreed to accomplish this task for her. Thereafter, in or around May 2001, Respondent again visited the home of Mrs. Clark and presented her with forms that she assumed were necessary only for the purpose of changing beneficiaries on her existing annuities. She did not carefully review these papers and executed them as instructed by Respondent. In fact, the forms presented by Respondent to Mrs. Clark were those necessary to cause the surrender of her existing annuities and for the purchase of a new annuity to be issued by American Investors Life Insurance Company. In or around May 2001, after Mrs. Clark executed the papers that were presented to her by Respondent, he processed the forms to cause surrender of her existing annuities and the purchase and the issuance of a new annuity from the proceeds thereof. This action by Respondent was without Mrs. Clark's knowledge and consent. In or around June 2001, Mrs. Clark was contacted by IDS Insurance Company, insurer of her previously existing annuities, inquiring as to why she was surrendering the annuities. This was her first knowledge of such occurrence. Upon becoming aware of Respondent's actions, Mrs. Clark immediately informed IDS that at no time did she have knowledge of Respondent's actions nor did she authorize or desire to surrender her existing annuities to purchase any new annuity. She informed IDS that she desired to retain ownership of her two existing annuities. Mrs. Clark then discovered that Respondent had caused National States Insurance Company to issue a new annuity policy to her, policy number HC1-1-0946693. She immediately informed the company that she wanted that policy canceled. On or about June 6, 2001, National States Insurance Company acknowledged cancellation of the new annuity policy that had been effected by the actions of Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding that Louis Francis Robert, Jr. committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and suspending his insurance license for eighteen months. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 25th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Andrews, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 James V. Caltagirone, Esquire 111 South Moody Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent, G and G General Contracting, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. G and G General Contracting, Inc. (Respondent or G and G), is a domestic business corporation organized on July 5, 2013, pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. Respondent’s primary business address is 88 Lincoln Avenue, Ardsley, New York. Gino Uli is Respondent’s President. Respondent is not a Florida corporation. On December 4, 2014, the Department’s investigator, Aysia Elliott, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at a worksite in Naples, Florida. Ms. Elliott observed seven men at the worksite engaged in interior and exterior painting of a newly-constructed residence. The residence was but one in a large residential subdivision under construction. The central issue in this case, and one that is fiercely contested, is whether the painters Ms. Elliott observed at the worksite were employees of G and G. In response to her verbal inquiries to the painters on site, Ms. Elliott testified that the workers first identified Pacific Construction as their employer. Ms. Elliott attempted to contact Pacific Construction, but her calls to that company were not returned. Ms. Elliott testified that upon her further inquiry, one of the painters, Leonardo Gudiel, stated he was an employee of G and G. At this point, Ms. Elliott was unsure which company to investigate for workers’ compensation coverage for the painters at the worksite. The permit sign at the worksite identified Minto Communities as the general contractor. Ms. Elliott contacted Minto Communities via telephone to determine the name of the company to which painting had been subcontracted. At hearing, Ms. Elliott was unable to recall the names of any of the companies identified by Minto Communities as subcontractors for the job. Ms. Elliott did recall that at least two subcontractors were identified by Minto. Mr. Gudiel gave Ms. Elliott a telephone number for a man named “Edison,” alleged to be the foreman. Ms. Elliott called Edison, and testified that he informed her he was on another call and would have to call her back. Edison did not return Ms. Elliott’s call. Ms. Elliott next received a phone call from Mr. Uli. Ms. Elliott testified that, during that phone conversation, Mr. Uli identified the painters at the worksite as employees of his company, G and G. Mr. Uli denied having ever told Ms. Elliott the painters were his employees. Mr. Uli provided Ms. Elliott with the certificate of insurance demonstrating workers’ compensation insurance coverage for employees of G and G. Mr. Uli told Ms. Elliott he would be in Florida in a few days and would meet with Ms. Elliott in person. Ms. Elliott verified the existence of G and G through the State of New York Division of Corporations’ website. Ms. Elliott then verified, through the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System, that G and G had no workers’ compensation coverage in Florida, nor any exemption from coverage requirements for any of its corporate officers. Ms. Elliott also contacted the New York insurance carrier identified by Mr. Uli and confirmed that the carrier did not cover any G and G employees in Florida. On December 8, 2014, Ms. Elliott reviewed the results of her December 4, 2014, workers’ compensation investigation with Maria Seidler, the Ft. Myers district Supervisor. A determination was made that sufficient evidence and information existed to issue a Stop-Work Order against G and G for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance, as required by chapter 440. Ms. Elliott met with Mr. Uli on December 8, 2014. Ms. Elliott personally served Mr. Uli with a Stop-Work Order for the construction site in Naples and a request for specified business records on which to base the penalty calculation. Mr. Uli did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Lyna Ty, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against G and G for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty period was for the two years prior to the date the Stop-Work Order was issued: December 9, 2012 to December 8, 2014. Having no employer records from G and G, Mr. Ty imputed the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for the seven painters at the worksite on December 4, 2014. Mr. Ty calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premium that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for those specific employees during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Mr. Ty assigned NCCI code 5474, which is the classification code for painting contractors according to the SCOPES manual adopted by the Department for imputing wages associated with various occupations. On January 9, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against G and G in the amount of $254,697.38 However, because G and G was not formed until July 5, 2013, the original penalty calculation was based on an incorrect penalty period. Mr. Ty recalculated the penalty based on a penalty period from July 5, 2013 through December 8, 2014. On May 26, 2015, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against G and G in the amount of $185,354.68. Mr. Uli’s testimony provided no more clarity than Ms. Elliott’s as to the identity of the employer for the painters at the worksite on December 4, 2014. Mr. Uli previously lived in Florida for seven years and was engaged in “restaurant business.” Mr. Uli met Leonardo Gudiel, a contractor, while he was living in Florida. While living in Florida, Mr. Uli also met James Cartisano, the purported owner of Facility Construction. When Mr. Uli relocated to New York, he stayed in touch with Mr. Gudiel. According to Mr. Uli, he planned to give to Mr. Gudiel any work G and G obtained in Florida and asked Mr. Gudiel to “be registered as a vendor with [him].” Mr. Uli testified that Mr. Cartisano contacted him in New York and told him that he had been engaged by Minto Communities (Minto) to paint a model home in a new residential neighborhood under construction in Naples, Florida. Presumably, if Mr. Cartisano’s work was satisfactory to Minto, Facility Construction would be hired for the larger job. According to Mr. Uli, he referred Mr. Cartisano to Mr. Gudiel to supply painters for the job. Mr. Uli described himself as the “middle man.” Upon inquiry from the undersigned as to how Mr. Uli or G and G construction would profit from his position as the middle man, Mr. Uli stated, “No arrangement as per se on paper, Judge, but this is on – on [Mr. Cartisano’s] word to me; that if you get me the right guys down there that can do this for me, I’ll take care of you.”1/ On December 4, 2014, when Ms. Elliott conducted her random worksite inspection, Mr. Uli received a telephone call from Mr. Gudiel informing him that Ms. Elliott was onsite asking questions about workers’ compensation insurance. According to Mr. Uli, he called Mr. Cartisano, who “did not want to deal with this.”2/ Mr. Uli explained that he telephoned Ms. Elliott on December 4, 2014, to explain that the guys onsite were painting a model home for Minto, and if Minto was satisfied, Facility Construction would get the overall job (estimated at 700 houses). At hearing, Mr. Uli strongly denied that he told Ms. Elliott the workers were his employees, either on the phone on December 4, 2014, or when he met with her in person on December 8, 2014. The evidence, or lack thereof, leaves the undersigned with many unresolved questions: Why would Facility Construction contact a contractor in New York to provide painters for a job in Florida? Why did Mr. Uli supply Ms. Elliott with a copy of his certificate of insurance for workers’ compensation insurance in New York? Moreover, if the painters were not his employees, why did Mr. Uli travel to Florida from New York and meet with Ms. Elliott? From the evidence as a whole, it can be inferred that Mr. Uli had a significant interest in the work being done at the Naples worksite on December 4, 2014. However, it cannot be inferred that G and G was the employer of the painters at the worksite. That fact must be proven by the Department.