The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Agency for Workforce Innovation (the Agency), (Respondent), has properly disallowed some $348,355 in federal grant funding to the Petitioner, Workforce Escarosa, Inc. (Escarosa) or Petitioner, for purportedly having insufficient documentation to justify that such funds were used for allowable Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grant purposes. Included within that issue is the question of whether the funds, related to "gas card" purchases, were properly documented and whether Escarosa must re-pay the disallowed amount.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Escarosa, is a state Regional Workforce Board (RWB) constituted according to Section 445.007, Florida Statutes (2008).1/ Escarosa is in the business of promoting workforce development in the Northwest Florida region and as part of this effort provides support services to assist WTP participants. It does so, as pertinent to this case, through the use of TANF funds to provide transportation assistance, in the form of gas cards, which assist participants in engaging in work activities. In the Workforce Development System, federal government funds are transmitted to the Agency. The Agency then passes the funds through to regional workforce boards such as Escarosa, and the regional workforce boards then pass those funds, by related agreements, to local providers such as PJC, to provide workforce development programs or support services. The Agency and Escarosa operated pursuant to a "Master Cooperative Agreement," at times pertinent to this case. The agreement required Escarosa to comply with applicable cost principles and administrative requirements for grants included in various "Circulars" of the Federal Office of Management and Budget" (OMB). The TANF program is a state-administered program that assists unemployed persons returning to the workforce. It provides support services, such as transportation assistance (here in the form of gas cards) which assist participants in traveling to engage in work activities. In accepting TANF funds, Escarosa has agreed to the terms and conditions of the Grant Award. The Grant Award states, in pertinent part, expenditures utilizing these funds must be consistent with all federal and state rules, regulations and policies established for TANF funds. Funds must be used to facilitate meeting the goals and outcome measures of the welfare transition program. By being a recipient of federal grant funds, Escarosa is required to properly account for expenditures of those funds and to document grant expenditures. The documentation must establish that an expenditure is one which is allowable under the laws or regulations pertaining to the grant program and that the expenditure is actually used for the intended purpose of the grant. Therefore, for the gas card situation, the documentation must show a link between a card issued by Escarosa and a participant in the WTP program and show that the card went to an eligible participant. Escarosa, as a recipient of federal funds, is required to maintain a financial management system that includes effective internal controls and provides for safeguarding of federal funds. The system should include controls to prevent errors or problems in transactions and to detect when there are breakdowns in the system. A monitoring plan should be part of the testing or detection process. The state agency is also required to monitor sub- recipients such as Escarosa. They must be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that there is compliance with grant rules, regulations, the provisions of specific agreements, and with the performance of goals and objectives, pursuant to OMB Circular A-133. The Agency monitored Escarosa during the period of time relevant to this case but did not discover the problems with documentation in the gas card program. The monitoring by the Agency is a sampling process, not an entire audit of every aspect of Escarosa's operations and programs. The Agency does not have authority to monitor or investigate below the level of its sub-recipient such as Escarosa. It does not audit sub-recipients' service providers, such as PJC. It did check Escarosa's records to see that it had been monitoring, and had audit reports, as to its service provider PJC (the College). The Agency checked for the Audit reports regarding the College and, for the 2004 period, determined that the College had not submitted an external audit report or Federal Single Audit Report, as required. It recommended to Escarosa's regional workforce board that it require such sub-recipients to comply with contractual terms, including submission of a Federal Single Audit Report. Escarosa took that suggested corrective action by the time of the 2005 audit and had a current External Audit Report for the College in its file for 2005. Escarosa is required to have annual financial audits performed in compliance with OMB Circular A-133. The audit reports are required to be filed with the Agency and Escarosa complied with that requirement and filed its reports. The Agency has a policy concerning audit resolution which provides that regional workforce boards, such as Escarosa, must re-pay debts, established as a result of inappropriate use of federal funds, from non-federal funds. In its Administrative Plan, Escarosa acknowledged the requirement to re-pay such obligations, which are accrued as a result of mis-expenditure of funds due to willful disregard of federal law, gross negligence or failure to observe accepted standards of administration. The Escarosa Administrative Plan includes debt collection from contracted providers such as PJC, in appropriate circumstances. THE GAS CARD PROGRAM Escarosa provided transportation assistance to WTP participants in the form of issuance of gas cards to such participants. The gas cards were purchased with HHS/TANF grant funds received from the Petitioner Agency and were charged to Escarosa's grant award. The value of gas card purchases between June 2004 and December 2006 as reflected on invoices for gas cards, totaled $991,000. Escarosa purchased approximately 58,800 gas cards during this period in increments of $5.00, $10.00, $15.00 and $20.00. As reflected on the Respondent's Exhibit A, in evidence, at page 4, witness Diane Bagwell reported that some 57,652 cards (including 1,544 purportedly un- used cards) were issued to the College between July 1, 2004, and December 15, 2006. The un-refuted evidence reflects that Escarosa had written procedures which specified the process for ordering gas cards, transferring custody of them to the service provider, (the College); determining participant eligibility and the process for issuing cards to participants. This included documentation requirements and monitoring requirements. Escarosa's written procedures required that it monitor, with periodic reviews, the gas card disbursement system to determine compliance with all written procedures. The procedure requires the documentation of participant eligibility and issuance of cards. This documentation was required to be filed in the participant's "support services file" maintained by the College. Additionally, a gas card log was maintained by the College and was required to reflect the participant's signature, upon receipt of a gas card. The log and the gas cards were required to be monitored to ensure strict, procedural accountability. The College was a service provider for Escarosa during the period in question, June 2004 to December 2006, and until June 