The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint, and if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Allison Kay Werner (Respondent) was licensed by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Petitioner) as a life and variable annuity contracts and life insurance agent. She was issued license number 106486443 in 1989. Prior to being licensed in Florida, in or around 1981 Respondent was a licensed agent in the State of New York. On February 15, 1991, Ms. Estelle Lewis went to the California Federal Bank (Bank), located at 4601 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, Florida, to redeem a $10,000 Certificate of Deposit (CD) which had matured. Ms. Lewis was 81 years old. Also, she was unemployed even though, in her earlier years, she worked. Through the years, Ms. Lewis engaged in short term, two year investments, not long term investments. Nor did she invest in annuities for her belief was that annuities were for young people who are planning towards retirement. Being a senior citizen and unemployed, Ms. Lewis needed her money for income, using the proceeds from her investments as income. She did not want to tie-up her money for long periods of time. Ms. Lewis approached the teller at the Bank to redeem her CD. The teller referred Ms. Lewis to Respondent to discuss re-investing her money. It was not unusual for a teller at the Bank to refer a Bank customer to Respondent. Also, at times, Bank employees assisted with scheduling appointments with Respondent. Respondent's office was located inside the Bank, within a glass enclosure, and could be seen from the teller's location. A sign identified Respondent's office as Kemper-Invest Financial Corporation for which Respondent was a representative. Respondent provided Ms. Lewis with her business card which only identified Respondent as an Invest Financial Corporation (Invest) representative located at the Bank. No where on the business card was Respondent identified as an insurance agent. No where on the business card were the terms "insurance" or "annuity." Furthermore, Respondent did not inform Ms. Lewis that she was an insurance agent. Ms. Lewis trusted the Bank and her trust extended to Respondent even though Ms. Lewis understood that Respondent was a representative of Invest and not employed by the Bank. Because the Bank teller had referred Ms. Lewis to Respondent and because Respondent's office was located within the Bank, Ms. Lewis believed that Respondent had a connection with the Bank. Without this trust, Ms. Lewis would not have engaged in any business with Respondent. Ms. Lewis informed Respondent that she wanted a two year investment. Respondent was not unfamiliar with discussing investments with senior citizens for most of her clients were age 70 and above. Ms. Lewis agreed upon a two year investment at a return of eight percent. Unbeknownst to Ms. Lewis, she had invested in an annuity which would mature in 20 years. The annuity also had an investment time of seven years, which meant that the annuity could be surrendered without a surrender charge in its seventh year. The maximum issuance age for the annuity was 85 which meant that anyone up to age 85 could purchase the annuity. That same day, February 15, 1991, Respondent completed an account application for the investment, which included writing Ms. Lewis' responses to questions on the application which included Ms. Lewis' age and date of birth. Respondent submitted the application to Ms. Lewis for her review. Ms. Lewis skimmed the application only for responses that she felt were important, i.e., her name and social security number. Finding those items correct, she signed the account application. No where on the account application were the terms "life insurance" or an "annuity" mentioned. Invest Financial Corporation and Kemper Fiancial Services were clearly displayed on the application. Also, the investment objective indicated on the application was growth instead of income. An application for an annuity, referred to as the All Savers Plan on the application, was also completed on that same date. However, this application contained the terms life insurance and annuity. Believing that life insurance or an annuity did not apply to her since neither were requested and were not agreed upon, Ms. Lewis signed this second application. Additionally, on February 15, 1991, Ms. Lewis gave Respondent the $10,000 and Respondent provided Ms. Lewis a receipt for the $10,000. The receipt contained a notation that the money was received for "Kemper All Savers." Invest and Kemper Financial Services were displayed on the receipt. No where on the receipt were the terms annuity or life insurance. As with other annuities sold by Respondent, she received a commission for the annuity that she sold Ms. Lewis. Paying commissions to insurance agents for annuities sold is a common practice. Subsequently, Ms. Lewis received an undated letter of thanks from Respondent for obtaining the services of Invest. The letter was on Invest letterhead, with Kemper Financial Services indicated on it. Additionally, on the letter Respondent identified herself as an Invest representative. The letter made no mention of what services Ms. Lewis had obtained or of life insurance or an annuity. Further, Ms. Lewis received two letters dated February 20, 1991 and February 28, 1991 from Kemper. The letters were on "Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company" letterhead and referenced Ms. Lewis' investment as an annuity. Ms. Lewis did not believe that the two letters applied to her since she had not purchased an annuity or life insurance. Consequently, she ignored the letters. Ms. Lewis received a copy of the annuity policy in the mail but did not read it. She filed it away with the rest of her documents associated with the transaction. Ms. Lewis received account summaries regarding her investment. The summaries indicated that they reflected the activity for an annuity called Kemper All Savers Annuity and that they were from the Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company. The summaries showed the performance of her investment. Ms. Lewis ignored the summaries as reflecting activities for an annuity in which she had invested. She continued to believe that she had not invested in an annuity. On or about February 15, 1993, approximately two years after the transaction, Ms. Lewis returned to Respondent's office located in the Bank to redeem her investment. At that time, Ms. Lewis was informed by Respondent that a penalty fee of $525.89 would be assessed for early withdrawal. Respondent advised Ms. Lewis further that she