The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Second Amended Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background Information Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed by the Department as a general lines insurance agent. Regional Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Regional") is an incorporated insurance agency located at 3955 Southwest 137th Avenue, #3, Miami, Florida. Respondent is Regional's principal owner, president, secretary, and registered agent and serves on its board of directors. In addition, she works as an insurance agent for Regional. Since on or about April 10, 1990, Respondent has maintained signatory authority over Regional's bank account (account number 50002713) at Continental National Bank. Greater Miami Insurance Agency, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Greater Miami") was an incorporated insurance agency located at 1887 Southwest 1st Street, Miami, Florida, from on or about June 26, 1979, until it was administratively dissolved on or about October 11, 1991. Respondent acted as an insurance agent for Greater Miami. Following Greater Miami's administrative dissolution, Regional took over Greater Miami's accounts and serviced them from Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. Count I Marta and Orlando Cuevas own a home located at 1907 Northwest 46th Avenue, Opa Locka, Florida, in which they have lived since approximately October of 1972. Since their purchase of the home, the Cuevases have not replaced the roof, nor have they painted the exterior of the home. Barnett Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as "Barnett") holds the mortgage on the Cuevas home. The Cuevases make monthly payments to Barnett. Barnett uses a portion of these payments to purchase homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases. On or about October 23, 1991, Barnett sent a check (check number 808446) in the amount of $186.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1991-92 policy year. Barnett had obtained homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases through Greater Miami for the 1990-91 policy year. Respondent received the check and, on or about October 31, 1991, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent attempted to secure homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases. She telephoned a prospective insurer and provided information regarding the Cuevas home. The prospective insurer declined to provide coverage because of the location and condition of the home. Respondent mailed Barnett a letter advising it of her inability to obtain homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases. Barnett, however, never received the letter. Neither Respondent, nor Barnett, took any further measures to attempt to obtain homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1991-92 policy year. Unbeknownst to the Cuevases, who relied on Barnett to take care of their homeowner's insurance needs, they were without homeowner's insurance for the 1991-92 policy year. Although she did not use the $186.00 that she had received from Barnett to obtain homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases, Respondent neglected to return, in the regular course of business, the $186.00 to either Barnett or the Cuevases. It was not until March of 1995, after the Department had charged her with wrongdoing in connection with her handling of the $186.00, that she refunded the money to Barnett. On or about August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew made landfall in south Florida. The Cuevas home was damaged as a result of the hurricane. There were damages to the roof and to the exterior of the home. As the Cuevases discovered after filing a claim with the insurance company that had provided them with homeowner's insurance for the 1990-91 policy year, they were not insured against such damages to their home. These damages have not been repaired inasmuch as the Cuevases have not been able to afford to pay for the repairs. As a result of these unrepaired damages, when it rains, rainwater leaks into the Cuevas home. On or about September 30, 1992, Barnett sent another check (check number 901842) in the amount of $186.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent received the check and deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent was successful in obtaining homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1992-93 policy year. She obtained such insurance from Monticello Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Monticello"). The annual premium was more than Respondent had received from Barnett to pay for homeowner's insurance for the Cuevases for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent used her own funds to pay the difference. Effective December 17, 1992, Monticello cancelled the Cuevases' policy for "noncompliance with underwriting information." The unearned premium was refunded to Respondent. Respondent thereupon mailed to Barnett a check in an amount ($97.00) 2/ that represented what she believed was due Barnett (and ultimately the Cuevases) as a result of the cancellation of the Cuevases' policy. Count II Luisa Lopez and her husband, Orlando Ruiz, own a home located at 245 Northeast 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida. For approximately the past 15 years, Lopez and Ruiz have used Respondent's services to purchase insurance for the home. During this time, they have dealt directly with Respondent. On or about August 5, 1991, Lopez and Ruiz received a notice advising them that they needed to remit a check in the amount of $336.00 to renew their homeowner's insurance policy with Utah Home Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Utah"). On or about September 26, 1991, Ruiz sent a check (check number 541) in the amount of $336.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Regional. It was to pay for the renewal of Lopez's and Ruiz's homeowner's insurance for the 1991-92 policy year. Lopez and Ruiz reasonably anticipated that, upon receiving the check, Respondent would take whatever steps were necessary to have their homeowner's policy renewed. Respondent received the check and, on or about October 1, 1991, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent neither forwarded the $336.00 to Utah or any other insurer, nor refunded the money to Lopez and Ruiz, in the regular course of business. Her failure to take such action was the product of neglect. Effective November 2, 1991, Utah cancelled Lopez's and Ruiz's homeowner's policy for "non-payment of premium." A Notice of Cancellation was mailed to Lopez and Ruiz, but never received by them. Respondent was not sent a copy of the Notice of Cancellation. Unaware of the cancellation, Respondent made no effort to obtain replacement coverage for Lopez and Ruiz. When Hurricane Andrew made landfall in south Florida in August of 1992, Lopez's and Ruiz's home was not insured. The home suffered extensive damage as a result of the hurricane. After discovering, following the hurricane, that their home was not insured, Lopez and Ruiz retained counsel and filed suit against Respondent. The dispute was amicably resolved in early 1995 when Lopez and Ruiz entered into a settlement agreement with Respondent. Count III Martha L. and Martha Y. Penate own a home located at 13265 Southwest 53rd Street, Miami, Florida. They have lived in the home for approximately the past six years. Throughout this period of time, Respondent has been their insurance agent. Citicorp holds the mortgage on the Penate home. The Penates make monthly payments to Citicorp. Citicorp uses a portion of these payments to purchase homeowner's insurance for the Penates. On or about August 11, 1989, Respondent received payment from Citicorp to cover the cost of homeowner's insurance for the Penates. On that same date, a policy insuring the Penate home was issued by Guardian Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Guardian"). The policy was effective from August 11, 1989, until August 11, 1990. The policy was renewed for the period commencing August 8, 1990, and ending August 11, 1991. On or about August 8, 1991, Citicorp sent a check (check number 50921327) in the amount of $334.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Penates for the 1991-92 policy year. Respondent received the check and, on or about August 21, 1991, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. As a result neglect, Respondent neither forwarded the $334.00 to Guardian or any other insurer, nor refunded the money to Citicorp or the Penates, in the regular course of business. It was not until on or about April 5, 1995, after the Department had charged her with wrongdoing in connection with her handling of the $334.00, that she refunded the money to Citicorp. Effective August 23, 1991, Guardian cancelled the Penates' homeowner's policy for "non-payment of renewal premium." A written notice advising of the cancellation was prepared and sent to Respondent. Respondent, however, never saw the notice. Respondent apprised neither Citicorp nor the Penates of the cancellation of the Penates' homeowner's policy inasmuch as she herself was unaware that the policy had been cancelled. On or about August 11, 1992, Citicorp sent a check (check number 51110066) in the amount of $334.00 to Greater Miami's Southwest 1st Street location. The check was made out to Greater Miami. It was to pay, in full, for the annual premium for homeowner's insurance for the Penates for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent received the check and, on or about August 14, 1992, deposited it in Regional's bank account at Continental National Bank. Respondent's review of her records revealed that the Penates' homeowner's policy had not been renewed for the 1991-92 policy year. Therefore, on or about August 17, 1992, Respondent wrote a letter asking Citicorp if it wanted her to "rewrite the account" or return the $334.00. Before she received a response from Citicorp, Hurricane Andrew made landfall in south Florida. The Penate home suffered extensive damage as a result of the hurricane. The Penates were not insured against such damage. After discovering, following the hurricane, that they did not have insurance to cover their losses, the Penates approached Respondent and asked her to bear the cost of repairing the damage to their home. The amount that the Penates sought from Respondent was beyond Respondent's financial capacity to pay. The matter is currently in litigation. Respondent ultimately (but not in the regular course of business) obtained homeowner's insurance for the Penates from Scottsdale Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Scottsdale"). The annual premium was more than Respondent had received from Citicorp to pay for homeowner's insurance for the Penates for the 1992-93 policy year. Respondent used her own funds to pay the difference, which was $221.00. Scottsdale subsequently cancelled the Penates' policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations noted in Conclusion of Law 82 of this Recommended Order; (2) penalizing Respondent for having committed these violations by revoking her license; and (3) dismissing the remaining allegations of misconduct advanced in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of August, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 9th day of August, 1995.
The Issue The issues in this case are those framed by the order to show cause brought by the Petitioner against the Respondents. The case number before the Department of Insurance is DOI 92-L-273DSS. The Respondents are charged with numerous violations of Chapters 624 and 626, Florida Statutes. Petitioner seeks to impose discipline against the insurance license held by James K. Mitchell, to order Respondents to cease and desist allegedly illegal business activities in Florida, and to impose licensure requirements upon the Respondents' insurance agency activities performed in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact in a Recommended Order are entitled to great weight and may not be rejected or modified if supported by competent substantial evidence from which the findings could reasonably be inferred. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Further in Gruman v. State, 379 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980), the court states: The findings of a trier of fact are entitled to as much weight and respect as the verdict of a jury. Hamilton v. Title Insurance Agency of Tampa Inc. 338 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). They may not be ignored or overturned unless review of the entire record reveals a total lack of substantial evidence to support them. Chakford v. Strum, 87 So.2d 419 (Fla. 1956). Florida's Administrative Procedure Act expressly adopted those principles. s. 120.57(1)(b)(9), Fla. Stat. Also, the agency may not reweigh the evidence, even if conflicting, where there is competent evidence in the record to support the findings of the Hearing Officer. AT&T Communications v. Marks, 515 So.2d 741 (Fla. 1987). The Hearing Officer in this cause after review of 32 volumes of transcript and 2 boxes of exhibits made 96 Findings of Fact. After a review of the complete record, including exceptions filed by each party, and applying the legal standard recited above, find that these Findings of Fact are based on competent substantial evidence and are therefore adopted in full in this Final Order. MODIFICATIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I have reviewed the Conclusions of Law prepared by the Hearing Officer. The Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer may be rejected and modified by the agency responsible for the enforcement of the law. Public Employees Relations Commission v. Dade County Police Benevolent Association, 467 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1985); Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 609 So.2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991); Siess v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Alles v. Department of Professional Regulation, 423 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the Florida Insurance Code, and as such I have relied upon its expertise and experience with respect to the proper interpretation of the Insurance Code to reject Conclusion of Law numbers 117, 118, 119, 122, and 125 and have made the following substituted Conclusions of Law as well as those contained in subheading II herein: James Mitchell & Company is not a "life agent" as defined in Section 626.779, F.S., nor is it a "life insurer" as defined at Section 626.780, F.S.. Further, James Mitchell & Company is not an "insurer" as defined in Section 624.03, F.S.. Rather, James Mitchell & Company is an "insurance agency" as defined in Section 626.094, F.S.. An insurance agency is the entity whereby insurance agents join to pursue their business interests. See s. 626.094, F.S. An insurance agency could not function without licensed agents. Insurance agencies may not operate lawfully except through licensed agents or solicitors. In general, the statutory scheme in Florida does not mandate the licensure of an insurance agency. There are specific exceptions to this general rule and when one of the triggering events occurs, an insurance agency is required to obtain a license. See ss. 626.112 and 626.172, F.S. Where a license has been determined to be necessary, the agency's license may, for future violations, become subject to disciplinary action including revocation. However, in most cases an insurance agency does not hold a license that can be revoked. The Legislature was aware of this when it drafted s. 626.988, F.S. Thus, the specific limitation in s. 626.988(2), F.S., was directed to agents and solicitors. The scope of s. 626.988, F.S., necessarily and reasonably encompasses the regulation of agents, solicitors, insurance companies, and insurance agencies in order for the Department to effectively implement the purposes of the enabling legislation. Section 626.988, F.S., specifically mentions 'agents' and 'solicitors'. However, section 626.988, F.S., regulates the relationship between financial institutions and the agents and solicitors. This prohibited relationship encompasses more than solicitors and agents, because it focuses on financial institutions' entry into insurance activities. As stated in Glendale Fed. S & L. Ass'n v. Fla. Dept. of Ins., 587 So.2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) rev. denied, 599 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1992), the legislature was guarding against the dangers of financial institutions becoming involved in the business of insurance: the prevention of coercion, unfair trade practices, and undue concentration of resources. Limiting the scope to agents and solicitors ignores the nature and definition of insurance agencies. James Mitchell & Company is associated with Barnett Banks, Inc. with respect to the sale of life insurance products, as prohibited in s. 626.988(2), F.S., as alleged in Count II. James Mitchell & Company is associated with Barnett Banks, Inc. with respect to the sale of life insurance products, as prohibited in s. 626.988(2), F.S., as alleged in Count III. James Mitchell & Company is associated with Barnett Banks, Inc. with respect to the sale of life insurance products, as prohibited in s. 626.988(2), F.S., as alleged in Count IV.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the fact found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which dismisses Counts I, II, IV, V, VII, and X as to James Mitchell & Company, and that finds James Mitchell & Company in violation of Counts III, VI, and VIII; that finds James K. Mitchell in violation of Count IX, and dismisses Counts VII and X as to James K. Mitchell; that revokes the nonresident life insurance agent's license issued to James K. Mitchell by the Department of Insurance; that orders James Mitchell & Company and James K. Mitchell in his capacity as officer and director of James Mitchell & Company to cease and desist the prohibited practices that have been described in the recommended order; and that requires James Mitchell & Company as an insurance agency operating in Florida to obtain an insurance agency license before it continues to do business in Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 30th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 and 2 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 12 through 14 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is not relevant. Paragraphs 18 through 21 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the last sentence to Paragraph 21 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 22 is not relevant. Paragraphs 23 through the first sentence of Paragraph 30 are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences to Paragraph 30 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 31 and 32 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 33 through 37 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 38 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 39 through the first sentence in 44 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in Paragraph 44 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 46 through 49 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 50 through 55 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 56 and 57 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 58 through the first sentence in Paragraph 61 are subordinate to facts found. The latter sentence constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 62 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 63 through 65 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 66 through 72 are subordinate to facts found to the extent that they are consistent with the order to show cause fact allegations. Otherwise, they have not been utilized. Paragraph 73 is not relevant. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 75 in the first sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 76 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 77 and 78 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 79 and 80 are not relevant in that there has been no allegation of violation of any substantive guidelines in the order to show cause which would be necessary if the Department of Insurance intended to prosecute the Respondents for such violation. Paragraphs 81 through 92 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 93 through 102 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 103 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 104 through 107 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 108 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 109 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 110 and 111 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 112 through 115 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 116 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 117 and 118 constitute legal argument. Paragraph 119 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 120 through 124 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 125 and 126 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 127 through 130 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 131 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 132 through 135 constitute legal argument. Paragraph 136 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 137 through 139 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 140 through 150 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 151 through 154 are rejected in the suggestion that there was competent proof showing the truth of the complaints. Respondents' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 4 through 6 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that customers were informed of the ceiling on interest rate return on annuities. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the last sentence constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the language in the last phrase to sentence 4 which is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and the remaining portion of Paragraph 8 which constitutes legal argument. The first two sentences to Paragraph 9 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The remaining sentences to Paragraph 9 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the proposed facts do not overcome the fact finding in the recommended order related to the opportunity which Barnett has pursuant to the services agreement to influence James Mitchell & Company's hiring practices. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 11 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 12 through 14 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the fiduciary responsibility of Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A. is limited in its liability for its acts. The sentence dealing with responsibilities of Barnett Banks Trust Company, N.A. in the absence of the participation of the James Mitchell & Company service centers is not relevant nor is the discussion of the usual fee for providing trust services in retail trust. Paragraph 15 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the discussion of Barnett practices unassociated with this case and trust arrangements unaffiliated with the present case and the discussion of the life of retail trusts and other Barnett transactions are not relevant. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute with the exception of the reference to 40,000 customer participants. Neither is Paragraph 18 necessary to the resolution of the dispute in that the Department of Insurance failed to prove that any Florida complaints were true. Paragraphs 19 through 24 are rejected in any suggestion by the proposed facts that the Department of Insurance has granted approval to the program between James Mitchell & Company and the Barnett entities or failed to properly inform the Respondents concerning alleged violations. Finally, the order to show cause does not call upon the Respondents to defend against alleged violations of substantiative guidelines. Paragraphs 25 through 39 as they discuss the guidelines have no significance in that the Department of Insurance has not affirmatively pled a violation of substantive guidelines and the Respondents may not defend by reference to the other factual circumstances in the enforcement history of the Department of Insurance on the theory that the Department of Insurance has been inconsistent in its regulatory function because the facts in the other cases are not sufficiently similar to the present facts. Paragraph 40 in its suggestion that the Department of Insurance has not maintained a proper subject matter index and provided proper access to statements of precedent and policy is rejected. Paragraph 41 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 42 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 46 constitute legal argument. Paragraph 47 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 48 through 50 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 51 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the reference to complaints in other states or by the Office of the Comptroller which is not relevant. Paragraph 52 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 53 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the last sentence constitutes legal argument as does Paragraph 54. Paragraph 55 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the last sentence is contrary to facts found in that the service agreement contemplates that Barnett Banks, Inc. shall be consulted with respect to the propriety and legality of all promotional materials. This would include advertisement of insurance products by James Mitchell & Company. Paragraphs 56 and 57 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 58 and 59 constitute legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: William R. Scherer, Esquire James F. Carroll, Esquire Kimberly Kisslan, Esquire Albert L. Frevola, Jr., Esquire Conrad, Scherer, James & Jenne Eighth Floor 633 South Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bruce Culpepper, Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson, Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Dennis Silverman, Esquire Nancy J. Aliff, Esquire Robert Prentiss, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license as an insurance agent, and his eligibility for licensure as an insurance agent in Florida should be disciplined for violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-215.210, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, at all times material hereto, was eligible for licensure and was licensed in Florida as a life insurance agent, life and health insurance agent, and variable annuity contracts salesman. Respondent was initially licensed in 1992. Respondent's license is currently under emergency suspension as a result of the actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. Respondent is thirty years old, married with one