30, 2008. This was pursuant to a contract between the College and Escarosa by which the College operated the gas card program. The contract between Escarosa and the College required the College to defend, indemnify, and hold Escarosa harmless from all claims, including attorneys' fees and costs, caused by the College's acts or omissions in the course of operation of the contract. Escarosa's contract with the College also required the College to maintain general liability insurance to cover the College, and any services or activities provided by the College, under its contract with Escarosa. The College did not petition to intervene in these proceedings. The Respondent Agency is not a party to Escarosa's contract with the College to operate the gas card program. On December 14, 2006, Escarosa notified the College of certain problems in the audit and reconciliation of gas card disbursements. Some of the issues included gas card signature logs not being available to be audited by Escarosa; inconsistencies in the dates on signature logs, such that distribution dates to participants were entered as prior to the date that their relevant cards had actually been purchased. There were distribution dates on Saturdays when the program was closed for the weekend. There were logs showing the distribution date to the participant in October 2006, which were submitted after the referenced gas cards had been physically counted (before distribution) on November 3, 2006. There were cards not issued in consecutive order and cards issued without being receipted to the staff member responsible for distributing the cards, so that there was no record of who had custody of the cards. Some clients received excessive amounts of cards and, on one signature log, the client signed a line with no gas card number indicated. Escarosa notified the Respondent Agency in December 2006, that there were cards which could not be accounted for and that theft by an employee of the College was suspected. All cards that could not be accounted for were issued from Escarosa to the College between the dates of June 1, 2004 and December 31, 2006. The Respondent's staff went to Escarosa in January 2007 to provide technical assistance in resolving the discovered problems with the gas card program. The Respondent found that Escarosa had not been following its own procedures as to monitoring and managing the program. Escarosa was not monitoring the gas card distribution process or the process for determining whether participants were eligible for receiving cards. It was not monitoring the dollar amount of cards being distributed to participants on a monthly basis. It was not correctly following its Administrative Plan concerning monitoring or the Master Cooperative Agreement with the Agency, because it was not properly monitoring its service provider, the College. Escarosa has agreed, through its representative, Ms. Nelms, that with proper monitoring of the program the theft of gas cards could have been detected within a few months. The Agency's Office of Inspector General conducted an inquiry into Escarosa's report concerning problems with the program and issued a report on March 16, 2007. At that time, there had not been a determination of the final amount of undocumented cards, so it was recommended that Escarosa determine the amount of loss and develop a plan for recovery of the loss from the College. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigated the gas card theft. It interviewed program participants and asked them to authenticate signatures on the client signature logs, in order to identify forged signatures. It did this for about 50 participants and then suspended its investigation because the total charges then established through its investigation exceeded the amount necessary to charge the College employee involved with grand theft. Therefore, because FDLE ceased its investigation, it never established the total extent of any theft or other undocumented status of additional gas cards. The College employee involved was prosecuted in a criminal proceeding and was ordered to pay $2,360 restitution. VALUE OF UNDOCUMENTED CARDS The Escarosa staff worked with the Agency's personnel in attempting to determine the number of undocumented cards. It later hired temporary staff to assist in that effort. In September 2007, Ms. Nelms, of Escarosa, advised the Agency's Inspector General of her belief that the amount of undocumented cards at that time was $284,685. The process of reconciliation was continuing and incomplete at that point, however. The College had not agreed to that amount and was trying to match disbursement logs for issuing the cards, the documentation in its "one-stop service tracking system" (OSST) and its "hard copy files," to locate additional documentation which could reduce the amount of undocumented gas cards below the above figure. The OSST is a data system used to store information on program participants, such as their eligibility for transportation services. Escarosa had the College calculate the number of cards, and their value, for which there was insufficient documentation, using gas card numbers provided it by Escarosa. The list of card numbers provided to the College was prepared by Escarosa using its financial and purchasing records. The list provided contained only the cards issued to the College. The College then matched the card numbers with information in its "support services files" as to eligibility and card disbursement to participants. It then determined, in late 2007, that it believed the final amount of undocumented gas cards to be $348,355. In late 2007, the Agency Investigations Manager and an auditor returned to Escarosa and accepted the College's calculation that 20,899 gas cards valued at $348,355 were unaccounted for and not traceable to corresponding disbursement logs. A report of that confirmation was issued on January 10, 2008 (See Respondent's Exhibit 8 in evidence). However, disbursement logs have been shown by the evidence and testimony in this proceeding, in some instances, to have been inaccurately executed or forged. Even if some issued cards were not reflected in disbursement logs, that still does not mean that those which were reflected in disbursement logs were accurately entered and documented, given the fact that there was some forgery and inaccurate recording in disbursement logs, concerning card disbursement. This fact calls into question the valuation of $348,355. That number also is rendered doubtful by the fact that, of the purported number of undocumented gas cards, it has not been persuasively shown whether all were actually issued and used, nor who may have used all of them. Thus, while the evidence may show that 20,899 gas cards were undocumented, it does not correspondingly persuasively show that $348,355 is the proven amount which should be disallowed and ultimately re-paid. Thus, the report issued January 10, 2008, found that documentation had not been produced to support proper use of grant funds concerning the undocumented cards. The Agency Inspector General could not know with confidence that the gas cards in question went to eligible participants in the program or that the funds were actually used for the purpose for which they were granted to Escarosa. Escarosa chose not to have an audit performed, as requested by the Agency, to determine the exact amount attributable to undocumented cards or the amount used for non- approved purposes. It did not have a forensic examination of the gas card logs performed, as Ms. Nelms