had an annuity which could be cashed-in at no penalty (no surrender charges) after seven years. The meeting on February 15, 1993, was the first time that Ms. Lewis was informed of a penalty by Respondent. Also, the meeting was the first time that Respondent had informed Ms. Lewis that she had purchased an annuity and that the annuity was a seven year investment. Ms. Lewis did not want to wait the additional years to avoid the penalty and insisted on surrendering what she knew now to be an annuity. Subsequently, Ms. Lewis received her $10,000 plus interest less the penalty. Respondent has vast experience in annuities. She has sold annuities since around 1981 when she was employed with Merrill Lynch and Shearson in New York. At all times material hereto, Ms. Lewis had no mental or physical infirmity which interfered with her mental capacity to think and understand. At all times material hereto, Ms. Lewis could read and write. Ms. Lewis has never been offered restitution or a refund of the penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order suspending the license of Allison Kay Werner for one-year. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1996.
The Issue Whether Respondent, an insurance agent licensed in Florida, violated specified Florida Statutes and agency rules in the sale of an annuity to two senior citizens, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact The Parties At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as an annuity, health, and life insurance agent in Florida. Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating insurance agents and taking disciplinary action for violations of the laws and rules it administers. Background Annuities This case arises from Respondent's sale of an Allianz Life Insurance of North America equity indexed annuity ("Allianz annuity") to Robert and Frances Wexler in June 2004. An annuity is a contractual arrangement under which an insurance company, in exchange for a premium, agrees to pay the owner a specified income for a period of time. Annuities generally are classified as "fixed" or "variable." Under a fixed annuity, the benefit is paid according to a predetermined interest rate. Under a variable annuity, the premium is invested on the owner's behalf, and the amount of the benefit, when paid, reflects the performance of that investment. Fixed annuities can be either "immediate" or "deferred." Under an immediate fixed annuity, the insurer begins paying the benefit upon purchase of the annuity. Under a deferred annuity, the premium is allowed to grow over time until the contract "matures" or is "annuitized" and the insurer begins paying the benefit. The Allianz annuity that Respondent sold to the Wexlers is a fixed deferred annuity. The Allianz annuity at issue also is an equity index annuity. This means that the insurer pays a benefit to the insured based on a premium that earns interest at a rate determined by the performance of a designated market index. The premium is not invested in the market for the owner's account; rather, the interest rate rises or falls in relation to the index's performance, within predetermined limits. Equity index annuities typically are long-term investments. Owners of equity index annuities have limited access to the funds invested and accumulating in their accounts, although some equity index annuities, such as the Allianz annuity at issue in this case, permit yearly penalty-free withdrawals at set percentages. The accrued interest generally is not taxed until the funds are withdrawn or the benefit is paid under annuity. The purchaser may incur substantial surrender charges for canceling the contract and withdrawing his or her funds before a specified date. Some equity index annuities identify a date——often many years in the future——on which the insurer will "annuitize" the contract if the purchaser has not already opted to do so. This date is sometimes called the "maturity date." The benefit payable under the annuity is determined based on the account's value as of the maturity date, and the payments to the owner of the annuity begin at that time. The Wexlers Robert Wexler was born in 1930. He was 73 years old in 2004, when Respondent sold him the Allianz annuity at issue in this case. His wife, Frances Wexler, was born in 1932, and she was 71 years old at the time. Both Wexlers finished high school and took some college courses. They married after Mr. Wexler joined the Air Force. While in the Air Force, Mr. Wexler studied electronics, which ultimately led to his career in that field in the private sector. He worked for IBM, Univac, and General Electric before retiring in 1994. Mrs. Wexler worked for a small family-owned printing firm for over 26 years, and retired in 1997. The Wexlers raised three children, and they lived in the same home in Pennsylvania for 40 years. While living in Pennsylvania, the Wexlers saved money by using Mrs. Wexler's salary to pay their living expenses and saving most of Mr. Wexler's earnings in a retirement account. They never bought annuities, but did trade stocks, which resulted in financial loss. For many years, the Wexlers visited Florida as "snowbirds" and eventually purchased a condominium in a gated community in Deerfield Beach, Florida. In 1998, the Wexlers sold their home in Pennsylvania, liquidated the stocks they owned, and bought a larger condominium in the same gated community. They moved permanently to Florida in 1998, with approximately $500,000 in liquid assets. The 2002 Aviva Annuity Respondent met the Wexlers in 2002, when he worked for the Cornerstone Financial Group ("Cornerstone"). Cornerstone had mailed out cards to persons 65 years old and older and the Wexlers sent in a reply card with boxes checked indicating interest in learning about Cornerstone's products. Based on that contact, Respondent arranged an in-home appointment with the Wexlers. At that time, the Wexlers informed Respondent that they had three financial investment goals: safety of their invested principal; long-term growth of their investment; and at some point years in the future, having a fixed income stream for the rest of their lives. The Wexlers consider themselves "conservative" financial investors, and they live off of their monthly social security and retirement pension checks. Being able to take money out of an annuity to cover routine living expenses was not a high priority for the Wexlers. They were more interested in leaving their investment alone and allowing it to grow, and they communicated this information to Respondent. Based on this information, Respondent sold the Wexlers an Aviva3/ equity index