son, and resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1993 Respondent became a shareholder and vice-president of National Consultants International, Inc. (National), a Florida corporation operating as an insurance agency in Pinellas County, Florida. National was incorporated on November 29, 1993, and dissolved on August 24, 1994. The principal shareholder and president of National was Coreen McKeever. At National Coreen McKeever was also responsible for the administrative functions of the agency. Respondent became an agent for National in March 1994. Respondent's duties were to contact potential customers, discuss the customer's insurance needs, explain products that might address the customer's needs, and write policies if purchased by the customer. Respondent collected the premiums, but as a usual practice at National, would turn the premium checks over to Coreen McKeever for administrative processing. Respondent was also authorized to make deposits and withdrawals on National's premium trust account at Republic Bank in Seminole, Florida. Findings as to Count III - Ralph Cody Ralph Cody is an eighty-nine year old retired school maintenance worker from Kentucky. Mr. Cody retired to Florida in 1980, and currently lives with his wife, Edna, in Pinellas County. Mr. Cody is in good health, but has difficulty with his eyesight and hearing. Mr. Cody no longer drives. Mr. Cody first met the Respondent approximately two years ago. At that time Respondent sold Mr. Cody an insurance policy with a company called United American. Mr. Cody was satisfied with this insurance policy. Subsequent to his initial contact with Respondent, Mr. Cody became interested in obtaining an insurance policy which would provide for in-home health care. Mr. Cody was particularly interested in such an insurance policy because of his concern for his wife's deteriorating health, and his desire that health care be provided at home for him and his wife, and not in a nursing home. Because of his interest in obtaining an in-home health care insurance policy, Mr. Cody met with Respondent. Respondent suggested, and Mr. Cody agreed, to the purchase of a policy called Fortis Long Term Security Home Health Care (Fortis), which was underwritten by Time Insurance Company (Time) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Respondent was an agent with Time. Mr. Cody believed the Time policy would meet his insurance needs. On or about March 31, 1994, Respondent received from Mr. Cody a check for $3,164.40. This sum was intended by Mr. Cody to be the premium payment for the Fortis home health care insurance policy underwritten by Time. Pursuant to Respondent's directions, the check from Mr. Cody was made payable to Respondent's agency, National, not to Time Insurance Company. Respondent directed this procedure because at this time, National had limited experience with Time, and National did not have "netting" privileges. "Netting" privileges allow an insurance agency to deduct its commission prior to forwarding a premium check to the underwriting company. Because of National's limited experience with Time, and the lack of netting privileges, Respondent did not believe it was unusual to make the Cody check payable to National, or to deposit the Cody check into National's account. Time has a general policy requiring that premium checks be made payable directly to Time; however, Time, on occasion, will accept premium checks from agencies. Time also requires that an application and premium check be immediately sent to the company for processing. Respondent deposited the Cody check into National's account at Republic Bank. Respondent took the Cody application back to National, entered the information into the computer and delivered the Cody application for the issuance of the Fortis policy to Coreen McKeever. Neither the Cody check, nor the Cody application for issuance of the Fortis policy was received by Time. Within three weeks of depositing the check and delivering the application, Respondent inquired of Coreen McKeever as to the status of the Cody application. Respondent was informed by Coreen McKeever that the application had been denied by Time because of Mrs. Cody's health problems. Contrary to Ms. McKeever's report, Time did not consider nor decline the application for issuance of the Fortis policy to the Codys because of Mrs. Cody's health or any other reason. Respondent did not personally check on the Cody application, and did not contact Time regarding the issuance of the policy to the Codys. Respondent had no personal knowledge whether the Cody application had been declined and received no written notification regarding the Cody application. Respondent did not question the representations made by Coreen McKeever in this regard. Shortly thereafter, Respondent informed Mr. Cody that the application to Time had been declined. Respondent met with Mr. Cody and suggested that Mr. Cody consider purchasing a product offered by a company called Secure Care Home Services, Inc. (Secure Care), which also provided home health care and was approximately the same purchase price as the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Respondent at that time represented to Mr. Cody, and Mr. Cody was under the belief, that the Secure Care product was substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Mr. Cody was aware that the Secure Care product was not insurance. Secure Care is a corporation located in Seminole, Florida. Secure Care is not an insurance company, but offers "membership agreements" marketed primarily to elderly persons to contractually provide in-home health care services to its members. Coreen McKeever (a/k/a Coreen J. Morgan) is a director of Secure Care, and has an interest in Secure Care. Secure Care is currently under a Cease and Desist Order suspending its business operations. The Cease and Desist order was entered by the Petitioner on March 13, 1995. On or about May 18, 1994, Mr. and Mrs. Cody entered into a membership agreement with Secure Care. The initial cost of the membership for both of the Codys as reflected in the agreement was $3,027.00; however, the record reflects that the ultimate cost to the Codys for the Secure Care membership actually totalled $3098.40. Respondent signed the agreement as an authorized agent for Secure Care. On May 26, 1994, Respondent met with the Codys at their home. At this time Respondent offered to refund to Mr. Cody the purchase price of the Time policy. To this end, Respondent tendered check number 1191 drawn on National's account in the amount of $3,164.40 to Mr. Cody; however, because the purchase price of the Codys' membership in Secure Care which Mr. Cody had already agreed to purchase was almost as much as the Time policy, Mr. Cody requested that Respondent apply the check for the Time policy to the Secure Care membership, and refund Mr. Cody the difference. Respondent accordingly on May 27, 1994, issued a check number 1189 drawn on National's account to Mr. Cody the amount of $65.70, which represented the difference in the cost of the two products. Several months after his purchase of the Secure Care membership, Mr. Cody became aware that some of his neighbors were dissatisfied with the home health care provided by the company. Thereafter, Mr. Cody became concerned that the Secure Care membership would not meet his or his wife's needs. At this time Mr. Cody had no personal experience with Secure Care. Neither Mr. Cody nor his wife ever used, or sought to use their Secure Care membership. Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner regarding Secure Care. Mr. Cody also contacted Time and discovered that his application and check had not been received. Respondent learned of Mr. Cody's concerns with Secure Care after Mr. Cody complained to Petitioner and a departmental investigation of this matter had been undertaken. Respondent then contacted Mr. Cody who told Respondent he wanted a refund of the purchase price of the Secure Care membership. Respondent contacted Secure Care, but learned that the company was not giving refunds at that time. Respondent suggested that Mr. Cody then attempt to deal with Secure Care directly. Mr. Cody was unable to obtain a refund of the cost of the Secure Care membership. The Codys obtained no benefit from their Secure Care membership. The Secure Care membership was not substantially equivalent to the Fortis policy underwritten by Time. Secure Care was not an established company and did not have the resources or capability to provide the services offered by Time. Count II - Leila G. Smith Leila G. Smith is a widowed ninety-one year old retired first grade school teacher, originally from Georgia. Mrs. Smith currently resides with her niece, Miriam Enright, in Seminole, Florida. Brenda Blager is Miriam Enright's daughter, and Mrs. Smith's great-niece. Ms. Blager currently resides in Champagne, Illinois. Mrs. Smith receives a monthly income from her teacher's pension and Social Security benefits. Mrs. Smith is in generally good health for a person of her age, but has experienced a significant loss of vision, is totally blind in her left eye, and cannot read without the aid of a magnifying glass. Mrs. Smith moved to Florida approximately three years ago. Respondent was first introduced to Mrs. Smith by Mrs. Enright to whom Respondent had previously sold annuities. Respondent visited the Enright home and met with Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Enright, Ms. Blager, and also Mrs. Smith's nephew, Robert Smith, to discuss Mrs. Smith's insurance and investment needs. At that time Mrs. Smith purchased an annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent. Approximately one month later Mrs. Smith purchased a second annuity in the amount of $100,000 from Respondent, and gave Robert Smith $60,000 for the purchase of an annuity. The interest payments from the second annuity purchased by Mrs. Smith were sent to Robert Smith. Brenda Blager usually reviewed and consulted Mrs. Smith regarding Mrs. Smith's personal finances; however, after moving to Florida and meeting Respondent, Mrs. Smith also began to rely on and trust Respondent with regard to advising her in her personal financial matters. Prior to moving to Florida, Mrs. Smith's investments consisted primarily of her home and certificates of deposit in banks and savings institutions in Georgia. Mrs. Smith was conservative in her investments, had never purchased stocks or bonds, and only wanted to place her savings in "safe" investments. Subsequent to her purchase of annuities, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Enright contacted Respondent to discuss other financial concerns. Specifically, Mrs. Smith had sold her home in Georgia and was interested in moving her certificates of deposit to Florida, achieving a higher rate of return, addressing tax problems associated with the payment of the annuity interest to her nephew, and purchasing a new Cadillac automobile. Whenever Respondent met with Mrs. Smith to discuss her finances and investments, Mrs. Enright, or another member of Mrs. Smith's family was also present. Respondent reviewed several financial documents relating to Mrs. Smith's Georgia certificates of deposit. Mrs. Smith's financial records were disorganized. Respondent advised Mrs. Smith that there would be substantial penalties if she prematurely removed her funds and invested in certificates of deposit. Despite the penalties and Respondent's advice to the contrary, Mrs. Smith decided to cash in her Georgia certificates of deposit and relocate her funds to Florida. Respondent assisted Mrs. Smith in cashing in the Georgia certificates of deposit. Respondent also assisted Mrs. Smith in using some of these funds to purchase a Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith had initially been interested in leasing the automobile; however, Respondent reviewed the lease arrangement, and advised Mrs. Smith that a purchase was in her best interest. Mrs. Smith followed Respondent's advice in this regard. Mrs. Smith trusted Respondent. To assist Mrs. Smith in relocating her funds to Florida, and also achieve a higher rate of return, Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with proposals to invest in promissory notes with two local firms, Zuma Engineering and Allstate Finance. (Allstate Finance is not associated with Allstate Insurance Company). Zuma Engineering (Zuma), is a start-up company located in Largo, Florida, engaged in the business of recycling tires. The rubber in the tires is converted to crumb rubber to be resold and used in asphalt roads, playground resurfacing and other products. Respondent first became aware of Zuma at a seminar in July of 1994 through another agent, Michael Mann, who was then raising funds for Zuma. Mr. Mann took Respondent to the Zuma facility and introduced Respondent to the president of the company. Thereafter, Respondent regularly toured the facility, inspected Zuma's existing and revised business plans, attended business meetings, and reviewed the company's monthly financial reports. The Zuma physical facility consisting of a warehouse and processing plant appeared to be consistent with the business plan. Respondent also obtained documents from Zuma reflecting that the company had initiated a research and development program associated with the University of South Florida. Respondent observed independent auditors at the Zuma facility, and reviewed financial documents that indicated Zuma had made progress toward a private stock offering. Respondent took reasonable actions to examine the operational and fiscal soundness of Zuma. When Respondent met with Mrs. Smith he presented her with documents including the Zuma business plan, and explained the investment opportunity in Zuma. Mrs. Smith does not recall Respondent explaining the Zuma investment proposal, nor does Mrs. Smith recall reading any documents or other material relating to Zuma. Given Mrs. Smith's extremely poor vision and the technical nature of the Zuma business plan, it is highly unlikely that Mrs. Smith read the business plan or any other documents pertaining to Zuma. Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the investment opportunity in Zuma. Although Mrs. Smith did not comprehend the nature of the Zuma investment, between September 26, 1994 and May 31, 1995 she nonetheless made several purchases of promissory notes payable by Zuma. Specifically, Mrs. Smith signed checks payable to Zuma as follows: September 26, 1994, two checks, one in the amount of $10,000, and another in the amount of $20,000; December 6, 1994, in the amount of $70,000; March 10, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; March 29, 1995 in the amount of $10,000; and, May 31, 1995 in the amount of $90,000. Mrs. Smith did not actually write the checks. Because of her poor eyesight, Mrs. Smith signed the checks in blank, and Respondent filled in the date, payee, and amount. Respondent remitted Mrs. Smith's checks to Zuma. In exchange, Zuma issued promissory notes to Mrs. Smith. The Zuma promissory notes were not insurance products. No interest has been paid on the Zuma promissory notes, and several of the notes are now in default. Mrs. Smith has not received any of the principal of the promissory notes back from Zuma. The prospectus of Zuma states that securities in Zuma are speculative, carry a high degree of risk, and "...should not be purchased by anyone who cannot afford the loss of his or her entire investment." Mrs. Smith did not understand the high risk involved in purchasing securities in Zuma. In addition to Mrs. Smith, Respondent sold promissory notes issued by Zuma to approximately thirty other investors. Subsequent to selling the Zuma notes to Mrs. Smith, Respondent met with an investigator from the Florida Comptroller's Office, and was informed that due to fiscal irregularities at Zuma, Respondent should refrain from selling Zuma securities. Respondent was not aware of the problems with Zuma prior to his meeting with the Comptroller's investigator. At the same time that Respondent presented Mrs. Smith with the Zuma proposal, Respondent also presented Mrs. Smith with information from Allstate Finance. Allstate, which is not related to the Allstate Insurance Company, is a company located in Tampa, Florida, in the business of automobile financing. Mrs. Smith purchased at least one promissory note in the amount of $40,000 from Allstate. The Allstate promissory note purchased by Mrs. Smith was not an insurance product. Mrs. Smith has received, and continues to receive, monthly interest payments from Allstate. In June of 1995, Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate promissory note to renew for another year. In July of 1995, Brenda Blager received a telephone call from her mother, Miriam Enright, requesting assistance in reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. Ms. Blager has worked in a financial planning office, but is not a certified financial planner. Prior to that time Ms. Blager had no knowledge of Zuma. Ms. Blager obtained a Dunn & Bradstreet report on Zuma and became very concerned regarding Mrs. Smith's investment in Zuma. Ms. Blager then came to Florida from Illinois for the purpose of reviewing Mrs. Smith's investments. After reviewing the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, Ms. Blager met with an attorney and attempted to recover Mrs. Smith's funds; however, Ms. Blager was unable to do so. As a result of Respondent's actions, Mrs. Smith has cashed in all of her certificates of deposit to purchase the Zuma and Allstate promissory notes, and her Cadillac automobile. Mrs. Smith has no other savings or investments. While Mrs. Smith did want to relocate her funds from Georgia, Respondent was aware that Mrs. Smith desired and intended to place her funds in safe, low risk, investments. Respondent's advice and assistance, which resulted in placing Mrs. Smith's funds in a high risk security such as a Zuma promissory note, was not appropriate for an elderly woman in Mrs. Smith's circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER enter a final order finding Respondent, ROBERT DARREN CARLSON, in violation of the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as set forth above, and that Respondent's licenses and eligibility for licensure be SUSPENDED for a period of fifteen (15) months. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON, 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 21st day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4947 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted as to Zuma was a start-up company, recycling tires. Rejected as to Mrs. Smith's knowledge and consent. Accepted as to Mrs. Smith wanting safe investments. Rejected as to Respondent being employed by Zuma. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11.-12. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith desired safe investments. 13.-21. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-13. Accepted and incorporated. 14.-16. Rejected as to Respondent's reasonable basis for believing the representations of Coreen McKeever. 17. Accepted, except to the extent that Mr. Cody was led to believe Secure Care was equivalent to Time. 18.-25. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not necessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not an accurate assessment of Mr. Cody's testimony. 29.-30. Accepted and incorporated. 31.-32. Accepted; Time's general policy allowed checks from agencies. 33.-35. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44. Accepted except to the extent that Zuma and Allstate promissory notes were not appropriate investments for Mrs. Smith. 45.-54. Accepted to the extent that Respondent investigated Zuma, reviewed fiscal reports, and believed Zuma to be a viable start-up company. 55.-57. Accepted and incorporated. 58. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith had document relating to Zuma; rejected to the extent that Mrs. Smith understood the nature of the Zuma investment. 59.-63. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith allowed the Allstate not to renew. Accepted to the extent that Mrs. Smith wanted her certificates of deposit moved from Georgia. Rejected to the extent that Respondent knew, or should have known, the investments were high risk. Accepted to the extent that Ms. Blager is not a certified financial planner. Rejected to the extent that Zuma has defaulted on several of Mrs. Smith's notes, and not returned any interest or principal. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire NEWELL & STAHL 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Does Petitioner, Department of Financial Services (DFS), have authority to determine if Respondent, Alberto Luis Sotero (Mr. Sotero) and Respondent, FalconTrust Group, Inc. (FalconTrust), wrongfully took or witheld premium funds owed an insurance company while a civil action between the insurance company and Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust pends in Circuit Court presenting the same issues? Should the insurance agent license of Mr. Sotero be disciplined for alleged violations of Sections 626.561(1), 626.611(7), 626.611(10), 626.611(13), and 626.621(4), Florida Statutes (2007)?1. Should the insurance agency license of FalconTrust be disciplined for alleged violations of Section 626.561(1), 626.6215(5)(a), 626.6215(5)(d). 626.6215(5)(f), and 626.6215(5)(k), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Mr. Sotero is licensed by DFS as an insurance agent in Florida and has been at all times material to this matter. He holds license number A249545. FalconTrust is licensed by DFS as an insurance agency in this state and has been at all times material to this matter. It holds license number L014424. Mr. Sotero is an officer and director of FalconTrust and held these positions at all times material to this proceeding. Mr. Sotero also controlled and directed all actions of FalconTrust described in these Findings of Fact. Zurich American Insurance Company is a commercial property and casualty insurance company. FalconTrust Commercial Risk Specialists, Inc., and Zurich-American Insurance Group entered into an "Agency-Company Agreement" (Agency Agreement) that was effective January 1, 1999. The Agency Agreement bound the following Zurich entities, referred to collectively as Zurich: Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch; Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois; American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company; American Zurich Insurance Company; and Steadfast Insurance Company. The Agreement specified that FalconTrust was an "independent Agent and not an employee of the Company [Zurich.]". . .. The Agency Agreement also stated: All premiums collected by you [Falcontrust] are our [Zurich's] property and are held by you as trust funds. You have no interest in such premiums and shall make no deduction therefrom before paying same to us [Zurich] except for the commission if any authorized by us in writing to be deducted by you and you shall not under any circumstances make personal use of such funds either in paying expense or otherwise. If the laws or regulations of the above state listed in your address require you to handle premiums in a fiduciary capacity or as trust funds you agree that all premiums of any kind received by or paid to you shall be segregated held apart by you in a premium trust fund account opened by you with a bank insured at all times by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and chargeable to you in a fiduciary capacity as trustee for our benefit and on our behalf and you shall pay such premiums as provided in this agreement. (emphasis supplied. The Agency Agreement commits Zurich to pay FalconTrust commissions "on terms to be negotiated . . . ." It requires FalconTrust to pay "any sub agent or sub producer fees or commissions required." The Agency Agreement also provides: Suspension or termination of this Agreement does not relieve you of the duty to account for and pay us all premiums for which you are responsible in accordance with Section 2 and return commissions for which you are responsible in accordance with Section 3 [the Commission section.] The Agency Agreement was for Mr. Sotero and Falcontrust to submit insurance applications for the Zurich companies to underwrite property and casualty insurance, primarily for long- haul trucking. The Agency Agreement and all the parties contemplated that Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust would deduct agreed-upon commissions from premiums and remit the remaining funds to Zurich. On September 14, 2000, Zurich and Mr. Sotero amended the Agency Agreement to change the due date for premium payments and to replace FalconTrust Group, Inc. (FalconTrust) for FalconTrust Commercial Risk Specialists, Inc., and to replace Zurich-American Insurance Group and Zurich Insurance Company, U.S. Branch, with Zurich U.S. Mr. Sotero and Zurich's authorized agent, Account Executive Sue Marcello, negotiated the terms of the commission agreement as contemplated in the Agency Agreement. Mr. Sotero confirmed the terms in a July 20, 1999, letter to Ms. Marcello. The parties agreed on a two-part commission. One part was to be paid from the premiums upon collection of the premiums. The second part, contingent upon the program continuing for five years, was to be paid by Zurich to Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust. The total commission was 20 percent. FalconTrust and Mr. Sotero were authorized to deduct 13 percent of the commission from premiums before forwarding them to Zurich. The remaining seven percent Zurich was to pay to Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust at the end of the program or after the fifth year anniversary date. The letter spelled out clearly that Zurich would hold the money constituting the seven percent and was entitled to all investment income earned on the money. The passage describing the arrangement reads as follows: Our total commission is 20 percent however Zurich will hold and retain the first 7 percent commission where they are entitle [sic] to earn investment income. I understand that FalconTrust will not benefit from this compounded investment income. However you mentioned you would increase our initial commission that is set at 13 percent currently from time to time depending on FalconTrust reaching their goals, but it will never exceed a total commission of 20 percent. It is to our understanding that the difference will be paid at the end of the program or after the fifth year anniversary date being 12/31/2005, but not earlier than five years. I do understand that if Zurich and/or FalconTrust cancels the program on or before the fourth year being 12/31/2004 that we are not entitle [sic] to our remaining commission that you will be holding. If the program is cancelled after 12/31/2004 by FalconTrust and/or Zurich it is understood that all commission being held will be considered earned. (emphasis added.) Until the program ended, the parties conducted themselves under the Agency Agreement as described in the letter. At some point the parties agreed to decrease the percentage retained by Zurich to five percent and increase the percentage initially paid to and kept by FalconTrust to 15 percent. During the course of the relationship FalconTrust produced approximately $146,000,000 in premiums for Zurich. At all times relevant to this matter, all premium payments, except for the portion deducted by sub-agents and producers before forwarding the payments to Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust were deposited into a trust account. The various sub-agents of FalconTrust collected premiums and forwarded them to FalconTrust, after deducting their commissions, which were a subpart of the FalconTrust 13 percent commission. FalconTrust in turn forwarded the remaining premium funds after deducting the portion of its 13 percent left after the sub-agent deduction. This was consistent with the Agency Agreement and accepted as proper by Zurich at all times. All parties realized that the held-back seven percent, later five percent, was money that Zurich would owe and pay if the conditions for payment were met. The parties conducted themselves in keeping with that understanding. Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust described the practice this way in their Third Amended Complaint in a court proceeding about this dispute: "In accordance with the Commission Agreement, Zurich held the contingency/holdback commission and received investment income thereon." (Emphasis supplied.) In 2006 Zurich decided to end the program. In a letter dated December 8, 2006, Tim Anders, Vice President of Zurich, notified Mr. Sotero that Zurich was terminating the Agency-Company Agreement of January 1, 1999. The letter was specific. It said Zurich was providing "notification of termination of that certain Agency-Company Agreement between Zurich American Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Co. of Illinois, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., American Zurich Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company . . . and FalconTrust Grup, Inc. . . ., dated January 1, 1999, . . .." Mr. Sotero wrote asking Zurich to reconsider or at least extend the termination date past the March 15, 2007, date provided in the letter. Zurich agreed to extend the termination date to April 30, 2007. At the time of termination FalconTrust had fulfilled all of the requirements under the Agency-Agreement for receipt of the held-back portion of the commissions. Mr. Sotero asked Zurich to pay the held-back commission amounts. He calculated the amount to exceed $7,000,000. Zurich did not pay the held- back commission amounts. As the program was winding down and the termination date approached, FalconTrust continued to receive premiums. As the Agency Agreement and negotiated commission structure provided, FalconTrust deducted its initial commission from the premium payments. But, reacting to Zurich's failure to begin paying the held back commission amounts, Mr. Sotero engaged in "self help." He deducted at least $6,000,000 from the premium payments from customers, received and deposited in the trust account. He took the money as payment from Zurich of earned and held back commissions.3 Nothing in the Agency Agreement or negotiated commission agreement authorized this action. In March of 2007, Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust also brought suit against Zurich in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida. The issues in that proceeding include whether Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust wrongfully took premiums and how much Zurich owes them for commissions. As of the final hearing, that cause (Case Number 07-6199-CA-01) remained pending before the court and set for jury trial in August 2010. There is no evidence of a final disposition. But the court has entered a partial Summary Judgment determining that FalconTrust wrongfully took premium funds for the commissions that it maintained Zurich owed. The court's Order concludes that the issue is not whether Zurich owed money to FalconTrust, but whether FalconTrust was entitled to take the funds when it did. Like the undersigned, the court determines that it was not. Between December 8, 2006, the date of the cancelation letter, and April 30, 2007, the program termination date, Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust did not remit to Zurich any of the approximately $6,000,000 in premium payments received. Despite not receiving premiums, Zurich did not cancel or refuse to issue the policies for which the premiums taken by Mr. Sotero and FalconTrust were payment. The policies remained in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services suspend the license of Adalberto L. Sotero for nine months and suspend the license of FalconTrust Group, Inc. for nine months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On September 8, 1987, the Department of Insurance received a letter dated September 1, 1987, from Joseph F. Kinman, Jr., which stated: Another insurance agent (Daniel Bruce Caughey) from Pensacola, Florida and his incorporated agency (Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc.) are refusing to forward premium payments on to Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. despite a final judgment for such amounts here in Hillsborough County Circuit Court. Enclosed is a copy of the Final Judgment entered August 13, 1987, as well as a copy of the Complaint. We represent Jordan Roberts & Company, as well as Poe & Associates, Inc. here in Tampa, Florida. In approximately August of 1982, Daniel Bruce Caughey and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. entered into a brokerage agreement with Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. wherein Mr. Caughey and the Agency were to collect premiums on behalf of Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. and in turn, Mr. Caughey and the Agency were to receive commissions. Mr. Caughey signed an Individual Guarantee Agreement on October 21, 1983, guaranteeing that Brokerage Agreement with Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. Mr. Caughey and the Agency failed to forward the insurance premiums collected on behalf of Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. despite repeated demands and inquiries. Finally, a lawsuit was filed against Mr. Caughey and the Agency in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Hillsborough County in December of 1986. Final judgment for Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. against Mr. Caughey and the Agency was entered on August 13, 1987, for an amount of $6,595.94. Mr. Caughey and his Agency have unlawfully withheld monies belonging to an insurer, Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. and, accordingly, appear to be in violation of Florida Statutes 626 et seq. Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. has a judgment for unpaid insurance premiums against Mr. Caughey and the Agency, however, Mr. Caughey and the Agency refuse or fail to pay over to Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. premium funds rightfully belonging to Jordan Roberts & Company, Inc. Accordingly, we would respectfully request that your office conduct an investigation of Mr. Caughey and the Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. Enclosed with this letter were copies of the complaint and final judgment in the circuit court case, Case No. 86-21454. As found in the main administrative case, Case No. 89-2651: In Count 1, JORO's complaint [in Case No. 86-21454] alleges the existence of a brokerage agreement between JORO and Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc., entered into "[o]n or about April 27, 1982"; execution and delivery of respondent's guarantee "[o]n or about October 21, 1983"; and the agency's indebtedness "for premiums on policies underwritten by [JORO] for the sum of $20,975.36." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. In Count II, the complaint also alleges execution and delivery of a promissory note "[o]n or about October 21, 1983," without, however, explicitly indicating its relationship (if any) with the guarantee executed the same date. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The final judgment does not specify which count(s) JORO recovered on. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Attached to the complaint are copies of the promissory note, executed by "CAUGHEY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., By: D B Caughey Vice President"; the guarantee, executed in the same way; and the brokerage agreement, executed on behalf of Caughey Insurance Agency by "William C. Caughey, President." Although the Individual Guarantee Agreement names respondent as guarantor in the opening paragraph, the corporation is shown as guarantor on the signature line. The complaint does not allege and the judgment does not recite that respondent personally failed to remit premiums but says he is responsible as an officer of the agency. Without any further investigation, as far as the record shows, the Department of Insurance filed a complaint amended on April 24, 1989, to allege, inter alia, that "[o]n or about August 19, 1982 Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. entered into a brokerage agreement with Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. . . . requir[ing] Caughey Insurance Agency, Inc. to remit premiums, unearned commissions and additional premiums to Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc."; and that respondent "personally guaranteed the [agency's] obligation under this agreement in" writing, but "failed to remit five thousand five dollars and forty-four cents due under th[e] agreement" for which sum Jordan Roberts and Company, Inc. obtained judgment. After a formal administrative hearing, a recommended order was entered on April 2, 1990, recommending dismissal of the administrative complaint, because "ambiguities in the court papers do not clearly and convincingly rule out the possibility that the court's judgment rests on the dishonored promissory note . . . [rather than] a breach of respondent's [here petitioner's] fiduciary responsibilities." In its final order, the Department dismissed the administrative complaint; Daniel Bruce Caughey was the prevailing party in that case. The parties have stipulated that "Daniel B. Caughey qualifies as a small business party as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes." The parties also stipulated that the "total value of the reasonable attorney's fees and costs at issue is $2,830."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the administrative agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed and eligible for appointment in Florida as a life and variable annuities agent, a life, health, and variable annuities agent, and a general lines agent. The City of Port St. Lucie (the "City") has had a City-funded pension plan in effect for its employees since October 1, 1977 (the "plan"). The City funds the plan with a contribution of 10.5 percent of the gross income of each employee who is enrolled in the plan (the "participant"). The monthly contributions by the City are sent directly to The Prudential Insurance Company ("Prudential"). The plan is participant directed. It allows each participant to direct the investment of his or her share of the City's contribution into either an investment account or a split investment account. If a participant elects an investment account, all of the City's contributions for that participant are used to purchase an annuity contract. If a participant elects the split investment account, a portion of the City's contribution for that participant is invested in an annuity contract and a portion is invested in whole life insurance issued by Prudential. Each whole life policy builds a cash value and provides benefits not available in the annuity contract, including disability benefits. Each participant is completely vested in the plan after he or she has been enrolled in the plan for five years. Prudential issues annuity contracts and insurance policies on participants and provides plan services to the administrator and trustees of the plan. 1/ The City is the owner of both the annuity contracts and the insurance policies. Both the annuity contracts and insurance policies are maintained in the City offices of the plan administrator. Participants do not receive copies of either annuity or insurance contracts and do not receive certificates of insurance. Beginning in 1984, each participant has received monthly Confirmation Statements in their paycheck envelopes. The Confirmation Statements are prepared by Prudential and disclose the net investment activity for the annuity contract. From the inception of the plan, each participant has received an annual Employee Benefit Statement which is prepared by Prudential and discloses the amount of the employer contributions that were allocated to the annuity contract and the amount that was allocated to insurance. Participants are eligible to enroll in the pension plan after six months of service. Biannual enrollment dates are scheduled in April and October each year. Prior to each biannual enrollment date, the City conducts an orientation meeting to explain the pension plan to prospective participants. The City sends a notice to each eligible employee in his or her payroll envelope. The notice informs the employee of his eligibility and the date and time of the orientation meeting. At the City-run orientation meeting, eligible employees are told that the pension plan is a participant directed plan in which each of them must elect either a straight annuity investment or a split investment involving an annuity and life insurance. Thirty to forty percent of the prospective participants do not attend the City-run orientation meeting. Subsequent to the orientation meeting, Respondent meets individually with each eligible employee in a room located on the premises of the City. The enrollment sessions are scheduled by the City so that Respondent has approximately 30 minutes to meet individually with each prospective participant. During that 30 minutes, Respondent provides each eligible employee who enrolled in 1987 and thereafter with a copy of the Summary Plan Description. 