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Second Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, G and G Contracting, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 13th day of November, 2015. 1/ T.83:12-15.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 10, 1984, the Petitioner should revoke the Respondent's license and eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent or impose some lesser penalty authorized by statute.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted into evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact: 1/ On June 16, 1982, the Respondent, Shelby Dewey Blackman, executed an Application for Qualification as Nonresident Life Agent, which application he thereafter caused to be filed with the Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer. In that application Mr. Blackman stated that his residence address and his business address in his state of residence were both "2549 New York Avenue, Pascagoula, Miss. 39567." (Pet. Ex. 1; Tr. 12-13) The Department of Insurance and Treasurer does not issue Nonresident Life Agent licenses to people who are in fact residents of the State of Florida. Such licenses are only issued to people who are nonresidents of this state. Applicants for Resident Life Agent licenses are required to take an examination prior to licensure. Applicants for Nonresident Life Agent licenses are not required to take an examination prior to licensure. The Department would not have issued a Nonresident Life Agent license to Mr. Blackman if the Department had known that Mr. Blackman was a Florida resident. (Tr. 14) As a result of the filing of the application described above, the Department issued to Mr. Blackman a license as a Nonresident Life and Health Agent for the American Sun Life Insurance Company, which was the only company he was authorized to write insurance for in the State of Florida. When Mr. Blackman received his license, the license listed the name of the the only company he was authorized to write insurance for in this state. Licensees who are authorized to represent more than one insurance company in this state receive a separate license for each company they are authorized to represent. Mr. Blackman had only the one license to represent one company. (Pet. Ex. 1 and 2; Tr. 14-18) At all times material to this case, Mr. Blackman was a resident of Santa Rosa County, Florida. Specifically, Mr. Blackman was a resident of Santa Rosa County, Florida, at the time he applied for and was issued a Nonresident Life and Health Agent license and at the time of writing the four insurance applications which are described hereinafter. (Pet. Ex. 3; Tr. 20-21, 53) Continental Bankers Life Insurance Company of the South does not currently hold, and has never held, a Certificate of Authority to write insurance in the State of Florida. In November of 1982 Continental Bankers Life Insurance Company of the South was licensed to write insurance in the State of Alabama and Mr. Blackman was authorized by Continental to write insurance for Continental in the State of Alabama. (Pat. Ex. 8; Tr. 24-25) During November of 1982, Mr. Blackman wrote four applications for health insurance policies to be issued by the Continental Bankers Life Insurance Company of the South. One was an application dated November 2, 1982 from Mr. Thomas J. Barrow. Another was an application dated November 4, 1982, from Mr. Jimmie R. Williams. The last two were applications dated November 12, 1982, from Mr. Henry E. Marshall and Mr. Ercy L. Henderson, respectively. All four of the applications were written and signed in Jay, Florida. No part of the transactions which culminated in the writing of the four applications took place in the State of Alabama. On three of the applications Mr. Blackman wrote that the application was written and signed in Brewton, Alabama, and on one of the applications Mr. Blackman wrote that the application was written and signed in Flomaton, Alabama. The statements that the applications were written and signed in Alabama were false statements that Mr. Blackman knew to be false statements. (Pet. Ex. 4, 5, 6, 7; Tr. 37-38, 42, 49, 53-54) The false statements written on the four applications described above were relied upon by the Continental Bankers Life Insurance Company of the South and were, therefore, material misrepresentations. If Mr. Blackman had truthfully written on the applications that they were written and signed in the State of Florida, Continental would not have issued policies on the basis of those four applications because Continental was not licensed to write insurance in the State of Florida. The MM-6 policy is an insurance policy that Continental markets in Alabama and the false statements on the applications which indicated that the policies were applied for and completed in Alabama induced Continental to issue the policies. (Tr. 25-27, 32, 34-35)
Recommendation For all of the reasons set forth above, and particularly because of Mr. Blackman's demonstrated disregard for the truth, I RECOMMEND that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order revoking Mr. Blackman's license and eligibility to hold a license. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of July, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9575 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found Upon the suggestion of a special investigator with the Department of Insurance, a letter dated April 23, 1984, and signed by Northeast Regional Director Thomas P. Poston was written to the respondent at the address listed for him in the Tallahassee licensing office. This letter advised the respondent that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer had received complaints from Orange and Seminole Counties that he was recruiting clients during initial court appearances and that this appeared to be a violation of Section 648.44(b) of the Florida Statutes. The letter admonished respondent to immediately terminate such solicitation and advised him that any additional complaints would bring further action. The evidence does not establish whether respondent received this letter of April 23, 1984. The respondent was involved in another administrative proceeding with the petitioner, the facts of which were not brought into evidence in the instant proceeding. In the former proceeding, Case No. 84-L-3155, a Consent Order was entered which required respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and placed him on probation for a period of one year with the condition that he strictly adhere to the Florida Insurance Code. On or about December 4, 1984, Kenneth Martin was working on the property of Ray Dittmore. Respondent had previously, in July of 1984, written three bailbonds for Mr. Martin, all of which had been forfeited due to Mr. Martin's failure to appear in court. Upon learning of the whereabouts of Mr. Martin, respondent sent his employee, George Burfield, to Mr. Dittmore's property to apprehend Martin and return him to custody. Mr. Dittmore was present when Mr. Burfield arrived to take Martin into custody and felt that Mr. Burfield had misconducted himself during the apprehension process. After the incident, Dittmore telephoned respondent to complain about the conduct of his employee Burfield. Later that same day, Mr. Dittmore went to the Orange County Jail with his attorney, Warren Linsey, for the purpose of posting a cash bond for Kenneth Martin. There were prisoners confined in the Orange County Jail on December 4, 1984. While Mr. Dittmore was at the booking window counting his money, approximately $3,000.00, respondent approached him. Mr. Linsey recalls that respondent immediately introduced himself as a bondsman and offered his services. George Cox, also a bondsman, was present and recalls that when respondent saw Mr. Dittmore counting money at the window, respondent approached him, stated that he was a bail bondsman and informed him that Dittmore did not have to post the cash and could use him (respondent) instead. Mr. Dittmore recalls that after he told the deputy that he wished to bond out Kenneth Martin, respondent approached him at the window and asked him if he was the Dittmore he had spoken to earlier that day. Dittmore then recalls that respondent told him he didn't have to put up $3,000.00 