had once advocated, because Ms. Nelms did not want to spend further money in investigation. Escarosa does not have any non-federal money to spend on such costs. Further, in January 2008, the Agency requested that Escarosa attempt to determine whether the oil companies from whom the cards had been purchased could, from their records, confirm and document the unused gas cards. The unused cards would show that funds represented by them had not actually been expended. That would reduce the number of undocumented cards and result in obtaining refunds for the unused cards. This would reduce the ultimate re-payment amount. The Agency believed this would help Escarosa reduce the number of undocumented cards that it might be responsible for. Escarosa, however, did not accede to the request that it attempt to make such an audit involving the oil companies. Escarosa had obtained an audit from the firm of O'Sullivan and Creel, LLP, which issued its "Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accord with OMB Circular A-133." This document is in evidence as Respondents Exhibit 2. This was a report of an audit of Escarosa's compliance with requirements applicable to federal programs and was provided to Escarosa's Board of Directors. It included a finding that Escarosa had not complied with requirements concerning allowable costs and sub-recipient monitoring applicable to its TANF-WTP program. It included, at Finding 2006-1: "Un-allowed costs and sub-recipient monitoring," that there was a final amount of questioned cost of $348,355, representing the period from July 2004 through December 2006. It described that amount in its finding, however, as a "Final Amount of Possible Theft" of $348,355 for undocumented gas cards. It also acknowledged in its findings that it had not audited any response to the audit report which was made or might be made by Escarosa. Escarosa later took the position, by letter of January 30, 2009, that it believed all gas cards had been properly documented, except for an amount valued at $5,580, which Escarosa postulated had been stolen. The Agency did not accept that new position, without an amended audit finding or certification by an auditor, which would validate the documentation as being appropriate as to the remaining $342,775 amount of disputed gas cards. Ms. Nelms asserted that the only way to arrive at an audited number of the cards that were stolen, improperly used or unaccounted-for would be to have a forensic handwriting specialist analyze the signatures in the card disbursement logs. She admitted that it would be better to have had a forensic audit performed so that an exact amount of loss would have been known. She did not obtain, nor did Escarosa obtain, such a forensic audit or handwriting analysis, however. In taking a position that the undocumented amount or value of the gas cards was much lower than the postulated $348,355, Ms. Nelms testified that the client signature logs or gas card logs should be used to reconcile gas card purchases with what had been disbursed to participants. She maintained that this would result in a much lower undocumented figure, perhaps as low as $5,580. Escarosa presented no persuasive evidence that the gas card logs were sufficiently reliable however. In relying on the gas card logs to show gas card disbursement to program participants, Escarosa concedes that the logs contained forged and missing signatures and that portions of the logs had been falsified. The logs have simply not been demonstrated to be reliable as a basis of documentation for the gas card expenditures at issue. Diane Bagwell was the person responsible for the College's calculation concerning arriving at the figure for undocumented gas cards. Ms. Bagwell testified that the College's support services files, which were maintained under her supervision, were maintained and updated accurately and that the $348,355 figure was arrived at from data in the support services files. She testified that she believed that data was reliable, but she also questioned the final amount of $348,355 because she had a doubt concerning the list of cards provided by Escarosa to the College, as well as the time period (July 2004- December 2006) for which she was directed to conduct the search or calculation. In its calculation, the College compared the total number of gas cards purchased with HHS funds by Escarosa to the number of gas cards distributed by the College. It only distributes gas cards pursuant to the WTP program. It is not involved in card distribution for Escarosa's Non-Custodial Parent Program (NCPP). The approach used by the College in its calculation, which thus far has been accepted by the Agency, is flawed in that the testimony of Diane Bagwell and Janet Summers indicates that NCPP gas cards may have been included in the purported undocumented amount referenced above. This is because the evidence indicates that the calculation by the College may have compared the total cards purchased for both the WTP and NCPP programs against the cards distributed by the college. It is also apparent the College did not include any data from the time period prior to July 2004 nor after December 2006. The analysis in this manner would remove from consideration cards purchased prior to the beginning of the test period, July 2004, but actually activated or issued after July 2004, as well as cards purchased prior to December 2006, but activated or issued after December 2006. Cards purchased prior to July 2004 and distributed during January 2004 through December 2006, would appear to be undocumented because the data was not reviewed, even though the cards were distributed and used between January 2004 and December 2006. Similarly, the cards purchased prior to December 2006, but not issued and used until 2007, would appear as being undocumented because the attendant data was not reviewed for the period July 2004 through December 2006, even though, in actuality, the cards may have been properly accounted-for, but used after December 2006. It thus appears that the College, in its calculation, may have combined gas card purchases made for both the NCPP and the WTP programs, comparing the combined total of gas card purchases to its own WTP records in its support services files. It apparently did not set off the total of the number of NCPP gas cards from the WTP program cards and thus considered an inflated number of purchased gas cards vis-a-vis its records when it should have only considered the WTP-related cards. The evidence shows that NCPP cards valued in excess of $200,000 were purchased. This is a relatively small percentage of the total HHS funds expended on gas card purchases for the relevant time period (approximately $1,000,000). However, this does account for a significant portion of the so-called undocumented gas cards. The number of undocumented cards might be substantially smaller if the College, in its calculation, had offset or removed the NCPP gas cards from the total cards it was considering. Other flaws in the calculations by the College also cast doubt on the correctness of the disallowment figure of $348,355. Thus, for example, as to Exhibit "L", the Agency contends that in the period July 2004 to December 2004, gas cards issued by both CITGO and BP oil companies are undocumented. Exhibit "S", however, and Exhibit "OO", which document Escarosa's use of HHS funds during this period of time, show Escarosa did not purchase any BP gas cards. Instead, only CITGO gas cards were purchased prior to June 2005. Exhibit "S" in evidence, specifically