2/ Respondent explains the investment options, answers questions, asks the participants for the information contained in the applications and has the participants sign the appropriate applications. 3/ Each participant elects his or her investment option during the 30 minute enrollment session with Respondent. 4/ There is no separate written form evidencing the participant's election. The only written evidence of the election made by the participant is the application for annuity contract and, if the participant elects the split investment option, the application for insurance. If a participant elects the straight annuity investment option, Respondent completes and has the participant sign only one application. That application is for an annuity contract. If the split investment option is elected, Respondent completes and has the participant sign a second application. The second application is for life insurance. An application for an annuity contract is completed by Respondent and signed by the participant regardless of the investment option elected by the individual participant. 5/ An application for an annuity contract is clearly and unambiguously labeled as such. The top center of the application contains the following caption in bold print: Application For An Annuity Contract [] Prudential's Variable Investment Plan Series or [] Prudential's Fixed Interest Plan Series The participant must determine as a threshold matter whether he or she wishes to apply for a variable investment or fixedinterest annuity contract. Respondent then checks the appropriate box. The front page of the application for annuity contract contains an unnumbered box on the face of the application that requires a participant who applies for a variable investment annuity contract to select among seven investment alternatives. The unnumbered box is labeled in bold, capital letters "Investment Selection." The instructions to the box provide: Complete only if you are applying for a variable annuity contract of Prudential's Variable Investment Plan Series Select one or more: (All % allocations must be expressed in whole numbers) [] Bond [] Money Market [] Common Stock [] Aggressively Managed Flexible [] Conservatively Managed Flexible [] Fixed Account [] Other TOTAL INVESTED 100 % The application for annuity contract is two pages long. Question 1a is entitled "Proposed Annuitant's name (Please Print)." Question 4 is entitled "Proposed Annuitant's home address." Question 10, in bold, capital letters, is entitled "Annuity Commencement Date," and then states "Annuity Contract to begin on the first day of." There is an unnumbered box on the application relating to tax deferred annuities. Question 12 asks, "Will the annuity applied for replace or change any existing annuity or life insurance?" (emphasis added) The caption above the signature line for the participant is entitled "Signature of Proposed Annuitant." An application for insurance is also completed by Respondent and signed by the participant if the split investment option is elected. The application for insurance is clearly and unambiguously labeled as such. The upper right corner of the application for insurance contains the following caption in bold print: Part 1 Application for Life Insurance Pension Series to [] The Prudential Insurance Company of America [] Pruco Life Insurance Company A Subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America The term "proposed insured" also appears in bold print in the instructions at the top of the application for insurance. The application for insurance is approximately five pages long. 6/ It contains questions concerning the participant's treating physician, medical condition, driving record, and hazardous sports and job activities. 7/ Question 1a is entitled "Proposed Insured's name - first, initial, last (Print)." Question 7 asks for the kind of policy for which the participant is applying. Question 9 asks if the waiver of premium benefit is desired. Question 12 asks, "Will this insurance replace or change any existing insurance or annuity in any company?" (emphasis added) Question 21 asks, "Has the proposed insured smoked cigarettes within the past twelve months?" The caption under the signature line for the participant is entitled "Signature of Proposed Insured," as is the signature line for the Authorization For The Release of Information attached to the application for insurance. Respondent met with each of the participants in this proceeding during the time allowed by the City for the enrollment sessions. Mr. Robert Riccio, Respondent's sales manager, was present at approximately 70 percent of those enrollment sessions. Respondent provided each participant who enrolled in 1987 and thereafter with a copy of the Summary Plan Description. Respondent explained the investment options, and answered any questions the participants had. The name, occupation, and date of the enrollment session of the participants involved in this proceeding are: (a) Edmund Kelleher Police Officer 3-16-88 (b) Raymond Steele Police Officer 9-29-88 (c) Mark Hoffman Police Officer 10-29-86 (d) Joseph D'Agostino Police Officer 3-12-88 (e) Charles Johnson Police Officer 9-24-84 (f) Donna Rhoden Admin. Sec. 3-26-87 (g) John Gojkovich Police Officer 10-2-84 (h) John Skinner Police Officer 9-14-84 (i) John Sickler Planner 3-14-90 (j) James Lydon Bldg. Inspect. 9-13-89 (k) Robert McGhee Police Officer 9-18-84 (l) Richard Wilson Police Officer 3-21-89 (m) Lorraine Prussing Admin. Sec. 9-6-84 (n) Helen Ridsdale Anml. Cntrl. Off. 9-14-84 (o) Sandra Steele Admin. Sec. 4-3-85 (p) Linda Kimsey Computer Op. 3-18-89 (q) Jane Kenney Planner 3-13-85 (r) Alane Johnston Buyer 3-18-89 (s) Paula Laughlin Plans Exam. 3-18-89 Helen Ridsdale Anml. Cntrl. Super. 9-14-84 Jerry Adams Engineer 3-16-88 Cheryl John Records Super. for the Police Dept. 9-14-84 Each participant in this proceeding elected the split investment option during his or her enrollment session with Respondent and signed applications for both an annuity contract and an insurance policy. Each participant signed the application for insurance in his or her capacity as the proposed insured. The City paid 10.5 percent of each participant's salary to Prudential on a monthly basis. The payments were sent to Prudential with a form showing the amount to be invested in annuities and the amount to be used to purchase insurance. Each participant who enrolled in 1987 and thereafter received with his or her paycheck a monthly Confirmation Statement and all participants received an annual Employee Benefit Statement disclosing the value of the investment in annuities and the value of the investment in life insurance. The participants in this proceeding, like all participants, did not receive copies of annuity contracts and insurance policies and did not receive certificates of insurance. The annuity and insurance contracts were delivered to the City, as the owner, and maintained in the offices of the City's finance department. The participants in this proceeding had no actual knowledge that they had applied for insurance during the enrollment session with Respondent. Most of the participants had other insurance and did not need more insurance. Each participant left the enrollment session with Respondent with the impression that they had enrolled in the pension plan and had not applied for insurance. The lack of knowledge or misapprehension suffered by the participants in this proceeding was not caused by any act or omission committed by Respondent. Respondent did not, either personally or through the dissemination of information or advertising: wilfully misrepresent the application for insurance; wilfully deceive the participants with respect to the application for insurance; demonstrate a lack of fitness or trustworthiness; commit fraud or dishonest practices; wilfully fail to comply with any statute, rule, or order; engage in any unfair method of competition or unfair deceptive acts or practices; knowingly make false or fraudulent statements or representations relative to the application for insurance; or misrepresent the terms of the application for insurance. No clear and convincing evidence was presented that Respondent committed any act or omission during the enrollment sessions which caused the participants to believe that they were not applying for insurance. 8/ None of the participants testified that Respondent prevented them or induced them not to read the applications they signed. 9/ All of the participants affirmed their signatures on the application for insurance, but most of the participants did not recognize the application for insurance signed by them. Some participants could not recall having signed the application. The participants could not recall being hurried or harassed by Respondent and could not recall if Respondent refused to answer any of their questions. 10/ None of the participants provided a clear and convincing explanation of how Respondent caused them to sign an application for insurance without their knowledge or described in a clear and convincing fashion the method by which Respondent prevented them or induced them not to read or understand the contents of the documents they were signing. 11/ Eleven of the 22 participants cancelled their insurance policies after "learning" that they had insurance policies. Eight participants cancelled their policies on August 23, 1990. Two cancelled their policies on February 5, 1991, and one cancelled her policy on April 18, 1991. Financial adjustments required by the cancellations have been made and any remaining contributions have been invested in annuity contracts. Since 1983, Respondent has assisted Prudential and the City in the administration of the pension plan, including the enrollment of all participants. Prior to 1990, there was only one incident in which a participant complained of having been issued an insurance policy without knowing that she had applied for an insurance policy. The policy was cancelled and the appropriate refund made. Respondent has a long and successful relationship with the City and has no prior disciplinary history with Petitioner. Respondent is the agent for Prudential. The pension plan was intended by Prudential and the City to provide eligible employees with investment opportunities for annuities and life insurance. Respondent generally makes higher commissions from the sale of insurance than he does from the sale of annuities. 12/ Mr. Riccio receives 14 percent of the commissions earned by Respondent. Respondent encourages all participants to elect the split investment option by purchasing both annuities and insurance. If a participant states that he or she does not want life insurance, Respondent asks them for their reasons and explains the advantages of life insurance. If the participant then rejects life insurance, Respondent enrolls the participant in a straight annuity investment. Such practices do not constitute fraud, deceit, duress, unfair competition, misrepresentations, false statements, or any other act or omission alleged in the one count Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and imposing no fines or penalties. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of January 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 14th day of January 1992.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE, arising under Florida’s “Agricultural License and Bond Law” (Sections 604.15-604.34), Florida Statutes, came before the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida for consideration and final agency action. On August 26, 2009, the Petitioner, Dixie Growers, Inc., an Agent for producers of Florida agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(10), Florida Statutes, timely filed an administrative claim pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, to collect $176,869.20 (including the $50 claim filing fee) for strawberries they sold to Respondent, a licensed dealer in agricultural products. Respondent’s license for the time in question was supported by a surety bond required by Section 604.20, Florida Statutes, written by Lincoln General Insurance Company in the amount of $100,000. On September 2, 2009, a Notice of Filing of an Amended Claim was mailed to Respondent and Co-Respondent. The September 2, 2009 certified claim mailing to the Respondent was returned by the United States postal service on October 5, 2009 marked “UNCLAIMED”. A second certified mailing was sent by the Department to the Respondent at another address of record on October 9, 2009 and it was received by the Respondent on October 23, 2009. On November 10, 2009, the Respondent filed an ANSWER OF RESPONDENT with an attachment to the Department and requested a hearing. Accordingly, this case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) for a administrative hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. DOAH issued a NOTICE OF HEARING on December 2, 2009 for a hearing to be held on February 25, 2010. The hearing was held with DOAH on February 25, 2010 and the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) entered her RECOMMENDED ORDER (“R.O.”) on March 24, 2010, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, to which neither party filed written exceptions with this Department. Upon the consideration of the foregoing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The Department adopts the ALJ’s R.O. in toto including the following technical corrections to the R.O.: 1. In the caption on page one (1) of the R.O. the Respondent is shown as America Growers, Inc. and it should read American Growers, Inc. 2. On page one (1), paragraph (1) of the R.O., it states Counsel for Respondent, the witness and court reporter appeared ... . It should read Counsel for Petitioner, the witness and court reporter appeared ... . 