because respondent could sell him a bond. According to Mr. Dittmore, respondent also told him that he wouldn't bond Martin out, that Dittmore was "dumb" for doing so and would end up losing his money. Respondent, who had previously written about $1,800.00 worth of bonds on Kenneth Martin and only received $216.00 as a remission for returning him to custody on December 4, 1984, recalls the incident at the Orange County Jail with Mr. Dittmore as follows. From his nearby position at the booking window, he could overhear and see that a "Dittmore" was there to post a bond for Kenneth Martin. After inquiring of Mr. Dittmore if he was the same Dittmore he had spoken with earlier, respondent introduced himself, apologized for what had happened earlier that day, begged him not to bail Martin out and told him he was foolish for doing so. He does recall later saying to George Cox that there were better ways to invest cash. Because respondent had previously lost money on Kenneth Martin, he had no intention of writing another bond on him on the same date he had been responsible for Martin's return to custody. Joseph Barrow was arrested on May 29, 1985, and was taken to the Seminole County Jail. At the time of his arrest, he had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Although subpoenaed to appear as a witness in this administrative hearing, Joseph Barrow was released and was not called upon to testify by the petitioner. According to sworn testimony taken on January 28, 1986, Joseph Barrow recalls that after he was fingerprinted at the Seminole County Jail on the evening of May 29, 1985, he called home to have his wife contact a bail bondsman to get him out of jail. He does not know if his family did contact a bondsman that night. However, he did speak with a bail bondsman that night at the jail, but could not remember his name. The description of the bondsman given in Joseph Barrow's statement of January 28, 1986, matched the respondent's physical appearance at the hearing. Joseph's wife, Michele Barrow, testified that her husband telephoned her the night he was arrested and asked her to find a bondsman. Neither the time of that telephone conversation nor the family's immediate response to that request were established at the hearing. On May 30, 1985, James Barrow, Joseph's brother; Donna Brino, Joseph's sister; and Michele Barrow, Joseph's wife, were at the Seminole County Jail for the purpose of getting Joseph out of jail. There were prisoners confined at the jail on that date. James recalls that, as he was standing in line to obtain information regarding his brother, respondent was also waiting in line and asked him why he was there. James replied that he was there to get his brother out of jail and asked respondent if he was a bondsman. Respondent stated that he was and asked James who his brother was. After James told respondent that his brother was Joe Barrow, respondent referred to a white piece of paper and replied that he had talked to Joe the previous night and had advised him to wait until the hearing that morning to see if his bond would be reduced. When James learned that he would need $250.00 to get his brother out of jail, he left the jail and went to the bank. When he returned to the jail, respondent approached him and asked him if he had gotten the $250.00. James recalls that when he replied that he had, respondent said "Well, give me the money, and I'll get your brother out of jail." James did not give respondent the money because his sister and sister-in-law who were standing behind respondent, were shaking their head "no." Joseph told James that he had spoken to a bondsman the night before, but could not remember the bondman's name. Michele Barrow recalls that as James was waiting in line at an information window, respondent approached him, asked if he needed a bondsman, and told James that he had spoken to Joseph the night before. At that point in time, Donna Brino, Joseph's sister, was on the telephone trying to contact a bondsman. Donna Brino did not hear the conversation which occurred between James Barrow and the respondent prior to James leaving the jail for the bank. She was aware that Joseph had spoken to a bondsman the night before and that he did not remember who that was. Because of her use of pronouns in lieu of names, Ms. Brino's description of the events which transpired on May 30th at the Seminole County Jail is unclear. She apparently telephoned Action Bail Bonds and left a message. While waiting for the message to be returned, she saw Bruce Moncrief, another bondsman, and spoke with him about writing her brother's bond. She stated that after she had already made arrangements with bondsman Bruce Moncrief, respondent told her she was stupid for using Moncrief and attempted to obtain the money from her brother James. Respondent testified that he was called to the Seminole County Jail by someone in the Barrow family on the evening of May 29, 1985. He went to the jail and spoke with Joseph Barrow. Upon learning that Joseph could not then afford to arrange for the $5,000.00 bail which had been set, respondent advised Joseph to wait until the next day when the amount of bail would be reduced. Respondent states that Joseph told him that his brother would get some money and would be contacting him. Respondent told Joseph that he would be at the jail the next day for the first appearances. Respondent also states that Joseph's brother, James, called him the next morning and he told James that it was better to wait until the first appearance and the reduction of the bond, that he would be at the jail for first appearances and that he would meet him there at that time. Respondent admits that he did approach James at the Seminole County Jail because he looked like his brother, Joseph, and said "I'm the one you're looking for. I talked to you this morning." After Joseph's bond was reduced to $2,500.00, respondent communicated this to James, and James left to go to the bank to get the money. At this point, respondent believed that he was going to write the bond, so he began preparing the papers and waited 30 to 45 minutes for James to return with the money. It was not until James returned from the bank that respondent learned he was not going to write Joseph's bond and that the family had obtained Mr. Moncrief instead.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint against the respondent be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this day of September, 1986. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 10th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0462 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner 6 and 7. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8 and 9. Rejected. These ultimate conclusions are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 11. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 19 and 20. Rejected as Unsupported by the evidence. Respondent - Respondent's proposals contain unnumbered and mixed factual findings and legal conclusions. Each of the topics included has been addressed in either the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, except: Page 2, first paragraph Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Page 4, last full paragraph Rejected, Unsupported and irrelevant in light of factual findings and legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Thornburg, Esquire Bill Gunter Department of Insurance Insurance Commissioner Legal Division and Treasurer 413-B Larson Building Department of Insurance Tallahassee, Florida 32301 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, William Robert Pearson, should be disciplined for alleged statutory and rule violations for his role in several insurance transactions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed in Florida as a life including variable annuity agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), regulated by the DFS's Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Services. He was so licensed at all times pertinent to this case. He was first licensed in 1988 and has been disciplined once, in September 2002, when he was given a Letter of Guidance for misrepresenting to a Pinellas Park resident that an annuity he sold her would generate interest in excess of 6.8 percent, when the guaranteed rate was three percent for the first year. During the transactions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent also was registered with OFR's Division of Securities as a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker representative associated with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica). On August 21, 2012, based on some of the same facts alleged in this case, OFR charged the Respondent with failing to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade because he: participated in the liquidation of variable and fixed annuities on behalf of several elderly customers referred by insurance agents not licensed as FINRA broker representatives; executed the liquidations recommended to the customers by insurance agent Richard Carter; failed to appropriately record the transactions on the books and records of Transamerica; failed to review the transactions, or have them reviewed by Transamerica, as to suitability; and provided Agent Carter with blank Transamerica letterhead to be used to