Invoices 2322, 2426, 2428, 2490, 2515, and 2516 show that Escarosa purchased a total of 7,250 gas cards valued at $133,500. The Agency contends that the value of $127,558, represented by 8,335 gas cards during that time period are unallowable costs, as depicted by Exhibit "L", in evidence. The Agency is thus contending that nearly 100 percent of the gas cards for the year 2005 are undocumented. Such a finding would not be credible nor supported by preponderant, persuasive evidence. Moreover, Exhibit "L" identifies undocumented cards by serial number. When that exhibit is compared to Exhibit "OO" and Exhibit "S", it would appear that the value of undocumented cards alleged by the Agency ($348,355) includes cards that were never purchased (at least for the WTP program). Exhibit "OO," for example, shows that Escarosa activated a total of 750 $5.00 gas cards for the WTP program in the calendar year January 2005 to December 2005. Exhibit "L" however suggests that 1,438 $5.00 gas cards are undocumented for that same calendar year. Thus it would appear the undocumented cards total contended for by the Agency either includes cards that were never purchased, which is inappropriate, or includes NCPP program gas cards, which are not part of this dispute and are not related to the program (WTP) and purported undocumented gas cards at issue. In summary, the analysis employed, based primarily on the College's calculations, to justify a disallowance figure of $348,355 is simply unreliable, as demonstrated by the facts found above. Therefore, although persuasive evidence shows that there is, no doubt, a substantial number of undocumented gas cards, at the very least represented by the ones which were stolen or embezzled by the College employee in question (or others), the evidence does not prove with any precision what that figure for such disallowable costs should be. This situation and determination might have been alleviated or avoided, in part, had the Petitioner, Escarosa, taken the advice of the Agency and effected an audit of its gas card operation, procedures and WTP program, related to gas card use, which included a precise audit of the number of cards obtained from oil companies and the oil company records which could show which cards had actually been used. Unfortunately, Escarosa declined to do that. Consequently, an accurate, and perhaps a forensic audit, is clearly needed to establish with precision the amount of costs which should be disallowed, represented by the gas card portion of the Petitioner's WTP program. Based upon the legal authority cited herein, that audit should be performed by the Petitioner Escarosa. It is also observed that, given the facts established by the record in this case, based upon its contract with the College, Escarosa would appear to have a substantial likelihood of recourse against the College and its insurance carrier or servicing agent, for whatever cost disallowance, and related costs and fees, are ultimately proven, if any.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Agency for Workforce Innovation requiring the Petitioner, Workforce Escarosa, Inc., to conduct an appropriate independent audit and/or forensic audit, which accords with generally accepted accounting principles and the above-referenced federal grant management and administration authority, which might show with precision any extant undocumented amount of grant-related funds from within the gas card program, for the relevant audit period referenced in the above Findings of Fact. When that is accomplished, the parties may take such substantive and procedural steps as their interests may indicate. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not the Respondents' licenses and eligibility for licensure as insurance agents should be revoked or lesser penalties should be imposed based on allegations set forth more particularly hereinafter in detail and as set forth in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact (Peter Baranowsky, Jr.-Case No. 83-181) At times relevant herein, Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr., was licensed as a general lines insurance agent by the Respondent, Florida Department of Insurance. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) At times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Baranowsky, was the general lines agent of record for Okeechobee Insurance Agency located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) In addition to Respondent Baranowsky, unlicensed sales persons were employed at this agency to take insurance applications and perform related clerical duties. In dealing with the public in the business of insurance, unlicensed sales people were acting under Respondent Baranowsky's license and were under his supervision and control. Insurance applications originating at the agency located at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida, bear the name of Respondent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr. as agent. Respondent stipulated that witnesses Sandra Frye, Scott Sheer, Deborah Jo Grams, Frances Lemont, Susan Maccarone (Adel), Micaela Estevez (Shorrock), Stephen B. Atkinson, Robert Rigdon, and Georgelyn Hazen all purchased auto insurance at the Okeechobee Insurance Agency - said insurance being purchased under Respondent Baranowsky's general lines license. Sandra Frye went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency at 1874 Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida in January, 1982, to purchase full coverage insurance for her 1979 Chevrolet Blazer vehicle. She was interested in purchasing insurance coverage to satisfy the requirements of Ford Motor Credit Company, the company that had loaned funds to finance her vehicle. Ms. Frye did not want to nor did she request to purchase accidental death and disability (AD & D) insurance coverage. Mrs. Frye was sold an AD & D insurance policy with Fortune Life Insurance Company and was charged a premium of $100 for this coverage without her knowledge. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Composite Exhibit 6) Scott Sheer went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on October 12, 1981 for the purpose of purchasing minimum liability and personal injury protection (PIP) automobile insurance. In addition to the coverage requested by Sheer, he was sold an AD & D policy and was charged a premium of $100 for the AD & D coverage. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 14) When Mr. Sheer became aware that the AD & D coverage was included in the insurance transaction, he informed the sales person who waited on him that he did not desire to purchase AD & D coverage because he had a considerable amount of such insurance through the company that he worked for. Mr. Sheer was informed that the AD & D coverage was free or at no extra charge. Mr. Sheer filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner's office relative to his insurance purchase from the Okeechobee Insurance Agency. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14) Deborah Jo Grams went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard on October 27, 1981 for the purchase of automobile insurance desiring to purchase only the minimum insurance required by law. Ms. Grams was sold an AD & D coverage policy without her knowledge and was charged the premium of $100 for the AD & D coverage by Okeechobee Insurance Agency. An examination of the exhibits introduced herein reveal and further corroborates the fact that the Respondent charged Ms. Grams a $100 premium for the AD & D coverage without her knowledge and/or consent. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 16) Frances Lamont went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard on December 16, 1981 for the purpose of buying the minimum liability and PIP coverage as required by Florida law. Ms. Lamont was sold PIP and liability auto insurance coverage and was further sold an AD & D policy with a premium of $100 charged by Respondent for the AD & D coverage. An examination of the agency file introduced herein reveals that the Respondent sold Ms. Lament an AD & D policy. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Susan Adel Bass, a/k/a Susan Maccarone, went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on November 24, 1981 to purchase full coverage automobile insurance. Ms. Adel was quoted a premium of $553 for the full coverage automobile insurance. Ms. Adel was told that inasmuch as she had only had a Florida drivers' license for one year, there would be a $20 additional premium and another $80 premium based on the fact that she had a high performance car. In actuality, the $100 charge was the premium for the AD & D coverage Ms. Adel was sold without her knowledge and against her will. In this regard, Ms. Adel noted that on the insurance receipt given when she made a $293 downpayment, whereas only $193 was noted as the amount of her downpayment. Ms. Adel was offered the explanation respecting the $20 additional fee for the fact that she was a new licensee in Florida and the additional premium charge for the high performance vehicle which she was insuring. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) The explanation was not true. Micaela Estevez (Shorrock) went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on May 9, 1889 for the purpose of purchasing automobile insurance. Ms. Estevez asked to buy PIP insurance. When she was told that due to the fact that her car was being financed, it was necessary for her to purchase full coverage. Ms. Estevez was quoted a premium of $571. Ms. Estevez was sold both an automobile club membership and AD & D coverage and was charged premiums of $45 and $75 respectively for such coverage. Ms. Estevez was unaware that there was an extra charge for the AD & D coverage and the motorclub membership, and did not desire to purchase either the AD & D coverage or membership in the motorclub. Karen Muscato went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on July 7, 1981 for the purpose of purchasing automobile Insurance. Ms. Muscato told the sales person at Okeechobee Insurance Agency that she wanted the minimum coverage to keep her 1967 Dodge automobile on the road. Ms. Muscato was charged a premium of $100 for a one year membership with the American Touring Association which included an AD & D benefit package. An examination of the agency file introduced herein corroborates the fact that Ms. Muscato was charged a $100 premium for the American Touring Association membership which included the AD & D insurance coverage. Ms. Muscato also made subsequent visits to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on October 23, 1981 and April 1, 1982 and, on each occasion, she was charged a $100 premium for an AD & D policy from Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (1981) and from Fortune Life Insurance Company (1982) for the AD & D coverage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22) Ms. Muscato neither requested nor did she desire to purchase AD & D coverage. (Testimony of Ms. Muscato) Stephen B. Atkinson purchased auto insurance from the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard during the years 1979, 1980 and 1981. Mr. Atkinson only wanted to purchase the minimum insurance which would enable him to purchase a license plate for his vehicle. During 1980, Mr. Atkinson paid Okeechobee Insurance Agency a $90 premium for a membership in the Congressional Motor Club and $100 during 1981 for either a motorclub membership and/or an AD & D coverage policy. The evidence herein is unrefuted that the Respondent requested only PIP or "tag insurance" only. Mr. Atkinson purchased the additional coverage for the motorclub membership or the AD & D policy without his knowledge and/or consent. He was unaware of these purchases until he was contacted by a representative from the Insurance Commissioner's Office. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 24) Robert Rigdon went to Okeechobee Insurance Agency on October 31, 1981 for the specific purpose of purchasing PIP automobile insurance. This purpose was specifically communicated to the staff person at Okeechobee Insurance and despite this specific request, Robert Rigdon was sold an AD & D policy and charged a premium of $100 to purchase the AD & D coverage. Robert Rigdon was unaware that he was purchasing this coverage and would not have paid the separate $100 premium for the AD & D coverage. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 13) Georgelyn T. Hazen went to Okeechobee Insurance Agency on December 18 for the specific purpose of purchasing only that insurance required by the State to operate a vehicle. Despite a specific request by Ms. Hazen, she was sold a policy with an AD & D coverage and was charged a premium of $50 for the AD & D coverage. Ms. Hazen would not have knowingly purchased AD & D coverage because she had plenty of life insurance. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9) Gail Colella worked as an unlicensed sales person at the Okeechobee Insurance Agency on Okeechobee Boulevard during the period April through October, 1981. She worked under the supervision of general lines agent, Peter Baranowsky, Jr. While working for Okeechobee Insurance Agency, she waited on customers; sold them automobile insurance including liability, comprehensive, collision and PIP. She also sold accidental death and dismemberment insurance policies. When an individual came to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency and requested a quote for the PIP insurance or the minimum insurance required by Florida law, Ms. Colella, following office procedures, would give a combined quote including the premium for both PIP and AD & D coverages. The specific charge for the AD & D coverage would not be broken out in the quote, however it was added to the quote for the PIP coverage. THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION Peter Baranowsky, Jr. has been a general lines agent with Okeechobee Insurance Agency in excess of three years. Nonlicensed employees of Okeechobee Insurance Agency worked under the auspices of the Respondent's license and were subject to his supervision and control. Respondent Baranowsky instructed agents on the manner of selling insurance including the preparation of a summary sheet advising employees of coverages. Baranowsky provides general supervision for employees who are not licensed and has instructed such employees to read verbatim from the coverage summary sheet prepared by the Okeechobee Insurance Agency. For his efforts, Respondent Baranowsky receives a salary and a commission based on the AD & D policies sold through Okeechobee Insurance Agency. Factual Conclusions From the foregoing facts, it is herein concluded that each of the above-referred witnesses who testified at the hearing herein went to the Okeechobee Insurance Agency to purchase specific types of coverages and requested quotes thereon. In each instance, the customers were given quotes for not only the requested coverage but also for either accidental death and dismemberment coverage and/or membership fees for enrollment in a motorclub. In each of the transactions, the customers relied on the staff at Okeechobee Insurance Agency in the preparation of the quotes and they were not advised that they were being sold additional coverages which they had neither requested and for a substantial fee for such coverages. The manner in which these additional coverages were sold to unsuspecting customers evinces a model of deception. This method of operation continued over a period of approximately three years from 1979 through 1982 and reflects an extended scheme whereby the above- referred customers were misled and deceived as to the actual costs of the automobile insurance they sought to purchase.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact, factual conclusions and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED That the Respondents', Peter Baranowsky, Jr., license as an insurance agent in the State of Florida he REVOKED.