3. On page two (2) under PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, paragraph (2), it states Petitioner filed a response on the Department’s form titled, .... It should read Respondent filed a response on the Department’s form titled ... . 4. On page three (3) under FINDINGS OF FACT, paragraph number one (1), it states; Petitioner, Dixie Growers, Inc., is a producer of agricultural products in Florida, i.e.., strawberries. It should read; Petitioner, Dixie Growers, Inc., is an Agent for the Producer(s) of agricultural products in Florida, i.e., strawberries. 5. On page five (5), paragraph eleven (11), under CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, it states; Petitioner is a “producer” of agricultural products as defined in subsection 604. 15(9), Florida Statutes. It should read; Petitioner is a “producer’s agent” for the producer(s) of agricultural products as defined in subsection 604.15(10), Florida Statutes. The ALJ’s recommendation that the Respondent, American Growers, Inc., pay Petitioner, $176,819.20 and the $50 filing fee is hereby adopted. For purposes of this Final Order consistent with the requirements of Sections 604.21(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, the ALJ’s recommendation is modified to include that payment shall be made within fifteen (15) days after this Final Order is adopted. In the event Respondent fails to pay Petitioner $176,869.20 within fifteen (15) days of the Final Order, Lincoln General Insurance Company, as Surety for Respondent, is hereby ordered to provide payment under the conditions and provisions of the Bond to CHARLES H. BRONSON, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, as Obligee on the Bond. The Department will notify the Surety in the event it (the Surety) is required to pay. This Order is final and effective on the date filed with the Agency Clerk of the Department. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek review of this Final Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2002) and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (2003). Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk, 5" Floor, Mayo Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800. A copy of the petition for review or notice of appeal, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law must also be filed with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order was filed with the Agency Clerk. = DONE AND ORDERED this27_ day of Frrnach , 2010. TERRY L.’RHODES Assistant Commissioner of Agriculture WA. Filed with Agency Clerk this”? _ day of Bel , 2010. Agency Clerk COPIES FURNISHED TO: Judge Carolyn S. Holifield Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (Certified Receipt No. 7160 3901 9848 8028 7649) Mr. Glenn C. Thomason, Registered Agent American Growers, Inc. P. O. Box 1207 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 (Certified Receipt No. 7160 3901 9848 8028 7656) Ms. Rene Herder, Surety Bond Claims Lincoln General Insurance Company 4902 Eisenhower Blvd., Suite 155 Tampa, FL 33634 (Certified Receipt No. 7160 3901 9848 8028 7663) Mr. John Northrop, Surety Bond Claims Lincoln General Insurance Company 4902 Eisenhower Blvd., Suite 155 Tampa, FL 33634 (Certified Receipt No. 7160 3901 9848 8028 9230) Gregg E. Hutt, Attorney for Petitioner Dixie Growers, Inc. TRENAM, KEMKER, SCHARF, BARKIN, FRYE, O’NEILL & MULLIS, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700 P. O. Box 1102 Tampa, FL 33601-1102 (Certified Receipt No. 7160 3901 9848 8028 9247) Ms. Linda Terry Lawton, Vice President Dixie Growers, Inc. P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, FL 33564-1686 (Certified Receipt No. 7160 3901 9848 8028 9254) Steven Hall, Attorney Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Suite 520 Mayo Building, M-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Mr. Mark Moritz and Mr. Brad Robson, Field Representatives
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent, James Edward Hickerson, violated the provisions of Chapters 624, 626 and 627, Florida Statutes, by commission or omission of acts as alleged specifically in the Administrative Complaint. The entry of this order was ; delayed by late filing of the transcript and post hearing briefs, the filing time of which was extended by order dated May 19, 1983. Petitioner submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact General Findings At all times relative to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, James Edward Hickerson, was President of the Hickerson Insurance Agency, Inc., located in Winter Haven, Florida, and held licenses as a surplus lines-property casualty and surety surplus lines, ordinary-combination life (including disability insurance) , general lines-property, casualty, surety and miscellaneous, and disability insurance agent issued by the Insurance Commissioner. The Respondent sold Hickerson Insurance Agency, Inc. , to James Hurst, Jr., as of March 1, 1982. Pursuant to their contract for sale, the Respondent remained liable for all business written prior to March 1, 1982, and the conduct of the business affairs of said agency prior to that date. Count I On January 29, 1982, Patricia Ann Haller applied for a bond as a notary at Hickerson Insurance Agency, Inc.(hereinafter, the Hickerson Agency). Haller paid the Hickerson Agency a total of $61 for a notary seal and as premium on said bond. When Haller did not receive the bond and seal, she called the Hickerson Agency and was advised by a secretary that her application had been lost. She received a letter presumably forwarding a new application but which did not contain an enclosed application. When Haller again called the Hickerson Agency, she was advised to come to the agency and sign a new application. Haller went to the agency and signed a second application in February 1982. When she did not receive the bond and seal, after March 1, 1982, she recontacted the agency and at that time spoke with James Hurst, Jr., the new owner. A search of the office records by James Hurst, Jr. and the office staff revealed no record of the Haller transaction with the Hickerson Agency. The company to which application was made for the bond had no record of receiving the application for Haller's bond. Haller advised James Hurst, Jr., that she no longer wanted the bond. Haller never received the bond or a refund of the money she paid to the Hickerson Agency. Under the contract for purchase of the Hickerson Agency, the Respondent received all premiums and was responsible for all money collected on transactions prior to March 1, 1982. The Respondent was responsible for providing Haller's bond and her premiums. Counts II, III, IV, V and VI The Hickerson Agency billed Southern Mortgage Company of Florida, Inc., in the amount of $86 on December 14, 1981, for the renewal of fire insurance in behalf of Pearly Mae Williams. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) The Hickerson Agency billed United Companies Financial Corporation in the amount of $193 on or before February 17, 1982, for the renewal of homeowner's insurance in behalf of Annie N. Bonney. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 15.) The Hickerson Agency billed United Companies Life Insurance Company in the amount of $9 on February 8, 1982, for homeowner's insurance in behalf of Charles or Della M. Byrd. (See Petitioner'S Exhibit 18.) The Hickerson Agency received a check in the amount of $85 from United Companies, Inc., on December 23, 1981, for the payment of fire insurance for Pearly M. Williams. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) United Companies Financial Corporation paid the Hickerson Agency $193 on January 25, 1982, for fire insurance in behalf of Annie M. Bonney. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 16.) United Companies Financial Corporation paid the Hickerson Agency $9 on February 17, 1982, for fire insurance in behalf of Charles Edward Byrd. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 19.) Under the contract agreement between the Hickerson Agency and Independent Fire Insurance Company, the premiums on insurance placed with Independent Fire Insurance Company were due the 15th of the month following the effective date of the insurance coverage. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 11.) The insurance for Pearly Mae Williams was renewed on January 31, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 9.) The premium was due and owing and to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on February 15, 1982. Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the fire insurance for Annie N. Bonney on February 17, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 14.) The premium was due and owing and to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on March 15, 1982. Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the insurance of Charles or Della M. Byrd on February 22, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 17.) The premium was due and owing and to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on March 15, 1982. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 17.) Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the insurance of Curtis Smith on January 26, 1982, and, pursuant to the Hickerson Agency's agreement with said company, the premium for this insurance was to be paid by the Hickerson Agency on February 15, 1952. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 20.) Independent Fire Insurance Company renewed the insurance of Edna T. Tipper on December 14, 1951, and, pursuant to the Hickerson Agency's agreement with said company, the premium for this insurance was due from the Hickerson Agency on January 15, 1952. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 21.) Regarding the insurance of Curtis Smith, there is no evidence that the Hickerson Agency received payment from the insured or the insured's mortgagee. Concerning Edna T. Tipper, there is no evidence that the Hickerson Agency received payment for said insurance from the insured or the insured's mortgagee. A statement of account similar to Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 22, the statement for February 1952, was provided to the Hickerson Agency each month. As of February 25, 1952, premiums were owed for the insurance in effect on Pearly Mae Williams, Edna T. Tipper, Curtis Smith, Charles Byrd and Annie N. Bonney by the Hickerson Agency. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) On July 14, 1952, Independent Fire Insurance Company advised the Respondent at his home address by certified mail that his account with the company was in arrears in the amount of $531.30 and made demand for payment no later than August 3, 1952. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22.) On July 19, 1952, the Respondent tendered payment to Independent Fire Insurance Company with his check numbered 2343 in the amount of $531.30. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 24.) A letter from Independent Fire Insurance Company reflects that said company has been paid the premiums due on Williams, Tipper, Smith, Byrd and Bonney. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 25.) The Respondent received payments from Williams (Count II), Bonney (Count III) and Byrd (Count IV) with which he was to pay the premiums due on insurance for them. The Respondent did not pay the premiums for these insureds when due, although he had received the money with which to do so. Count VII Jackie Ricks Colson first insured her 1979 Toyota with the Hickerson Agency in March 1979. In March 1980, she renewed the insurance on her car and added her husband's 1978 Pontiac Transam to the policy. In March 1981, having received notice that her automobile insurance required renewal, Mrs. Colson paid $260 as a down payment to the Hickerson Agency and executed a finance agreement to finance the remainder of the premium with Capital Premium Plan. By financing the premium, Capital Premium Plan paid the Hickerson Agency the premium, and Mrs. Colson made payments as required under the financing agreement to Capital Premium Plan. Mrs. Colson made the payments as required from March 1981 through December 31, 1981, at which time she had paid off all but $3.60 of the borrowed amount, which Capital Premium Plan charged off. Although requested many times to provide a copy of the policy by Mr. and Mrs. Colson, the Hickerson Agency did not do so. As a result thereof, the bank financing Mr. Colson's Transam insured that car and charged Mr. Colson for the insurance. The Colsons have never received a policy of insurance on their cars from the Hickerson Agency. The records of the Hickerson Agency do not reflect that any insurance was in effect between March 17, 1981, and September 1981 on the Toyota and November 1981 on the Transam. The Colsons' Toyota was insured on September 28, 1981, for a period of one year with Dixie Insurance Company for a premium charge of $495. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 28.) Their Pontiac Transam was added to said policy by endorsement effective November 27, 1981. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 29.) On September 30, 1981, Mrs. Colson was involved in an auto accident in the Toyota, which suffered major damage. Mrs. Colson was unable to get her car from the garage until December 1981, because the insurance company would not pay for the repairs. Mr. Colson also had difficulty with delay in payment for insured damages when the top of the Transam was damaged. The Respondent accepted a premium from Mrs. Colson but did not provide automobile insurance as requested between March 17, 1981, and September 28, 1981, on the Toyota and November 27, 1981, on the Transam. The Respondent did not provide the Colsons with copies of their policies after repeated requests. Count VIII The records of Capital Premium Plan (Petitioner's Exhibit 33) reflect the Respondent owed Capital Premium Plan $1,306.01 as the result of cancelled policies which required the Respondent to return unearned premium amounts to Capital Premium Plan. A statement for these accounts was presented in June 1982. The record reflects that in late 1982 the Respondent paid $356.01 of the money originally owed. At the date of hearing, the Respondent owed Capital Premium Plan $950 in unearned premiums. The Respondent raised no valid defense to the claim by Capital Premium Plan. Count IX Pursuant to his agreement with Underwriters Insurance Company, the Respondent was required to pay said company premiums for policies sold issued by the company. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 34.) As of September 1981, the Respondent's accounts with Underwriters Insurance Company were not current. The company's representative called upon the Respondent and made demand for the money owed by the Respondent to the company. The Respondent gave the company's representative a check in full payment of the amount then due. This check was dishonored by the bank upon its presentation due to insufficient funds. As a result thereof, Underwriters Insurance Company cancelled its underwriting agreement with the Respondent. The Respondent owed Underwriters Insurance Company approximately $6,000 as of the date of the hearing. The Respondent asserted no reasonable defense to the company's claims. Count X On February 16, 1979, automobile and health insurance was purchased for Grecian Pool Service by Frank Weller, the company's president. Neither Grecian nor Weller received a copy of the insurance policies from the Hickerson Agency. One of Grecian's vehicles was involved in an accident. Michigan Mutual, the insurer of the other vehicle, attempted to collect $228 for damages it had paid but which were the responsibility of Grecian's insurer. Michigan Mutual contacted the Hickerson Agency many times in an effort to obtain payment from Grecian's insurer but was unsuccessful. Michigan Mutual contacted the Department of Insurance, and an agent of the Department contacted the Respondent, who stated that a check had been sent to Michigan Mutual. The Department's agent contacted Michigan Mutual, which denied receipt of the check. The Department's agent then asked the Respondent to provide the Department with a copy of the front and back of the cancelled check. In response, an employee of the Hickerson Agency advised the Department's agent that it had no information concerning the accident and requested the Department to provide more information in order that it could respond to the Department's request. The Respondent failed to provide a timely response to Michigan Mutual of claim information as requested. The Respondent failed to provide the Department with records and information upon request. The Respondent failed to provide the insured with a copy of the insurance policy. Count XI and XIII W. F. Jones and James Earl Jones, who are brothers, both tendered premiums to the Hickerson Agency for the purchase of insurance on tractor- trailer trucks which they respectively owned. The daughter of W. F. Jones paid the Hickerson Agency $2,678 in September 1981 for insurance on two trucks owned by W. F. Jones. This payment was made in four checks each for $669.50 to be negotiated one each week for four weeks commencing on September 2, 1981. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 52.) On September 4, 1981, Shelley, Middlebrooks and O'Leary (hereinafter, SMO), general agent for Carolina Casualty, issued a binder on insurance for W. F. Jones. The quoted down payment for this policy was $2,678, and the premium on the ten-day binder issued by SMO was $928. The Hickerson Agency remitted to SMO the amount of $557.95. This was $267.25 less than the required binder premium. SMO immediately notified the Hickerson Agency that additional money was due. When the money was not forthcoming, SMO sent the Hickerson Agency a 14-day notice of cancellation. This extended the coverage of the binder until October 6, 1981. The Hickerson Agency did not forward any additional amount, and the insurance was cancelled on October 6, 1981. The amount received from the Hickerson Agency was less than the earned premium for the coverage from September 4, 1981, until October 6, 1981. In November 1981, the Hickerson Agency sent SMO a check for $257.25, the amount left owing on the earned premium. In February 1982, after many requests by W. F. Jones and his wife for the insurance policy and inquiries from them to the Hickerson Agency about their monthly payments, Jones received notice from the company financing his trucks that the trucks were not insured by the Hickerson Agency as he had thought. W. F. Jones checked with the Hickerson Agency, which was unable to produce a policy of insurance or other evidence of insurance. W. F. Jones demanded his money back, and the Respondent wrote Jones a check for the money that Jones had paid. When Mrs. W. F. Jones took the Respondent's check for deposit, her bank advised her after checking with Respondent's bank that there were insufficient funds in Respondent's account to cover the check. Because W. F. Jones had left on a trip, Mrs. Jones took the check to the Hickerson Agency and requested insurance. On February 5, 1982, Huffman and Associates bound coverage on W. F. Jones's two trucks with Canal Insurance Company. Huffman and Associates received $2,345 with a balance of $6,097, which was financed through a premium finance company. The Canal Insurance Company policy number for W. F. Jones was AC29 67 99. No evidence was presented that the two trucks belonging to W. F. Jones were insured between October 6, 1981, and February 5, 1982, although the Hickerson Agency had received payment for the down payment in the amount of $2,678. James Earl Jones applied for insurance on his truck with the Hickerson Agency on or about July 29, 1981. Mrs. James Earl Jones wrote three checks to the Hickerson Agency on said date to be negotiated as indicated: July 29, 1981- -$500 for immediate negotiation; $474--hold until August 5, 1981; $474--hold until August 19, 1981. The balance of the premium was financed with Capital Premium Plan with a monthly payment of $305.45. Monthly payments were made by James Earl Jones to the Respondent or to Capital Premium Plan until April 5, 1982. At that time, Capital Premium Plan cancelled the insurance due to late payments by the insured. When notified of the cancellation of the insurance by Capital Premium Plan, Mrs. James Earl Jones contacted Canal Insurance Company in care of New South Underwriters, which was listed as the insurer by Capital Premium Plan. Mrs. Jones was advised by New South Underwriters that they had no record of insurance on the Jones's truck with Canal Insurance Company. Mrs. James Earl Jones called the Hickerson Agency and asked for the policy number on the truck. The Respondent called Mrs. Jones and gave the policy number for the insurance on the truck as AC29 67 99, the policy number of W. F. Jones. (See paragraph 38 above.) When Mrs. James Earl Jones rechecked, she found that the policy was that of W. F. Jones, whereupon she called James Earl Jones, who went directly to the Hickerson Agency and spoke with the Respondent. James Earl Jones demanded of the Respondent some proof of insurance. The Respondent gave him a copy of the first page of W. F. Jones's policy. When James Earl Jones pointed out the error and demanded proof of his insured status, the Respondent wrote him a check for $2,990.50, a refund of the down payment and payments which James Earl Jones had made to Capital Premium Plan through that date. The records of Canal Insurance Company do not reflect insurance issued to James Earl Jones between July 1981 and March 1982. James Earl Jones was insured by Canal Insurance Company in April 1982 through an agency in Tampa not related in any way to the transaction with the Respondent. The records of Capital Premium Plan reflect that money was borrowed for insurance to be placed with Canal Insurance Company through New South Underwriters. Capital Premium Plan made money available to the Respondent for the premiums as indicated. The Hickerson Agency did not have records or produce records indicating that James Earl Jones was insured by the Hickerson Agency between July 1981 and March 1982, when the Respondent refunded Jones's premiums. Count XII In September 1981, Hugh Shaw of Ridge Printing purchased workmen's compensation insurance from the Respondent and paid for said insurance with two checks, each for $426.50. Shaw was contacted in May 1982 by officials of the Department of Commerce and advised that he had no workmen's compensation insurance. Shaw referred the officials to the Respondent. Shaw never received a policy of insurance from the Respondent for insurance purchased in September 1981. A search of the records of Mr. Hurst's agency revealed no insurance placed by the agency for Shaw. No evidence was introduced by the Respondent that Shaw was insured against workmen's compensation loss. No evidence was received that any portion of the premiums paid by Shaw were returned to him. Count IV (In addition to this count, many of the other counts in this Administrative Complaint allege that records related to various insureds were not present at the Hickerson Agency, and that the Respondent failed to maintain records as required by law. The findings made relative to this count are applicable to similar allegations contained throughout the Administrative Complaint and constitute the findings of fact relative to those allegations.) The Respondent sold his insurance agency to James Hurst, Jr., effective March 1, 1982. Testimony was received that some of the records alleged to have been missing later were present prior to that date. Evidence was received that many records were not present at the agency after that date. No evidence was received that the Respondent was responsible for removal of the records. Pursuant to their contract, James Hurst, Jr., was responsible for the office after March 1, 1982, and the Respondent is not vicariously liable for missing records after that date. No evidence was presented as to any specific record at issue in these charges that was discovered to be missing prior to March 1, 1982. Count XV On October 2, 1981, Harold Scott purchased insurance on a camper from the Respondent. On that date, Scott gave the Respondent a check for $123 and signed a premium financing agreement for the balance of $287. Scott never received a copy of the insurance policy. No evidence was introduced by the Respondent that Scott was insured. In September 1982, the Respondent paid to Scott the down payment and other money that Scott. had paid on his insurance. Count XVI On April 7, 1981, Joseph Simmons purchased workmen's compensation coverage and a bond from the Respondent. Simmons paid $798 as a down payment and executed a premium financing agreement with Sesco Premium Plan. Simmons never received a copy of the policy or a payment book. Sesco Premium Plan never financed an insurance policy for Joseph Simmons of Winter Haven, Florida. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 64.) No evidence was introduced by the Respondent that Simmons was insured against workmen's compensation claims after April 7, 1981. The Respondent accepted a premium for insurance from Simmons and did not provide the requested coverage.
Recommendation While violations of Section 626.621, Florida Statutes, permit the Department discretion in disciplining a licensee, violations by the Respondent of Section 626.611, Florida Statutes, as found above, mandate that the Department must discipline him. Considering the number and the severity of the violations, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer revoke each and every license held by the Respondent, James Edward Hickerson. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 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 June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis A. Billingsley, Esquire Department of Insurance Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 1145 Lake Alfred, Florida 33850 Marvin B. Wood, Esquire 2600 Industrial Park Drive Lakeland, Florida 33801 Tom Pobjecky State Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1309 Bartow, Florida 33838 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