facilitate the transactions. A Stipulation and Consent Agreement was entered on December 18, 2012, in which the Respondent admitted the OFR charges and agreed to never seek a license or registration as a dealer, investment advisor, or associated person under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, chapter 517, Florida Statutes. A Final Order incorporating the settlement agreement was entered on January 11, 2013. (This Final Order is the basis for Count IX, which was added to the charges in this case, as well as for one of the Respondent's affirmative defenses.) Count I-–Geraldine Busing Geraldine Busing was born on December 1, 1930. She has a high school education. Her husband of 44 years died in 2001. When alive, he handled the family finances. Mrs. Busing's income is from a pension of $728 a month and social security payments of $1,090 a month. In addition, she had substantial investments in two Schwab accounts. During the market decline of 2007-2008, Mrs. Busing became dissatisfied with the performance of her Schwab accounts. An insurance agent named Richard Carter recommended that she invest in annuities, which would reduce her taxes. (In her deposition, testimony was elicited from Mrs. Busing that Agent Carter told her that the Respondent would do her taxes for free for the rest of her life. It is not likely that he made such a representation, and there is no evidence that the Respondent knew about such a representation.) Mrs. Busing followed Agent Carter's recommendation. Agent Carter did not have a FINRA license and approached the Respondent, who worked for Transamerica, to facilitate the liquidation of Mrs. Busing's Schwab accounts, so she could follow Agent Carter's recommendations. The Respondent agreed. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent provided blank Transamerica forms to Agent Carter and that Agent Carter "shuffled" the forms together with an EquiTrust Life Insurance Company (EquiTrust) annuity application and suitability forms and requested Mrs. Busing's signatures (although, it is alleged, one or more of the signatures on the Transamerica forms were not hers.) It is alleged that, unbeknownst to Mrs. Busing, Agent Carter gave the Respondent these forms, as well as a copy of her Schwab account statements, so he could liquidate her accounts, which totaled $627,000 at the time, "dump" the proceeds into a Transamerica account, and then "funnel" the liquidated assets into two EquiTrust annuities. It is alleged that Mrs. Busing became aware of these transactions in September 2010 after discussions with her accountant. Mrs. Busing testified that she has never met the Respondent and does not know him. She testified that she gave all of her Schwab account information to Agent Carter and did not expect him to share it with the Respondent. She testified that Agent Carter had her hurriedly sign a stack of papers without giving her a chance to review them. She said she was surprised when her stock broker, Barry Tallman, called to tell her that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated and used to open a Transamerica account. She denied ever receiving or signing the Schwab bank check dated July 7, 2010, used to open the Transamerica accounts; denied ever providing the Respondent and Transamerica with information for her customer account information (CAI) form used to open the Transamerica accounts; and denied that several of the Geraldine Busing signatures on the Transamerica documents used for the transactions were her signatures. She admitted to signing a Transamerica check dated August 13, 2010, which was used to purchase the EquiTrust policies. The Respondent testified that he telephoned Mrs. Busing at Agent Carter's request. He testified that she told him she wanted to implement Agent Carter's recommendation to liquidate the Schwab accounts and purchase annuities. He testified that he told her his services were not required because her current broker (Mr. Tallman) could handle it for her, unless she just wanted to avoid confronting her current broker. He said she wanted the Respondent to handle it, and he replied essentially that he would do whatever she and Agent Carter wanted him to do for her. The Respondent testified that he then mailed Mrs. Busing forms she had to fill out, sign, and return to him. He testified that he talked to her briefly by telephone about 15 to 20 times to answer questions she had about the forms. When she told him she received a Schwab check in the amount of about $150,000 and asked if she should mail it to him, he cautioned her that it would be better not to mail it and offered to drive to her house to get the check, which he did and returned immediately to Transamerica to open a Transamerica account with it. He testified that the Transamerica funds were used to purchase EquiTrust annuities at the direction of Agent Carter and Mrs. Busing. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Mrs. Busing's version of the facts is true and that the Respondent's version is untrue. To the contrary, Mrs. Busing's memory did not seem to be very good, and she seemed confused during her testimony. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent made any investment or insurance recommendations or misrepresentations to Mrs. Busing. The Petitioner's own witnesses (DFS and OFR investigators, Karen Ortega and Mercedes Bujans) testified that the Respondent never acted as Mrs. Busing's insurance agent. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Busing incurred tax and commission charges as a result of her Schwab account being liquidated, other than Transamerica's standard "ticket charge" for the transactions, which the Respondent admitted. There was no evidence that the Respondent received any remuneration on the EquiTrust annuity sales. Those commissions went to Agent Carter. The Petitioner contended in its proposed recommended order that the Respondent listed Mrs. Busing's annual income to be between $25,000 and $50,000, her investment objective as growth and income, and her investment time horizon as long-term. (Busing Deposition Exhibit 87). There was no testimony to put the exhibit in context or explain it. On its face, Busing deposition Exhibit 87 was a request from Transamerica to the client to confirm certain information. The form had the Respondent's name printed on it, but it was not signed by either the Respondent or Mrs. Busing, and the evidence did not prove who completed the form. (The CAI form contained similar information and had both their signatures.) The Petitioner contends that the information on the confirmation request was "absurd," because it listed Mrs. Busing's annual income as between $25,000 and $50,000, when her taxable income was $11,108 for 2009 and $8,251 for 2010. There was evidence that her total annual income was about $48,000 for 2007, $32,600 for 2008, $22,358 for 2009, and $19,001 for 2010, with the decline due to the decline in the stock market. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the income information on that form or the CAI form was absurd. The investment objective and investment time horizon on the forms were questionable, but the evidence was not clear and convincing that these were misrepresentations by the Respondent. The Transamerica account was a Pershing money market account used to facilitate the purchase of annuities. The evidence was that a separate suitability analysis would be required by the insurance company offering the annuity. The evidence was not clear that the information in the forms signed by the Respondent was used for the purchase of EquiTrust annuities on behalf of Mrs. Busing. Those purchases were recommended and executed by Agent Carter. The evidence was not clear and convincing that switching Mrs. Busing's investments from Schwab to EquiTrust annuities was not suitable for Mrs. Busing or in her best interest. No expert witness testified to that effect. Counts II through IV–-The Kesishes In 2010, William Kesish and his wife, Josefa, owned several annuities. Mr. Kesish had managed their business affairs before he developed Parkinson's disease and dementia in his old age. After that, Mrs. Kesish cared for him and took over the family's finances by default. Mr. Kesish died on November 26, 2010. Mrs. Kesish was born in Spain in 1937. English is her second language. In 2010, she had difficulty conversing and reading in English and was unable to write in English. After her husband became mentally disabled, she used their bank account to provide for their needs, but she had no investment acumen beyond knowing generally that it was better to make more money from their investments than to make less or to lose money. She was recovering from cancer treatment in 2010 and was physically frail. On May 25, 2010, Paula Rego, a professional guardian, met with an attorney who believed the Kesishes were being exploited and in need of a guardian. Ms. Rego reviewed documentation provided by the attorney and, in June 2010, agreed to Mrs. Kesish's voluntary request to become the guardian of the Kesishes' property. On July 8, 2010, Ms. Rego became aware of the Respondent's involvement in the Kesishes' financial business. She telephoned the Respondent to explain her guardianship role and faxed him on July 15, 2010, to direct him to cancel any investment transactions that were underway. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Ms. Rego to explain her review of the documentation she collected in her research to attempt to piece together the financial transactions involving the Kesishes. She also testified as to the surrender charges and, to some extent, the tax liabilities that resulted from them. She also related statements made by Mrs. Kesish to her and, to some extent, to the DFS and OFR investigators, Karen Ortega and Mercedes Bujans, who also related some of the statements Mrs. Kesish made to them. The Petitioner also introduced an affidavit prepared by Ms. Ortega and signed by Mrs. Kesish on March 31, 2011. All of Mrs. Kesish's statements were hearsay. The hearsay cannot itself support a finding of fact.3/ In general, the hearsay demonstrated that Mrs. Kesish did not have a clear recollection of her interactions with the Respondent at the time of her statements. Agent Carter introduced the Respondent to Mrs. Kesish in March 2010. The Petitioner alleged essentially that Agent Carter schemed and collaborated with the Respondent to exploit the Kesishes by tricking them into financial and insurance transactions that would not be in their best interest, but would generate commissions and fees for them. It was alleged that, as with Mrs. Busing, the Respondent's FINRA licensure was required to buy and sell securities in furtherance of the scheme. The Respondent testified that Agent Carter told him about his clients, the Kesishes, and that he went to meet Mrs. Kesish in person because he had difficulty communicating with her over the telephone due to her hard-to-understand Spanish accent and limited proficiency in spoken English. He testified that she told him she wanted to get out of the stock market and was unhappy with her current stockbroker, Doreen Scott. (That part of the Respondent's testimony was corroborated by Ms. Rego, who concurred that Mrs. Kesish did not like dealing with Ms. Scott because she talked down to her.) The Respondent testified that he went to Mrs. Kesish's house, asked if he could be of assistance to her, and discussed her financial situation with her. He testified that he then returned to his Transamerica office and mailed forms for her to fill out and sign.4/ Similar to his dealings with Mrs. Busing, the Respondent testified that he spoke to Mrs. Kesish several times by telephone to answer questions about the forms. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent knew Agent Carter would be helping her. The Respondent testified that when the completed forms were returned to him by mail, he telephoned Mrs. Kesish to verify the information on the forms and, in some cases, get information that was omitted to add it to the forms. The Petitioner attempted to prove that the Respondent knew or should have known Mrs. Kesish was mentally disabled and incapable of voluntarily instructing the Respondent to effectuate financial transactions on her behalf. Mrs. Kesish lacked knowledge in investing and was susceptible to being misled and exploited, but it was not proven that Mrs. Kesish was mentally incapacitated or unable to consent to Agent Carter's recommendations or instruct the Respondent. Ms. Rego herself did not find it necessary to initiate involuntary proceedings to establish a plenary guardianship of Mrs. Kesish's person and property until October 2013. (Count II) One of the Kesishes' investments was a Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Genworth) variable annuity (G-58), which they bought on October 31, 2008, for $86,084.89. It was designed to begin paying monthly income on October 31, 2022. It provided a waiver of surrender charges if either Kesish was hospitalized, admitted to a nursing facility, or died. As of March 31, 2010, G-58 had a contract value of $102,954.90. Mrs. Kesish signed a form on letterhead of the Respondent and Transamerica that expressed her desire for the Respondent to be their insurance agent on G-58. On May 27, 2010, the Respondent used an automated account transfer (ACAT) to liquidate G-58 and transfer the funds to a Transamerica brokerage account he opened for the Kesishes on the same date. The Respondent did not independently determine whether the liquidation was suitable or in the Kesishes' best interest. He relied on Agent Carter to do this. The Respondent and the Kesishes signed the CAI form to open the brokerage account. The surrender of G-58 took effect on June 14, 2010. As a result of the liquidation, the Kesishes were assessed a surrender charge of $4,576.91 and federal tax was withheld, and the net proceeds from the liquidation were $90,314.19. On June 29, 2010, the funds in Mrs. Kesish's Transamerica account were added to an EquiTrust policy Agent Carter had sold her (E-92F). The Respondent testified that this was done at the direction of Agent Carter and Mrs. Kesish. The Respondent did not act as the Kesishes' EquiTrust agent and received no commissions. The Petitioner alleged and proposed a finding that the liquidation of G-58 allowed Agent Carter to represent to EquiTrust that the Kesishes had no other annuities and that the addition to E-92F was not replacing another annuity, which allowed Agent Carter to avoid having Genworth attempt to "conserve" G-58 (i.e., question the Kesishes as to whether they wanted to reverse the liquidation within the grace period for doing so). The evidence cited in support of the allegation and proposed finding is documentation of the initial purchase of E-92F in April 2010, not the addition in June 2010. There was no clear and convincing evidence that actions taken by the Respondent resulted in Agent Carter circumventing the replacement notice requirement, or that the Respondent should be held responsible for what Agent Carter did or did not do regarding the EquiTrust annuity. According to the Respondent, he made no investment recommendations to Mrs. Kesish, and all such recommendations were made by Agent Carter. He testified that he only took action in accordance with the wishes of Mrs. Kesish, who was being advised by Agent Carter. He denied that his purpose was to generate commissions or fees for himself or for Agent Carter, or to enable Agent Carter to conceal the replacement of the Genworth annuity. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent's testimony was false. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order cites the testimony of Tarek Richey regarding his concerns about the Respondent's use of an ACAT to liquidate annuities, transfer of the proceeds to Pershing accounts at Transamerica, and use of those funds to purchase other annuities. Mr. Richey is a FINRA- licensed securities broker at Questar Capital Corporation, who employed and supervised the Respondent for about a month in early 2011, after he left Transamerica in December 2010. While supervising the Respondent, Mr. Richey was advised of OFR's investigation of the Respondent and reviewed the Respondent's documentation on the subject of OFR's investigation. One of Mr. Richey's concerns from his review of the Respondent's documentation was the use of ACAT, which would not guarantee that the client is aware of resulting surrender charges and tax consequences. He also was concerned that ACAT could have been used to bypass and avoid the use of forms required to analyze the suitability of annuities purchased for the Kesishes (and other clients). While he expressed these concerns, Mr. Richey had no personal knowledge and did not testify that the Kesishes (or the other clients) actually were unaware of surrender charges and tax consequences, or that liquidation was not suitable or in their best interest. Another of Mr. Richey's concerns was that the use of ACAT could result in the replacement of annuities without completing the required forms that would provide notice to the insurance company that its annuity was in the process of being replaced and give it an opportunity to conserve its annuity. Mr. Richey did not know that the use of ACAT actually resulted in the bypass of the replacement policy notice requirements for the Kesishes and other clients. He also did not testify that the Respondent should be held responsible for what Agent Carter did or did not do regarding replacement notices. Ms. Rego testified (based in part on discussions with a financial planner who did not testify) that she did not think the Genworth and EquiTrust transactions were not in the best interest of the Kesishes, mainly because of the Genworth surrender charge and tax consequences. There was no other expert testimony on the subject, and the evidence was not clear and convincing that those transactions were unsuitable or not in their best interest. (Count III) The Kesishes owned a Riversource Life Insurance Company (Riversource) annuity (R-30) that they bought on October 5, 2006. The contract had declining withdrawal charge rates that held at eight percent for the first four years. It had a death benefit rider. On March 23, 2010, a letter on the Respondent's Transamerica letterhead, written in English and signed by Mrs. Kesish, directed Riversource to list the Respondent as the Kesishes' financial advisor. On April 23, 2010, Mrs. Kesish signed a form directing Riversource to liquidate R-30. She also signed a form saying she knew there would be surrender charges. On April 26, 2010, Riversource sent the Kesishes a check for $26,430.07 (which was net after $2,454.30 in surrender charges). The testimony from Ms. Rego as to whether the liquidation of the Riversource annuity was contrary to the Kesishes' best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements, was similar to her testimony with respect to the Genworth liquidation. There was no other expert or other clear and convincing evidence. (Count IV) The Kesishes also had Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American) annuities in the amounts of approximately $560,854 (GA-25) and $28,785 (GA-00), which were purchased in January 2010. GA-25 was owned by the Kesishes' trust, with Mrs. Kesish as trustee; GA-00 was owned by Mr. Kesish. By June 4, 2010, they had contract values of $580,854.71 and $29,970.46, respectively. On June 18, 2010, Agent Carter took Mrs. Kesish to lunch. A letter dated June 18, 2010, signed by Mrs. Kesish for her and her husband, written in English on the Respondent's Transamerica letterhead, directed the transfer of GA-25 to a Transamerica Pershing account (TA-25). An ACAT form dated June 20, 2010, signed by Mrs. Kesish and the Respondent, directed the liquidation of Mr. Kesish's GA-00 and the transfer of the proceeds to the Kesishes' Transamerica Pershing account. This transaction took effect on July 7, 2010.5/ After becoming involved through Attorney Hook, Ms. Rego had numerous discussions with Mrs. Kesish and with Agent Carter regarding the Kesishes' investments. Agent Carter attempted to explain and justify his actions to Ms. Rego and blame other insurance agents who he claimed had essentially stolen his clients by tricking them into replacing Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (Allianz) annuities sold to them by him with GA-25 and GA-00. Ms. Rego's research notes evidence her understanding that the Great American sales to the Kesishes were unsuitable. During Ms. Rego's discussions and research throughout June 2010, the Respondent's name did not come up, and Ms. Rego was unaware of the Respondent having anything to do with the Kesishes. When she learned about the Respondent's role on July 8, 2010, she attempted to contact him. On July 15, 2010, she faxed the Respondent to instruct him to stop acting on behalf of the Kesishes. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent did not follow Ms. Rego's instructions.6/ On July 17, 2010, Great American sent Mr. Kesish a conservation letter urging him not to surrender GA-00. Ms. Rego then contacted Great American and had the surrender of GA-25 and GA-00 stopped. Had the transactions not been stopped, the Kesishes $60,000 in surrender charges would have been imposed. There was no other expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of the Great American annuities was contrary to the Kesishes' best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Counts V through VI–-Edith Paz Edith Paz was born on January 20, 1926, and lives in Sun City Center. She has a high school diploma and held various jobs, from retailing to making plates in a dental office. Mrs. Paz married a GI returning from World War II. Her husband was successful in business before his retirement. Meanwhile, Mrs. Paz founded a successful real estate business and invested in the stock market. Mr. Paz died in 1999. In 2001, Mrs. Paz created a revocable trust with herself as trustee. When Mrs. Paz retired, she moved to Sun City Center. She did some investing, but was dissatisfied with her investments and her financial representative at the time. About that time, she met Glenn Cummings, an insurance agent who was a less experienced associate of Agent Carter and also not FINRA- licensed. After several conversations, Agent Cummings gained her trust and advised her to liquidate and consolidate her assets before deciding what other financial products to purchase. He referred her to the Respondent for that purpose. Agent Cummings and Mrs. Paz testified that he referred Mrs. Paz to the Respondent on the advice of Agent Carter to save "exit fees" on liquidating her investments. The evidence was not clear as to how the Respondent would be able to do this. The Respondent testified to his understanding that Mrs. Paz wanted to get out of the stock market and switch to more stable investments and that she had a bad relationship with her stockbroker. The Respondent's testimony is consistent with Mrs. Paz's actual losses in the stock market and her testimony that she listened to and followed the advice of Agent Cummings because she was dissatisfied with her prior financial advisor, a Mr. Shrago. Mrs. Paz testified that she spoke to the Respondent just once, briefly. That conflicts with the testimony of the Respondent and Agent Cummings. Their testimony was that there were several telephone conversations after the initial contact. They related that the Respondent mailed Mrs. Paz the forms that needed to be filled out, that Agent Cummings was with Mrs. Paz when she filled out the forms, and that both spoke to the Respondent several times during the process. According to Agent Cummings, this happened on July 29, 2010, when he visited Mrs. Paz to show her illustrations regarding the annuities he was recommending. While there, he helped her complete the forms the Respondent had sent to have her investments liquidated and consolidated into a Transamerica Pershing account. There also was conflict in the testimony as to whether anyone explained investment options and consequences to Mrs. Paz. She testified that no one gave her any explanation. Agent Cummings testified that he explained everything in detail to Mrs. Paz and that she also talked to the insurance agents who represented the companies whose annuities she would be surrendering. He testified that Mrs. Paz knew exactly what she was doing. The Respondent testified that he had no involvement in those explanations. He testified that he simply made sure he understood what Mrs. Paz wanted him to do for her. (Count V) In May 2007, Mrs. Paz purchased a Jackson National Life Insurance Company (Jackson National or JNL) annuity (JNL-42A) on the advice of Mr. Shrago. The initial premium was $100,000, and it was issued with a five-percent bonus. As of May 25, 2007, it had an account balance of $105,017.01 and was receiving an annual rate of return of 7.75 percent. On July 12, 2010, Mrs. Paz signed a letter directing Jackson National to make the Respondent, who held an appointment to represent Jackson National, her agent-of-record on JNL-42A. The change took effect on July 15, 2010. On July 29, 2010, Jackson National faxed the Respondent a statement of account for JNL-42A, listing the balance as $108,253.48 (which reflected a prior withdrawal of $2,500 by Mrs. Paz). The statement disclosed the surrender charges in effect. After her discussions with Agent Cummings, Mrs. Paz signed forms requesting that JNL-42A be liquidated and the proceeds rolled over into a Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American or GA) annuity (GA-61). The Respondent facilitated the rollover. As a result of the rollover, Mrs. Paz incurred surrender charges of $4,871.41 and a partial recapture of the initial bonus in the amount of $2,706.34, for a total loss of $7,577.75. The Petitioner alleged, and Mrs. Paz testified, that the Respondent never discussed with her that there would be surrender charges. The Respondent did not disagree, but explained that he understood Agent Cummings already had done so and that he just made sure he was following Mrs. Paz's wishes. Concurring, Agent Cummings testified that he did explain the surrender charges to Mrs. Paz. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's actions "insulated M[r]s. P[az] from comparative financial counseling by her then current Jackson National insurance agent Gary Mahan." This was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, there was evidence that it was Mrs. Paz's choice to change agents, that Mr. Mahan knew about the change, and that he had no objection to the Respondent taking over for him as agent of record on the policy. The Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent "provided [Agent Cummings] with the Transamerica brokerage application, transfer forms and letter of instructions to transfer JNL 42A" to the Respondent as account representative. It was not proven that these documents were not mailed to Mrs. Paz in accordance with the Respondent's testimony. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of Mrs. Paz's Jackson National annuity and purchase of a Great American annuity was contrary to her best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Mrs. Paz testified that Agent Cummings initially told her she would have to pay the Respondent $1,500 as a fee for his services with respect to JNL-42a and later told her the fee would be $2,600. Agent Cummings testified that the Respondent told her what his fee would be during the telephone conversation on July 29, 2010. Regardless who told Mrs. Paz what the Respondent's fee would be, or what she was told it would be, Mrs. Paz made out a $2,607.28 check to Agent Cummings' company, Big Financial, on July 29, 2010. On August 2, 2010, Big Financial gave the Respondent a check made out to the Respondent for $2,530, with the notation "Paz." (It is not clear from the evidence why the Big Financial check was made out for $2,530. When the DFS investigator questioned the discrepancy, Agent Cummings reimbursed Mrs. Paz $77.28.) The Respondent deposited the check the next day. The Allianz compliance guide prohibited agents from charging an additional fee for services that customarily are associated with insurance products. The Great American compliance guide prohibited fraudulent acts. By accepting the check from Big Financial, the Respondent received a fee from Mrs. Paz that was not authorized. (Count VI) Prior to meeting Agent Cummings or the Respondent, Mrs. Paz had investment accounts with Wedbush (WB-37) and Wells Fargo. There were two Wells Fargo accounts, an IRA (WF-15), and a trust account (WF-70). As of June 30, 2010, the Wedbush account (WB-37) had a balance of $349,438.11. The Wells Fargo IRA account (WF-15) had a net value of $51,737.11 prior to June 30, 2010. The Wells Fargo trust account (WF-70) had a balance of $332,798.76 prior to June 2010. The Respondent and Mrs. Paz communicated in the same manner they did for the Jackson National transaction. Mrs. Paz signed forms that enabled the Respondent to transfer the funds in the Wedbush and Wells Fargo accounts into two Transamerica brokerage accounts (TA-02) and (TA-86) using ACAT. Some of the forms referred to the Respondent as Mrs. Paz's "investment professional," but the sole purpose of the Respondent's involvement was to use Transamerica as a funnel to transfer funds from one investment to another. By August 11, 2010, the funds in the TA-02 account were used to purchase an Allianz annuity sold by Agent Cummings in the amount of $335,589.65. The funds in the TA-86 account were used to purchase a Great American annuity (GA-60) sold by Agent Cummings in the amount of $45,769.38. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of Mrs. Paz's Wedbush and Wells Fargo accounts and purchase of an Allianz annuity was contrary to her best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Counts VII and VIII-–The Penwardens Wayne Penwarden was born on December 4, 1943. His wife, Sandra, was born on October 10, 1939. They inherited some money and decided to invest it. As of August 31, 2009, they had Morgan Stanley investment accounts that totaled close to half a million dollars. They also had an annuity with ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (ING) purchased for $150,000 on April 24, 2008. Agent Carter became acquainted with the Penwardens and introduced them to the Respondent. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged that the Respondent provided required forms to Agent Carter for him to get the Penwardens signatures and, then, used funds from their Transamerica accounts to fund the purchase of Allianz annuities, which was deceitful and against the wishes of the Penwardens. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order proposed no such findings, and there was no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was guilty of those acts, that he said or did anything to deceive or mislead or withhold information from them, or took any action regarding them without their full knowledge and consent. (Count VII) On September 30, 2009, the Penwardens signed a change of agent request to make the Respondent their new ING insurance agent. They also signed CAI forms to open Transamerica brokerage accounts and transfer the funds from the Morgan Stanley investment accounts into them, using ACAT. The funds in the Transamerica accounts were then used to purchase Allianz's indexed annuities sold to the Penwardens by Agent Carter. On September 23 and October 16, 2009, the Penwardens purchased two Allianz MasterDex X annuities (MD-47) and (MD-24), respectively, with initial premium payments of $141,269.40 for MD-47 and $373,979.59, plus a premium bonus of $37,397.96, for MD-24. On June 17, 2010, acting on instructions from Agent Carter on behalf of the Penwardens, the Respondent liquidated the ING annuity. On June 30, 2010, the Penwardens added the $115,281.47 proceeds from the liquidation of the ING annuity to MD-47. The Petitioner proposed a finding that the surrender of the ING annuity cost $6,000 in surrender charges, which is true. The Petitioner omits from its proposed finding that the Penwardens received a premium bonus on the Allianz policy that more than offset the ING surrender charge. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of the Penwardens' Morgan Stanley accounts and ING annuity and purchase of Allianz annuities was contrary to their best interests, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. (Count VIII) The Penwardens became dissatisfied with Agent Carter, and on November 9, 2010, signed a letter drafted by the Respondent on Transamerica letterhead to substitute him for Agent Carter as their sole financial advisor. On November 12, 2010, the Respondent was notified by Allianz that he would receive no commissions as servicing agent on policies sold to the Penwardens by another agent. On or about November 22, 2010, $37,408.54 was transferred from the Allianz MD-47 annuity into a new Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Nationwide or NW) annuity (NW-08). The Respondent also effected a partial Internal Revenue Code, section 1035, exchange from the MD-47 annuity to a new annuity purchased from Nationwide (NW-09) for $23,746.19. On November 7, 2011, the Respondent faxed a request to transfer funds from the MD-24 annuity to fund a North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American or NA) annuity (NA-68). The Petitioner proposed a finding that the Respondent undertook these transactions on November 22, 2010, and on November 7, 2011, in order to benefit himself alone by generating commissions to replace the servicing agent commissions he was not getting on the Allianz policies. This was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, the Respondent explained that the transactions were done for the Penwardens' benefit after discussions regarding the benefits of diversifying out of the Allianz annuity into other annuities, which was accomplished cost-free. There was no clear and convincing evidence that these transactions were contrary to the Penwardens' best financial interest or that they were done solely to benefit the Respondent. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the partial transfers from the Penwardens' Allianz annuities to other Nationwide and North American annuities were contrary to their best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. In early December 2011, Mr. Penwarden replaced the Respondent with another insurance agent. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent went to the Penwardens home to harangue them for two hours about their decision to switch agents. The only evidence on this allegation was the deposition testimony of Mr. Penwarden and the testimony of the Respondent. Mr. Penwarden's testimony as to what occurred was vague. The Respondent agreed that he was disappointed that the Penwardens were switching agents, but testified that he went to the home to retrieve the policies he sold to the Penwardens, which would have to be returned to the insurance companies to cancel at no cost during the "free-look" period. He testified that he waited for an hour or more while Mr. Penwarden tried to find the policies in his home. The evidence was not clear and convincing, and the Petitioner did not propose a finding as to this allegation. Count IX and Related Affirmative Defenses Count IX is based on the Final Order entered in OFR's securities case against the Respondent as an additional ground for discipline under section 626.621(13), Florida Statutes. The Respondent cites it in his affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel on Counts I through VIII. See Finding 2, supra. The Respondent also argues that the additional charge is barred by the ex post facto clause of the Florida constitution and due process clauses of the United States and Florida constitutions. As to the due process argument, the Respondent admitted the OFR Final Order in his answer to the original charges. He also had ample opportunity to demonstrate prejudice from the added charge, which he could not, and to present legal arguments, which he did. As to ex post facto, section 626.621(13) was added to the Florida Statutes, effective June 1, 2011. See Ch. 175, §§ 47 and 53, Laws of Fla. (2010). That was before the Respondent entered into the Stipulation and Consent Agreement that formed the basis for the OFR Final Order. Disciplinary guidelines for section 626.621(13) were added to the Florida Administrative Code on March 24, 2014. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69B-231.090(13). As to the collateral estoppel defense, the Respondent testified that he entered into the settlement with OFR because he was under heightened supervision by his employer due to securities violations, and he did not think any employer wanted to provide the required supervision (which he referred to as "baby-sitting.") The Respondent did not testify that he relied on the OFR Final Order to bar charges by DFS or that he believed the OFR Final Order would bar DFS charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Agent and Agency Services, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating section 626.611(7) and rule 69B-215.210 under Count V, and section 626.621(13) under Count IX, dismissing the other charges, and suspending the Respondent's insurance licenses for 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Emory Daniel Jones, was not involved or engaged in the insurance business prior to August, 1977. (Tr. 177.) In approximately August of 1977, United Sun Life Insurance Company (USL) hired Respondent as an agent. (Tr. 176, 177.) Respondent passed the insurance test administered by the State of Florida in August, 1977, and was scheduled for a seminar given by USL. (Tr. 178.) In late August, 1977, Respondent attended a three-day seminar established by USL for all its new agents. (Tr. 178.) At this seminar, USL taught the agents about a policy known as T.O.P. This was the only policy taught to the agents even though USL had other policies available. (Tr. 128.) The T.O.P. contract is a life insurance policy. This policy has two primary benefits. (Tr. 230, 231.) The first is the death benefit provided by all life insurance policies. Under the death benefit provision, the owner of the T.O.P. pays a premium to USL. When the insured dies, USL will pay the death benefit (money) to the beneficiary listed on the policy. (Tr. 128, 251.) The second major benefit provided by the T.O.P. is the life benefit feature. (Tr. 251.) The T.O.P. is an insurance policy which provides for the payment of dividends to the owner of the policy. The T.O.P contract states that the owner will share in the divisible surplus earnings of USL as determined by the Board of Directors. (Tr. 120; contract page 5, Exhibit #3.) The dividends were to be paid after the second year. (Tr. 129, 130.) The owner would participate in the divisible surplus earnings of USL through the payment of a dividend. (Tr. 129, 188.) As long as the T.O.P. was in effect, the owner would receive these dividends. USL developed a presentation to be given by the agents to prospective customers. This presentation was taught in the training session by USL. (Tr. 183, 249, 260, 270.) The agents were to memorize the presentation and were not to vary from the wording when they were attempting to sell the T.O.P. to prospective customers. (Tr. 185, 249.) The presentation taught by USL stressed the life benefit feature of the T.O.P. contract. (Tr. 251, 271.) The death benefit was only minimally covered because of the relatively high cost for the life insurance portion of the contract. This presentation further explained several features which made the T.O.P. contract life benefit provisions attractive to future customers: The T.O.P. contract owner was to participate in the divisible surplus earnings of USL. The only other persons that would also participate in the divisible earned surplus were the shareholders. (Tr. 196.) The T.O.P. contract was to be sold only to a limited number of people. After an undisclosed number of T.O.P. contracts were sold, the T.O.P. contract was to be taken off the market. (Tr. 234, 261, 276.) USL was not going to sell or issue any other policies which would participate in the divisible earned surplus of USL. (Tr. 234, 255, 261, 276.) USL would grow (increase its divisible earned surplus) by selling policies other than the T.O.P. contract. The more policies that were sold, the greater the divisible surplus earnings that would be available to the T.O.P. contract owners for dividends. (Tr. 196, 276.) Since the T.O.P. owners were limited and no other participating policies were to be issued, the T.O.P. owners would share in any increases in the divisible surplus earnings of USL. The greater the number of policies sold, the greater the dividends. The T.O.P. owners were then solicited to help the agents sell insurance policies of USL to their friends. This help would reduce the cost of advertising and increase the sales of insurance. The lower expenses and greater volume would mean more divisible surplus earnings in USL and greater dividends available to the T.O.P. owners. (Tr. 201.) To illustrate these points, USL taught the agents to draw circles representing other insurance policy owners. Lines were then drawn from these circles to the T.O.P. owner's circle. The lines between the circles represented the premiums paid on the other policies, which would increase divisible surplus earnings that would increase the dividends of the T.O.P. owners. (Tr. 196, 232, 263, 270.) USL taught the agents to illustrate the features of the life benefit by dollar signs. As the agent would talk about the other policies increasing the dividends to the T.O.P. owners, he was to increase the size of the dollar sign. (Tr. 233.) The whole emphasis of this presentation was on the participating feature. Another feature emphasized in the USL presentation was that the T.O.P. owner would participate in the divisible surplus earnings of USL as long as he was alive. Therefore, the agents were to stress that the T.O.P. owner should be a younger person in the family. If that person lived 70 years, then USL would pay dividends for 69 of those 70 years. This feature of the policy was stressed in the memorized presentation. (Tr. 204, 205, 232, 233, 252, 264, 270.) In late August of 1977, Respondent attended the training session and memorized the presentation. (Tr. 181, 184, 185.) At the end of the training session, USL reviewed the Respondent's presentation and found nothing wrong. (Tr. 187.) In late August of 1977, Respondent went into the field to sell the T.O.P. contract to potential customers. (Tr. 187.) Count I On September 7, 1977, Respondent met with Louis Charles Morrison and made the USL presentation on the T.O.P. policy to Morrison. Respondent made the presentation in the way he had been taught. Morrison was aware that he was purchasing an insurance policy. He was led to believe through USL's sales presentation as given by Respondent that the participating feature of the T.O.P. policy made this policy a good investment. Morrison concluded it was not a good investment because the dividends were not as great as he had anticipated they would be. Respondent's representations to Morrison with regard to the T.O.P. policy were not false. Count II On September 12, 1977, Respondent met with Fred Menk and gave to him the USL presentation on the T.O.P. policy. Respondent gave the presentation as he had been taught. Menk was aware that he was purchasing insurance. (Tr. 51.) Respondent made no representation about future dividends. (Tr. 59.) The interest rate was represented to increase as USL grew, which it did. (Tr. 59.) Menk was dissatisfied and felt the policy was misrepresented because he did not get the rate of return he had anticipated. (Tr. 59.) According to Menk, Respondent's representations made with regard to interest rate increases were accurate, and Respondent made no representations regarding future dividends. Count III Respondent met with Paul Loudin in September of 1978, and gave him the USL presentation on the T.O.P. policy as Respondent had been taught. Loudin was aware he was purchasing insurance. (Tr. 21, 26, 27, 31.) His interest was in life insurance and retirement compensation. (Tr. 36.) In part, Loudin's dissatisfaction was the belief he had lost his money because he did not receive a dividend on his first year's premium. The policy reflects that no dividends are payable in the first year. (Respondent's Exhibit #7.) A copy of the policy was provided to Loudin by Respondent. (Tr. 45.) Loudin also anticipated a dividend of 12 to 18 percent on his premiums based upon Respondent's general comments. However, he did not remember the exact conversation with Respondent. (Tr. 31, 32, 38, 39.) Loudin received a letter from USL which reflects a dividend history based upon an 18-year-old insured with an annual premium of $1,000 as follows: End of 2nd year $100.35 End of 3rd year 130.66 End of 4th year 162.86 The rate of return in the fourth year would be 11.6 percent on the fourth year's premium. The representations made to Loudin by Respondent were substantially true, or the relevant information was made available to Loudin by the Respondent. Count IV On November 30, 1977, Respondent met with Gayle Mason and gave the USL presentation on the T.O.P. policy as he had been taught. Mason knew she was purchasing insurance. (Tr. 107.) Respondent represented that the number of participants in the T.O.P. policy would be limited. (Tr. 108.) The current rate of return was taken by Respondent to be 11 percent, and it was represented that the return could be more. (Tr. 109.) Dividends were to be paid from surplus earnings. (Tr. 114.) Mason called the Better Business Bureau and the State Insurance Commissioner's office, and she was aware that USL was an insurance company and she was engaged in an insurance transaction. (Tr. 115.) Respondent represented that as USL grew, the dividends would increase. (Tr. 118.) Mason received a dividend in the second year in accordance with the policy. The representations made to Mason by Respondent were true or thought by Respondent to be true.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Emory Daniel Jones, not guilty of violating any of the statutes or rules as alleged, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 17th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul H. Bowen, Esquire 600 Courtland Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 7838 Orlando, Florida 32854 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