Findings Of Fact Essential Background. The Respondent, Larry Wayne Lindsay, is and has been at all times pertinent to this case, eligible for licensure as a general lines agent and as a life and health agent. Effective between December 31, 1987, and January 1, 1988 (the written agreement is dated December 24, 1987), Lindsay's Friendly Auto Insurance of Polk County, Inc., formerly Friendly Auto Insurance Agency of Lake Wales, Inc. (Friendly of Lake Wales), and Friendly Auto Insurance of Winter Haven, Inc. (Friendly of Winter Haven), sold their assets, including the leasehold on the Friendly of Winter Haven business location, to Central Florida Insurance Agency of Winter Haven, Inc. (Central), for $500. The Respondent, Larry Wayne Lindsay (Lindsay), signed the agreement on behalf of the sellers. Kimberly Strayer, then Lindsay's fiance, now his wife, is the sole legal owner, officer and director of Central. Effective between December 31, 1987, and January 1, 1988 (the written agreement is dated January 27, 1988), Friendly Auto Insurance of Haines City, Inc. (Friendly of Haines City), sold its assets, including the leasehold on its business location, to Ridge Insurance Agency, Inc. (Ridge), for $200. Lindsay signed the agreement on behalf of the seller. Kimberly Strayer is the sole legal owner, officer and director of Ridge. When it was formed in approximately April of 1984, Lindsay and Ruth Kent were the initial directors of Friendly of Winter Haven. The two of them remained the directors and officers of the corporation through at least January of 1987, according to the corporation's annual reports. At some point before December 31, 1987, Kent transferred all of her interest in the corporation to Lindsay, who became the sole owner, officer and director of the corporation. But the evidence was not clear when Kent transferred her interest to Lindsay or what Lindsay's ownership interest in the corporation was up to the time of the transfer. Lindsay was the full-time agent in charge of Friendly of Winter Haven in March of 1983, according to Department of Insurance records, but the evidence was not clear how long he remained full-time agent in charge. At some point, he was replaced by Thomas Shaw. The evidence was not at all clear who were the owners, directors or officers of Friendly of Lake Wales at any point in time before Lindsay, acting on its behalf, transferred its assets to Central. Robert Seese was its nominal full-time agent in charge starting approximately in July, 1986, until approximately September, 1988, according to the evidence, but he was not actually in charge of the office, had little to do with the business and spent little time at the business. He essentially allowed Friendly of Lake Wales to use his name, license and facsimile stamp. Lindsay also submitted some applications for insurance from the Lake Wales office in the fall of 1987. The evidence was not at all clear when Seese's nominal role as the full-time agent in charge was terminated or who was the full-time agent in charge when Seese was not. When it was formed in approximately September of 1983, Lindsay and Ruth Kent were the initial directors of Friendly of Haines City. The two of them remained the directors and officers of the corporation through at least January of 1987, according to the corporation's annual reports. At some point before December 31, 1987, Kent transferred all of her interest in the corporation to Lindsay, who became the sole owner, officer and director of the corporation. But the evidence was not clear when Kent transferred her interest to Lindsay or what Lindsay's ownership interest in the corporation was up to the time of the transfer. When it was formed in approximately September of 1984, Lindsay and Ruth Kent were the initial directors of Friendly Auto Insurance Agency of Bartow, Inc., (Friendly of Bartow). The two of them remained the directors and officers of the corporation through at least January of 1987, according to the corporation's annual reports. In May, 1987, Lindsay was the full-time agent in charge of Friendly of Bartow, according to Department of Insurance records in evidence. At some point in time, Lindsay transferred all of his interest in the corporation to Kent. But the evidence was not clear when Lindsay ceased acting as full-time agent in charge of Friendly of Bartow, when Lindsay transferred his interest to Kent or what Lindsay's ownership interest in the corporation was up to the time of the transfer. When Central began doing business at the former Friendly of Winter Haven location in January, 1988, Seese transferred his license there and began to pose as its full-time agent in charge. In fact, Seese was not in charge of Central's business, had very little to do with the business and spent practically no time at Central's office. Essentially, all he did was allow Central to use his name, license and facsimile stamp. Lindsay often was at Central giving advice to Strayer and, as a practical matter, acting in the role of the full-time agent in charge of Central. Ridge began doing business at the former Friendly of Haines City location in January, 1988, without having notified the Department of Insurance of the identity of its full-time agent in charge. Strayer testified that Ridge had no full-time agent in charge but conceded that she knew it was illegal to operate without one. In fact, Lindsay spent much of his time at Ridge and essentially ran the office, acting as if he were the full-time agent in charge. Business with the FJUA is produced by agents who are licensed by the FJUA to produce business at a certain location and assigned to a particular insurance company. When they began doing business, neither Ridge nor Central had a relationship with FJUA. Lindsay had been an FJUA producer assigned to State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (State Farm) and licensed to produce business at Friendly of Bartow. Although the evidence is not clear when Lindsay stopped producing FJUA business at Friendly of Bartow, he officially was terminated as a producer at that location on or about April 21, 1988. Seese had been an FJUA producer at Friendly of Lake Wales assigned to State Farm from July, 1987, officially until approximately February 9, 1988. Thomas Shaw, who was the full-time agent in charge of Friendly of Winter Haven, had been an FJUA producer assigned to State Farm at that location--the same location Central later assumed. There is no evidence when or if Shaw officially was terminated as a producer at the Friendly of Winter Haven