annuity. The Wexlers paid a $60,000.00 premium. The annuity was issued on June 11, 2002, and had a maturity date of June 11, 2031. The policy allowed partial withdrawal beginning immediately, without charge, of up to ten percent of the value of the account on the prior certificate anniversary date. If the insured withdrew more than that amount, a withdrawal charge was assessed, with the amount4/ of the withdrawal charge decreasing over a ten-year period, so that starting in year 11, there was no withdrawal charge. Pursuant to this withdrawal charge schedule, if the Wexlers withdrew all of their money from the policy——in effect, "surrendering" the policy——before the ten-year withdrawal charge period had expired, they would be assessed charges according to the withdrawal charge schedule. Under such circumstances, withdrawal charges are referred to as "surrender charges." The Aviva policy allocated the premium to three investment strategies. Specifically, 50% was allocated to the Annual Equity Index Strategy ("AEIS"), which is the Standard & Poors (S&P) 500 index excluding dividend income. The AES investment strategy had a minimum guaranteed interest rate of zero percent. The remaining 50% of the premium was invested equally in the Investment Grade Bond Index Strategy (IGBIS") and the Guaranteed One-Year Strategy ("GOS"). The IGBIS strategy was tied to the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Index, and, at the time, had a minimum guaranteed interest rate of two percent per year. The GOS investment strategy had a four percent per year current interest rate and a two percent minimum guaranteed interest rate per year. No evidence was presented about how the Aviva policy would have performed to date had the Wexlers not surrendered the policy. The 2004 Allianz Annuity In June 2004, Respondent paid the Wexlers another visit. At that time, Respondent was with Global Financial Group and was marketing different products. Respondent met with the Wexlers to discuss an Allianz annuity that, in his view, had "better" features than the Aviva annuity he sold them two years earlier. The evidence establishes that Respondent spent at least an hour or more reviewing the Allianz annuity with the Wexlers. In Mr. Wexler's own words, Respondent spent time "explain[ing] it, patiently talking about it." Mr. Wexler nonetheless claimed5/ at hearing that Respondent did not provide a comparison of the Alliance and Aviva policies. Respondent testified that he did provide such a comparison, and the undersigned finds his testimony more persuasive. Mr. Wexler testified that Respondent told them that surrendering their Aviva annuity and moving their funds into the Allianz annuity would cause them to incur a substantial surrender charge,6/ but that they would recoup the charge through a bonus provided by the Allianz annuity. Respondent credibly testified that he told the Wexlers that the bonus would be available if they annuitized the policy. Mr. Wexler did not recall Respondent discussing the specifics of annuitizing the Allianz policy with him, and Respondent confirmed that he did not extensively discuss annuitization with the Wexlers. This was because Mr. Wexler told Respondent that they had liquid assets and were not interested in immediately generating an income stream from the annuity, but instead were interested in leaving their investment alone to grow over time. Using information provided by Mr. Wexler, Respondent filled out paperwork, consisting of the Application for Annuity and Authorization to Transfer Funds, required for the Wexlers to surrender their Aviva annuity and purchase the Allianz annuity. According to Mr. Wexler, Respondent selected the type of product (here, the 10% Bonus PowerDex Elite Annuity) on the Application for Annuity form, and also selected the percentage of funds to be allocated into specific investment strategies on a Supplemental Application form. Respondent testified that he always fills out the forms for his clients, and he credibly testified that he reviewed the selected strategies with the Wexlers. Mr. Wexler executed the "Agreements and Signatures" section of the Application for Annuity.7/ This section states in pertinent part: It is agreed that: (1) All statements and answers given above are true and complete to the best of my knowledge; . . . (5) I understand that I may return my policy within the free look period (shown of the first page of my policy) if I am dissatisfied for any reason; and (6) I believe this annuity is suitable for my financial goals. Respondent provided the Wexlers with a copy of a Statement of Understanding regarding the Allianz annuity. This document explained the key aspects of the annuity in substantial detail. Mr. Wexler executed the Statement of Understanding, confirming that he received a copy of that document, and that he reviewed and understood key aspects of the annuity. The document states in pertinent part: I received a copy of this Statement of Understanding. The agent has answered my questions. I have also reviewed the 10% Bonus PowerDex Elite Annuity consumer brochure. I understand that any values shown, other than the Guaranteed Minimum Values, are not guarantees, promises, or warranties. I understand that I may return my policy within the free look period (shown on the first page of the policy) if I am dissatisfied for any reason. The Wexlers paid a premium of $58,125.01 for the Allianz annuity, and invested an additional $8000.00, for a total investment of $66,125.01. As a result of surrendering the Aviva policy to purchase the Allianz annuity, they incurred a surrender charge of $5,726.89. The Allianz annuity, Policy No. 70097189, was issued on July 16, 2004. Once the Allianz annuity was issued, Respondent delivered it to the Wexlers and reviewed it with them. Respondent again informed the Wexlers of the 20-day free look period during which they could return the annuity and obtain a full refund of the premium. Mr. Wexler did not read the annuity and "stashed it away." The Allianz annuity had been approved by Petitioner for sale to investors, including senior investors, when Respondent sold the annuity to the Wexlers in 2004. Respondent credibly testified that Mr. Wexler did not tell him that he had purchased annuities from other agents, and Mr. Wexler could not clearly recall8/ whether he had provided Respondent information regarding his other annuities purchases. Respondent earned a commission of $6,281.92 on the sale of the Allianz annuity to the Wexlers. Comparison of the Aviva and Allianz Annuities The parties agree that annuities are intended to be long-term investments. Beyond