location. Lindsay knew, and should have known, that Ridge had not yet been licensed by the FJUA to produce FJUA business at its location or that it had been assigned to State Farm. When Ridge began doing business, applications for FJUA insurance coverage first were transmitted to Central to be submitted by Central, over Seese's facsimile stamp, to State Farm. Transactions Alleged Under Counts I Through VIII. On or about January 14, 1988, Ridge took from David Doolin of Davenport, Florida, an application and $70 as a down payment for coverage under the FJUA and bound the coverage. (Count I.) On or about January 20, 1988, Ridge took from Rachel McKenny of Haines City, Florida, an application and $56 as down payment for six months of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage with United States Underwriters (USU) and bound the coverage. When coverage under USU became unavailable, Ridge advanced McKenny $12 to pay for the down payment on a year of coverage under the FJUA. (Count II.) On or about January 12, 1988, Ridge took from Richard Truett of Haines City, an application and $109 as down payment for a year of coverage under the FJUA and bound the coverage. (Count III.) On or about January 13, 1988, Ridge took from Bruce Tish, Jr., an application and $150 as down payment for and with Dairyland Insurance Company and bound the coverage. When Dairyland insurance became unavailable, Ridge advanced Tish $16 for the down payment on a year of coverage with the FJUA. (Count IV.) On or about January 15, 1988, Ridge took from Germaine Collier of Winter Haven an application and $56 as down payment for six months of PIP coverage with USU and bound the coverage. When USU coverage became unavailable, Ridge advanced Collier $2 for the down payment for a year of coverage under the FJUA. (Count V.) On or about January 15, 1988, Ridge took from Callie Robinson, Jr., of Haines City an application and $56 as down payment for six months of PIP coverage with USU and bound the coverage. When the USU coverage became unavailable, Ridge advanced Robinson $2 for the down payment for a year of coverage under the FJUA. (Count VI.) On or about January 15, 1988, Ridge took from James Belcher, through his wife Peggy, an application and $56 as down payment for six months of PIP coverage with USU and bound the coverage. When the USU coverage became unavailable, Ridge advanced Belcher $12 for the down payment for a year of coverage under the FJUA. (Count VII.) On or about January 15, 1988, Ridge took from Gerald Dempsey of Winter Haven an application and $60 as down payment for six months of PIP coverage with USU and bound the coverage. When the USU coverage became unavailable, Ridge submitted the application for a year of coverage under the FJUA (the down payment for which was only $58.) (Count VIII.) It was not proven, as alleged, that Ridge did not secure the necessary money order for the down payment for the FJUA coverage referred to in Counts I through VIII until on or after March 24, 1988, or that Ridge did not submit the applications referred to in Counts I through VIII until on or about April 12, 1988. To the contrary, it never was made clear from the Department's evidence whether the FJUA applications referred to in Counts I through VIII (Petitioner's Exhibits 18 through 25, in evidence) were among the applications received by State Farm for the first time on or about April 12 and 19, 1988, or whether they were among the applications previously submitted to State Farm but returned by State Farm for various reasons. Lindsay's evidence, which is more persuasive, suggests that Ridge transmitted the applications to Central for processing, money orders for the down payments were obtained and Central sent the applications to State Farm within approximately a week from when they were taken by Ridge. According to Lindsay's version of the events that transpired, State Farm rejected the applications once because Seese's facsimile stamp had been used on the applications. (The applications themselves would support Lindsay's version in this respect. Seese's name is signed over a part of the application that appears to have been "whited-out.") State Farm returned the applications and the money orders. Central then repurchased money orders, had Seese sign the applications and re-submitted the applications. For a second time, State Farm rejected and returned the money orders, this time because the effective date of the coverage was before Seese became licensed by the FJUA and assigned to State Farm as agent at the Central location. The applications also support Lindsay's version in this respect because the effective date of the coverage is changed to start coverage one month later, after Seese's February 9, 1988, appointment date. Central re-purchased money orders again, dated March 24, 1988, and submitted the applications for at least the third time on or about April 12, 1988. All of these applicants received coverage as of the revised effective date. Transactions Alleged Under Counts IX And X. On or about March 11, 1988, Ridge, through Lindsay, took from Charles and Erna Bluschke an application and Erna's $236 check for the down payment for a year of FJUA coverage on their 1984 Thunderbird. (Count IX.) Ridge gave the Bluschkes a Florida Automobile Insurance Identification Card indicating that State Farm was the carrier and that the coverage was bound effective March 11, 1988. When the Bluschkes received no paperwork from State Farm or the FJUA within approximately a month, Mr. Bluschke returned to Ridge and talked to Lindsay. Lindsay told him that the paperwork had not come through but should be in "any day." Approximately another month went by without any paperwork, and Bluschke again went to speak to Lindsay. Bluschke was concerned because State Farm had cancelled him previously, and he wanted to know how he could be sure he had coverage. Lindsay responded, "Don't worry, you're covered." In fact, as Lindsay knew, the Bluschkes' application had not been submitted to State Farm. By the time the Bluschkes had applied, Ridge and Central were in the midst of dealing with problems they were having getting older applications accepted by State Farm and had put the Bluschkes' application aside until the older problems were resolved. They also were attempting to be assigned to an FJUA carrier other than State Farm. Indeed, on or about April 12, 1988, certainly by the time of Bluschke's second inquiry, and perhaps even by the time of his first inquiry, Lindsay had submitted an application as Ridge's general lines agent to be licensed to produce for the FJUA and to be assigned to Allstate instead of State Farm. The representations Lindsay made to Bluschke on the first and second inquiries were knowing misrepresentations made for the purpose of concealing from the Bluschkes the actual status of Ridge's relationship to the FJUA and State Farm. After his second inquiry, Bluschke demanded and received a full refund of his $236 down payment. On or about February 12, 1988, Paris and Helen Dalton of Hamilton, Florida, went to Ridge to purchase insurance for a 1979 Pontiac and a 1977 Dodge Van. (Count X.) They completed an FJUA application and paid $409 down. They were given a Florida Automobile Insurance Identification Card indicating that State Farm was the carrier and that coverage was bound effective February 12, 1988. For the same reasons that Ridge did not submit the Bluschke application, Ridge never submitted the Dalton application to State Farm. In March, 1988, after 30 days had passed, Helen Dalton returned to Ridge because the Daltons had not yet received a payment book from State Farm. "Wanda," who worked at Ridge, assured the Daltons that the policy and payment book would come in the mail and that it sometimes took as much as 90 days. Later in March, 1988, the Daltons' bank asked for proof of insurance on their vehicles. Helen Dalton went to Ridge and got from "Wanda" a copy of the binder, signed by Lindsay. "Wanda" told Dalton that Ridge would call the bank. Ridge never called the bank, as the bank informed the Daltons in June, 1988. Helen Dalton again returned to Ridge, and this time a different person working at Ridge told her that "it's hard to get through to State Farm." Helen Dalton called State Farm directly and was told that State Farm never had received the application and that Ridge and Lindsay were not authorized to write FJUA insurance through State Farm. Dalton returned to Ridge and confronted Lindsay directly with this information. Lindsay offered to "re-write" the policy, but Dalton demanded her money back. Lindsay sent Dalton to Central in Winter Haven to have Strayer refund the money, saying he had no authority to write a refund check, and the Daltons finally got their refund on or about June 27, 1988. Transactions Alleged In Count XI. At least from on or before July 1, 1985, continuously until after December 31, 1986, Friendly of Winter Haven, Friendly of Bartow, Friendly of Haines City, and Friendly of Lake Wales arranged customers' premium financing through Time Premium, Inc., of Boca Raton, Florida. As part of each premium finance transaction, the agency submitted to Time Premium, Inc., an agency check representing the down payment received from the customer and an executed premium finance contract. The agencies also collected monthly payments from insureds and forwarded agency checks to Time Premium on behalf of these insureds. From August, 1985, through July, 1986, these corporate agencies wrote approximately $13,000 in checks payable to Time Premium drawn on the agencies' business accounts. Lindsay personally signed in excess of seven thousand dollars worth of these checks. These checks were returned due to insufficient funds. On December 10, 1986, these four corporate agencies, through Lindsay and Ruth Kent as the directors, executed a promissory note in favor of Time Premium, Inc., in the amount of $13,076.34 to satisfy the outstanding indebtedness on the returned checks. The promissory note required repayment at the rate of $500 per month. As of July 1, 1988, only $2,000 had been repaid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a final order finding the Respondent, Larry Wayne Lindsay, guilty of some, but not all, of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this case, as reflected in this Recommended Order, and suspending, for a period of one year, his general lines, health and life insurance agent licenses and his eligibility to hold those licenses. RECOMMENDED this 22nd of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1989.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating insurance licensees in the State of Florida. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the discipline of insurance licensees. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was licensed as a general lines insurance agent. On or about November 10, 1997, Respondent's license was suspended for a period of twenty-one months. Respondent's son, James Ale, is not, and has not been, licensed to provide insurance services in Florida. Respondent operated two businesses to provide insurance to the public: Doctors Insurance Agency, Inc., and Davie Insurance Associates, Inc. In November 1995, Respondent solicited William Auxier in order to provide Mr. Auxier with insurance. James Ale met with Mr. Auxier to complete the automobile insurance application. Thereafter, Respondent processed Mr. Auxier's application and obtained coverage from Underwriters Guarantee Insurance Company. In February 1996, Mr. Auxier received a notice of cancellation from Underwriters which represented the insured had failed to pay an additional premium. When Mr. Auxier contacted Respondent, he was instructed to remit an additional $153.85. Mr. Auxier timely paid this amount by money order directed to Respondent's company. Nevertheless, Mr. Auxier's insurance was cancelled for nonpayment of premium. On or about October 30, 1997, William Kelly purchased automobile insurance from Respondent's company. Mr. Kelly remitted the $1,663.00 premium and submitted the completed application. The Kelly premium was deposited into Respondent's bank account. In December 1997, Mr. Kelly's insurance was cancelled for non-receipt of the insurance premium. In August 1997, Gary Heil went to Respondent's office and paid an insurance premium of $317.00 to secure coverage through Connecticut Indemnity. The Heil premium was deposited into Respondent's bank account. In November 1997, Mr. Heil received a notice from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that represented he did not have insurance coverage. Mr. Heil contacted Respondent who assured him the matter would be resolved. In April 1998, Mr. Heil discovered the license tag on his vehicle had been removed. A notice left with the vehicle stated that the tag was removed for failure to provide proof of insurance as required by law. As it turned out, Mr. Heil did not have insurance for the period in question. In May 1997, Cindy Anderson went to Respondent's company to purchase automobile insurance. She completed an application for insurance and executed a contract with Pro Premium Finance Company, Inc., to pay for the insurance. Under the agreement, Ms. Anderson was to make payments for the premium. In June 1997, Ms. Anderson received a notice that she owed an additional premium of $87.00 for the insurance purchased. This additional premium was paid by Ms. Anderson to Respondent's company on or about August 5, 1997. This additional premium amount was deposited into Respondent's account. Later in August, Ms. Anderson received a notice of cancellation on her insurance for nonpayment of premium. As it turned out, Ms. Anderson also was cancelled by a second company for nonpayment despite the fact that notices of the premium due were furnished to Respondent. In January 1998, Goisue DiBenedetto went to Respondent's office to purchase automobile insurance. After completing the requisite application, Mr. DiBenedetto paid $780.00 in cash for the premium. In February 1998, Mr. DiBenedetto returned to the Respondent's office and paid an additional premium of $128.15. In May 1998, Mr. DiBenedetto was involved in an automobile accident. When he contacted his insurer, he discovered his insurance coverage had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In December 1997, Martha Crimi went to Respondent's office to purchase insurance for her company, Jimmy Mack Drainfields. A premium of $250.00 was remitted to Respondent and deposited into his account. Despite numerous attempts by Ms. Crimi, the insurance was never provided to the customer nor was the premium returned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license to conduct transactions authorized by Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Nam, Senior Attorney Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 John Morris Ale 3672 Southwest 60th Terrace Davie, Florida 33314 John Morris Ale Davie Insurance Association 3670 Southwest 64th Avenue Davie, Florida 33314 Bill Nelson Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