that, there is substantial disagreement regarding whether the Allianz annuity was, in reality, a "better" investment than the Aviva annuity for the Wexlers. Respondent maintained that the Allianz policy had several advantages over the Aviva policy. Petitioner asserts that the Allianz annuity either had some substantial disadvantages, or, at best, did not offer any significant advantages over the Aviva policy. Respondent testified that a key reason for introducing the Allianz policy to the Wexlers was that it had a higher index-tied earnings cap than the Aviva policy, so it could earn more than the Aviva policy. Petitioner asserts, and a review of the policies confirms, that the Aviva policy had a higher cap rate——specifically, 15% for the first year with a 10% minimum guaranteed index cap rate thereafter for the Aviva policy, as compared to 12% for the first year, with a guaranteed five percent minimum thereafter for the Allianz policy. Thus, the Aviva policy provides greater potential for index-tied earnings than the Allianz policy. The evidence shows that Respondent provided the Wexlers inaccurate information on this policy term. Respondent maintained that the Allianz annuity had a 100% participation rate, as compared to only a 60% participation rate for the Aviva policy, so that under the Allianz policy, the Wexlers would keep 100% of any gains due to increases in the S&P Index, whereas under the Aviva policy, they would keep only 60% of those gains. Petitioner disputes that the Aviva policy contained a limit on participation rate. A review of the policies shows that they both state a 100% participation rate in the selected investment indices; however, under the Aviva policy, there is a "certificate charge" that is deducted when calculating the owner's index earnings. Whether this deduction is expressed as a "lower participation rate" or considered a "fee," the fact remains that under the Aviva policy, the owner got to keep less money from his or her index investment. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent accurately informed the Wexlers on this point. Respondent claimed, and apparently communicated to the Wexlers, that there was no risk in the Allianz investment, because gains resulting from the investment allocation indices were locked in so the Wexlers would never lose their invested principal or any gains they realized on the investment indices. Petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that the Allianz policy embodied substantial risk because negative index adjustments were deducted from the policy's current value. Although Petitioner is correct regarding the policy's current value, Respondent is correct regarding the effect of negative index performance on the annuity's high water value. The policy's annuitization value is the greater of these two values, so the high water value is likely more important for investors like the Wexlers, who wish to leave their investment alone rather than annuitize in the short term. Although the Wexlers' investment value under the Allianz annuity may have declined in years 2008 and 2009 due to poor S&P Index performance (which also would have affected the value of the Aviva policy, had the Wexlers still owned it), the annuitization value of the policy was not negatively affected by the poor performance of that index. In light of Respondent's understanding of the Wexlers' investment goals, his representations on this point were reasonable and not materially inaccurate. The Allianz policy provided a ten percent bonus for money invested for the first five years, and the bonus was accessible if either the policyholder annuitized the policy or as a death benefit to the policy's beneficiary. By contrast, the Aviva policy offered no bonuses after the first year. Petitioner characterizes the Allianz bonus as an "ephemeral" feature because of the limits on its availability. However, the credible evidence establishes that Respondent informed the Wexlers about these limitations, and that they were aware of them when they purchased the annuity. Under the Aviva policy, the Wexlers could annuitize at any time before the policy's maturity date. Under the Allianz policy they could only annuitize after five years, could not withdraw more than 5% of the account value of the annuity on an annual basis, and could not withdraw more than 25% of the account value over the life of the annuity. Notwithstanding, the credible evidence establishes that Respondent told the Wexlers about the annuitization limits of the Allianz policy, and they were aware of these limitations when they purchased the policy. Both policies imposed surrender charges for withdrawal of funds before the maturity date. Under the Aviva policy, withdrawal charges applied during the first ten years; under the Allianz policy, surrender charges could be incurred for the lifetime of the policy pursuant to a formula and terms established in the policy. This information is clearly stated in the policy's contract summary, and Respondent credibly testified that he fully reviewed the annuity with the Wexlers before he sold it to them, and again when he delivered it to them after issuance. Both annuities had death benefit features. The Allianz annuity provided that if the owner died, the accumulation value9/ would be paid to the beneficiary over a five-year period. The Aviva annuity provided that if the annuitant was less than 75 years old on the contract date, the death benefit would be the greater of the account value or the guaranteed account value.10/ On balance, the policies' death benefits features were similar, and there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent touted the Allianz annuity as having a superior death benefit to induce the Wexlers to purchase the annuity. The Allianz annuity featured a nursing home benefit that allowed withdrawal of the policy's full annuitization value over a five-year period if the insured was admitted to a nursing home for 30 or more days. However, the Wexlers already had insurance coverage providing assisted living benefits. Respondent acknowledged that the Allianz policy nursing home benefit was of relatively little value to the Wexlers. The evidence is insufficient to prove that Respondent represented this feature as a substantial advantage in inducing the Wexlers to purchase the Allianz annuity. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Alleged Statutory and Rule Violations For the reasons explained in detail below, the undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated section 626.611(5), (7), (9), or (13); 626.9541(1)(a)1, (1)(e)1, or (1)(l); or 626.621(6); or rules 69B-215.210 or 69B-215.230.11 Alleged Violations of Section 627.611 Section 626.611 sets forth violations for which suspension or revocation of an insurance agent's license is mandatory. Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating sections 626.611(5), (7), (9), and (13). These offenses require a finding that the licensee had intent to commit the act constituting the offense. See Beckett v. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 982 So. 2d 94, 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); see also Bowling v. Dep't of Ins., 394 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly show intent on Respondent's part with respect to any of the alleged violations of section 627.611. Although Respondent provided inaccurate information to the Wexlers on a material term——the comparative index earnings caps, which affect how much the Wexlers could earn through the policies' investment strategies——the evidence does not establish that Respondent intentionally misinformed the Wexlers on this policy term. To that point, Respondent accurately represented all other material terms of the Allianz policy to the Wexlers. The undersigned finds this probative in determining that Respondent's misstatement was made unintentionally, rather than willfully or knowingly. See Munch v. Dep't of Bus. and Prof'l Reg., 592 So. 2d 1136, 1143-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)(to find an offense of "misrepresentation," an intentional act must be proven). Section 626.611(5) makes the willful misrepresentation of any insurance policy or annuity contract or the willful deception with regard to any such policy or contract a ground for suspending or revoking an agent's license. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent willfully misrepresented any aspect of the Allianz or Aviva policies to the Wexlers or willfully deceived them regarding the policies. Respondent credibly testified that he reviewed the key terms of the Allianz policy with the Wexlers, and there is no persuasive evidence in the record to the contrary. Although Respondent did inaccurately represent the Allianz policy as having greater index-tied earnings potential than the Aviva policy, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent willfully misrepresented this information to the Wexlers, or willfully deceived them, to induce them to purchase the policy. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated section 626.611(5). Section 626.611(7) makes the demonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance a ground for suspending or revoking an agent's license. Again, a finding of intent on the licensee's part is required to find a violation of this subsection. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent intended to provide incorrect, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent information to the Wexlers to induce them to purchase the Allianz policy. As such, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, a demonstrated lack of fitness or untrustworthiness on Respondent's part to engage in the business of insurance, in violation of section 626.611(7). Section 626.611(9) makes fraudulent or dishonest practices in conducting business under an insurance agent license grounds for suspension or revocation of the license. As previously discussed, although Respondent provided incorrect information to the Wexlers regarding the comparative investment strategy caps for the Allianz and Aviva annuities, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent intended to do so. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated section 626.611(9) by engaging in fraudulent or dishonest practices in the sale of the Allianz policy to the Wexlers. Section 626.611(13) provides that willful failure to comply with, or willful violation of, Petitioner's orders or rules, or any willful violation of any provision of the Florida Insurance Code constitutes a basis for suspending or revoking an insurance agent license. Again, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent willfully violated its rules or orders, or willfully violated the Florida Insurance Code, in connection with the sale of the Allianz annuity to the Wexlers. Although Respondent did provide incorrect information on a key term——the comparative investment strategy caps, which affected the annuities' comparative earnings potential——the persuasive evidence in the record does not support a finding that Respondent willfully did so. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated section 626.611(13). Alleged Violations of Section 626.9541 Section 626.9541 is entitled "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices defined." This statute defines the types of acts that constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the insurance industry, but it does not independently authorize disciplinary action. Werner v. Dep't of Ins., 689 So. 1211, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Petitioner has charged Respondent with engaging in acts set forth in section 626.9541(1)(a)1., specifically, that he knowingly made, issued, circulated, or caused to be made, issued, or circulated, any estimate, illustration, circular, statement, sales presentation, omission, or comparison which misrepresents provides that making any estimate, statement, sales presentation, omission, or comparison which misrepresents the benefits, advantages, conditions, or terms of any insurance policy. As discussed above, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent knowingly engaged in any of these acts. Thus, Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts as provided in section 626.9541(1)(a)1. Petitioner also charged Respondent with engaging in acts defined in section 626.9541(1)(e)1. This section requires, as a predicate for the imposition of discipline, a finding that the licensee knowingly made false material statements through a variety of actions described in that provision. Again, the evidence does not establish that Respondent knowingly engaged in any of these acts. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts as provided in section 626.9541(1)(e)1. Petitioner has charged Respondent with "twisting," which is defined in section 626.9541(1)(l) as knowingly making any misleading representation or incomplete or fraudulent comparisons or fraudulent material omissions of or with respect to any insurance policies for the purposes of inducing, or tending to induce, any person to surrender, terminate, or convert any insurance policy or to take out a policy of insurance in another insurer. Again, there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent knowingly committed any of the acts described in this statute. Thus, Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in twisting under section 626.9541(1)(1), Florida Statutes. Alleged Violation of Section 626.621 Section 626.621 sets forth violations for which suspension or revocation of an insurance agent's license is discretionary.12/ Petitioner has charged Respondent with violating section 626.621(6) by engaging in unfair methods of competition or in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as prohibited by part IX of chapter 626, or having otherwise shown himself to be a source of injury or loss to the public or detrimental to the public interest. For the reasons previously discussed, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent engaged in any actions that could be considered unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts or practices under chapter 626, part IX. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in acts under section 626.621(6) that justify the suspension or revocation of his insurance agent's license. Alleged Violations of Agency Rules Petitioner charged Respondent with violating rule 69B- 215.210. This rule provides that the business of life insurance13/ is a public trust in which all agents of all companies have an obligation to work together in serving the best interests of the insuring public, by understanding and observing the laws governing life insurance by letter and in spirit by presenting accurately and completely every fact essential to a client's decision, and by being fair in all relations with colleagues and competitors and always placing the policyholder's interests first. The rule implements section 626.797, entitled "code of ethics," which directs Petitioner to adopt a code of ethics to "govern the conduct of life agents in their relations with the public, other agents, and the insurers," and to establish standards of conduct to avoid the commission of acts that would constitute grounds for suspension or revocation under sections 626.611, 626.621, and unfair trade practices and unfair methods of competition under chapter 626, part IX. The rule must be interpreted and applied consistent with the law it is implementing. As previously discussed, the violations of sections 626.611, 626.621, and 626.9541 with which Respondent was charged all require that he have intent to commit the act constituting the violation. The persuasive evidence does not establish that Respondent had the requisite intent necessary to find a violation of rule 69B-215.210.14/ Petitioner also charged Respondent with violating rule 69B-215.230. Rule 69B-215.230(1) makes unethical the misrepresentation of the terms of any policy issued or to be issued or the benefits or advantages promised by that policy. This rule implements sections 626.797 and 626.9541(1)(a) and (b), violations of which require a showing or willful or knowing misrepresentation. Further, "misrepresentation" requires that an intentional act be proven for a violation to be found. See Walker v. Dep't. of Bus. and Prof'l Reg., 705 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). As previously discussed, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent knowingly or willfully provided incorrect information or misstatements to the Wexlers regarding the Allianz policy. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Rule 69B-230.210(1).15/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, William Robert Pearson, should be disciplined for alleged statutory and rule violations for his role in several insurance transactions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed in Florida as a life including variable annuity agent (2-14), life including variable annuity and health agent (2-15), life agent (2-16), life and health agent (2-18), and health agent (2-40), regulated by the DFS's Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Services. He was so licensed at all times pertinent to this case. He was first licensed in 1988 and has been disciplined once, in September 2002, when he was given a Letter of Guidance for misrepresenting to a Pinellas Park resident that an annuity he sold her would generate interest in excess of 6.8 percent, when the guaranteed rate was three percent for the first year. During the transactions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent also was registered with OFR's Division of Securities as a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) broker representative associated with Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc. (Transamerica). On August 21, 2012, based on some of the same facts alleged in this case, OFR charged the Respondent with failing to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade because he: participated in the liquidation of variable and fixed annuities on behalf of several elderly customers referred by insurance agents not licensed as FINRA broker representatives; executed the liquidations recommended to the customers by insurance agent Richard Carter; failed to appropriately record the transactions on the books and records of Transamerica; failed to review the transactions, or have them reviewed by Transamerica, as to suitability; and provided Agent Carter with blank Transamerica letterhead to be used to facilitate the transactions. A Stipulation and Consent Agreement was entered on December 18, 2012, in which the Respondent admitted the OFR charges and agreed to never seek a license or registration as a dealer, investment advisor, or associated person under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, chapter 517, Florida Statutes. A Final Order incorporating the settlement agreement was entered on January 11, 2013. (This Final Order is the basis for Count IX, which was added to the charges in this case, as well as for one of the Respondent's affirmative defenses.) Count I-–Geraldine Busing Geraldine Busing was born on December 1, 1930. She has a high school education. Her husband of 44 years died in 2001. When alive, he handled the family finances. Mrs. Busing's income is from a pension of $728 a month and social security payments of $1,090 a month. In addition, she had substantial investments in two Schwab accounts. During the market decline of 2007-2008, Mrs. Busing became dissatisfied with the performance of her Schwab accounts. An insurance agent named Richard Carter recommended that she invest in annuities, which would reduce her taxes. (In her deposition, testimony was elicited from Mrs. Busing that Agent Carter told her that the Respondent would do her taxes for free for the rest of her life. It is not likely that he made such a representation, and there is no evidence that the Respondent knew about such a representation.) Mrs. Busing followed Agent Carter's recommendation. Agent Carter did not have a FINRA license and approached the Respondent, who worked for Transamerica, to facilitate the liquidation of Mrs. Busing's Schwab accounts, so she could follow Agent Carter's recommendations. The Respondent agreed. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent provided blank Transamerica forms to Agent Carter and that Agent Carter "shuffled" the forms together with an EquiTrust Life Insurance Company (EquiTrust) annuity application and suitability forms and requested Mrs. Busing's signatures (although, it is alleged, one or more of the signatures on the Transamerica forms were not hers.) It is alleged that, unbeknownst to Mrs. Busing, Agent Carter gave the Respondent these forms, as well as a copy of her Schwab account statements, so he could liquidate her accounts, which totaled $627,000 at the time, "dump" the proceeds into a Transamerica account, and then "funnel" the liquidated assets into two EquiTrust annuities. It is alleged that Mrs. Busing became aware of these transactions in September 2010 after discussions with her accountant. Mrs. Busing testified that she has never met the Respondent and does not know him. She testified that she gave all of her Schwab account information to Agent Carter and did not expect him to share it with the Respondent. She testified that Agent Carter had her hurriedly sign a stack of papers without giving her a chance to review them. She said she was surprised when her stock broker, Barry Tallman, called to tell her that her Schwab accounts had been liquidated and used to open a Transamerica account. She denied ever receiving or signing the Schwab bank check dated July 7, 2010, used to open the Transamerica accounts; denied ever providing the Respondent and Transamerica with information for her customer account information (CAI) form used to open the Transamerica accounts; and denied that several of the Geraldine Busing signatures on the Transamerica documents used for the transactions were her signatures. She admitted to signing a Transamerica check dated August 13, 2010, which was used to purchase the EquiTrust policies. The Respondent testified that he telephoned Mrs. Busing at Agent Carter's request. He testified that she told him she wanted to implement Agent Carter's recommendation to liquidate the Schwab accounts and purchase annuities. He testified that he told her his services were not required because her current broker (Mr. Tallman) could handle it for her, unless she just wanted to avoid confronting her current broker. He said she wanted the Respondent to handle it, and he replied essentially that he would do whatever she and Agent Carter wanted him to do for her. The Respondent testified that he then mailed Mrs. Busing forms she had to fill out, sign, and return to him. He testified that he talked to her briefly by telephone about 15 to 20 times to answer questions she had about the forms. When she told him she received a Schwab check in the amount of about $150,000 and asked if she should mail it to him, he cautioned her that it would be better not to mail it and offered to drive to her house to get the check, which he did and returned immediately to Transamerica to open a Transamerica account with it. He testified that the Transamerica funds were used to purchase EquiTrust annuities at the direction of Agent Carter and Mrs. Busing. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Mrs. Busing's version of the facts is true and that the Respondent's version is untrue. To the contrary, Mrs. Busing's memory did not seem to be very good, and she seemed confused during her testimony. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent made any investment or insurance recommendations or misrepresentations to Mrs. Busing. The Petitioner's own witnesses (DFS and OFR investigators, Karen Ortega and Mercedes Bujans) testified that the Respondent never acted as Mrs. Busing's insurance agent. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Busing incurred tax and commission charges as a result of her Schwab account being liquidated, other than Transamerica's standard "ticket charge" for the transactions, which the Respondent admitted. There was no evidence that the Respondent received any remuneration on the EquiTrust annuity sales. Those commissions went to Agent Carter. The Petitioner contended in its proposed recommended order that the Respondent listed Mrs. Busing's annual income to be between $25,000 and $50,000, her investment objective as growth and income, and her investment time horizon as long-term. (Busing Deposition Exhibit 87). There was no testimony to put the exhibit in context or explain it. On its face, Busing deposition Exhibit 87 was a request from Transamerica to the client to confirm certain information. The form had the Respondent's name printed on it, but it was not signed by either the Respondent or Mrs. Busing, and the evidence did not prove who completed the form. (The CAI form contained similar information and had both their signatures.) The Petitioner contends that the information on the confirmation request was "absurd," because it listed Mrs. Busing's annual income as between $25,000 and $50,000, when her taxable income was $11,108 for 2009 and $8,251 for 2010. There was evidence that her total annual income was about $48,000 for 2007, $32,600 for 2008, $22,358 for 2009, and $19,001 for 2010, with the decline due to the decline in the stock market. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the income information on that form or the CAI form was absurd. The investment objective and investment time horizon on the forms were questionable, but the evidence was not clear and convincing that these were misrepresentations by the Respondent. The Transamerica account was a Pershing money market account used to facilitate the purchase of annuities. The evidence was that a separate suitability analysis would be required by the insurance company offering the annuity. The evidence was not clear that the information in the forms signed by the Respondent was used for the purchase of EquiTrust annuities on behalf of Mrs. Busing. Those purchases were recommended and executed by Agent Carter. The evidence was not clear and convincing that switching Mrs. Busing's investments from Schwab to EquiTrust annuities was not suitable for Mrs. Busing or in her best interest. No expert witness testified to that effect. Counts II through IV–-The Kesishes In 2010, William Kesish and his wife, Josefa, owned several annuities. Mr. Kesish had managed their business affairs before he developed Parkinson's disease and dementia in his old age. After that, Mrs. Kesish cared for him and took over the family's finances by default. Mr. Kesish died on November 26, 2010. Mrs. Kesish was born in Spain in 1937. English is her second language. In 2010, she had difficulty conversing and reading in English and was unable to write in English. After her husband became mentally disabled, she used their bank account to provide for their needs, but she had no investment acumen beyond knowing generally that it was better to make more money from their investments than to make less or to lose money. She was recovering from cancer treatment in 2010 and was physically frail. On May 25, 2010, Paula Rego, a professional guardian, met with an attorney who believed the Kesishes were being exploited and in need of a guardian. Ms. Rego reviewed documentation provided by the attorney and, in June 2010, agreed to Mrs. Kesish's voluntary request to become the guardian of the Kesishes' property. On July 8, 2010, Ms. Rego became aware of the Respondent's involvement in the Kesishes' financial business. She telephoned the Respondent to explain her guardianship role and faxed him on July 15, 2010, to direct him to cancel any investment transactions that were underway. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Ms. Rego to explain her review of the documentation she collected in her research to attempt to piece together the financial transactions involving the Kesishes. She also testified as to the surrender charges and, to some extent, the tax liabilities that resulted from them. She also related statements made by Mrs. Kesish to her and, to some extent, to the DFS and OFR investigators, Karen Ortega and Mercedes Bujans, who also related some of the statements Mrs. Kesish made to them. The Petitioner also introduced an affidavit prepared by Ms. Ortega and signed by Mrs. Kesish on March 31, 2011. All of Mrs. Kesish's statements were hearsay. The hearsay cannot itself support a finding of fact.3/ In general, the hearsay demonstrated that Mrs. Kesish did not have a clear recollection of her interactions with the Respondent at the time of her statements. Agent Carter introduced the Respondent to Mrs. Kesish in March 2010. The Petitioner alleged essentially that Agent Carter schemed and collaborated with the Respondent to exploit the Kesishes by tricking them into financial and insurance transactions that would not be in their best interest, but would generate commissions and fees for them. It was alleged that, as with Mrs. Busing, the Respondent's FINRA licensure was required to buy and sell securities in furtherance of the scheme. The Respondent testified that Agent Carter told him about his clients, the Kesishes, and that he went to meet Mrs. Kesish in person because he had difficulty communicating with her over the telephone due to her hard-to-understand Spanish accent and limited proficiency in spoken English. He testified that she told him she wanted to get out of the stock market and was unhappy with her current stockbroker, Doreen Scott. (That part of the Respondent's testimony was corroborated by Ms. Rego, who concurred that Mrs. Kesish did not like dealing with Ms. Scott because she talked down to her.) The Respondent testified that he went to Mrs. Kesish's house, asked if he could be of assistance to her, and discussed her financial situation with her. He testified that he then returned to his Transamerica office and mailed forms for her to fill out and sign.4/ Similar to his dealings with Mrs. Busing, the Respondent testified that he spoke to Mrs. Kesish several times by telephone to answer questions about the forms. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent knew Agent Carter would be helping her. The Respondent testified that when the completed forms were returned to him by mail, he telephoned Mrs. Kesish to verify the information on the forms and, in some cases, get information that was omitted to add it to the forms. The Petitioner attempted to prove that the Respondent knew or should have known Mrs. Kesish was mentally disabled and incapable of voluntarily instructing the Respondent to effectuate financial transactions on her behalf. Mrs. Kesish lacked knowledge in investing and was susceptible to being misled and exploited, but it was not proven that Mrs. Kesish was mentally incapacitated or unable to consent to Agent Carter's recommendations or instruct the Respondent. Ms. Rego herself did not find it necessary to initiate involuntary proceedings to establish a plenary guardianship of Mrs. Kesish's person and property until October 2013. (Count II) One of the Kesishes' investments was a Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Genworth) variable annuity (G-58), which they bought on October 31, 2008, for $86,084.89. It was designed to begin paying monthly income on October 31, 2022. It provided a waiver of surrender charges if either Kesish was hospitalized, admitted to a nursing facility, or died. As of March 31, 2010, G-58 had a contract value of $102,954.90. Mrs. Kesish signed a form on letterhead of the Respondent and Transamerica that expressed her desire for the Respondent to be their insurance agent on G-58. On May 27, 2010, the Respondent used an automated account transfer (ACAT) to liquidate G-58 and transfer the funds to a Transamerica brokerage account he opened for the Kesishes on the same date. The Respondent did not independently determine whether the liquidation was suitable or in the Kesishes' best interest. He relied on Agent Carter to do this. The Respondent and the Kesishes signed the CAI form to open the brokerage account. The surrender of G-58 took effect on June 14, 2010. As a result of the liquidation, the Kesishes were assessed a surrender charge of $4,576.91 and federal tax was withheld, and the net proceeds from the liquidation were $90,314.19. On June 29, 2010, the funds in Mrs. Kesish's Transamerica account were added to an EquiTrust policy Agent Carter had sold her (E-92F). The Respondent testified that this was done at the direction of Agent Carter and Mrs. Kesish. The Respondent did not act as the Kesishes' EquiTrust agent and received no commissions. The Petitioner alleged and proposed a finding that the liquidation of G-58 allowed Agent Carter to represent to EquiTrust that the Kesishes had no other annuities and that the addition to E-92F was not replacing another annuity, which allowed Agent Carter to avoid having Genworth attempt to "conserve" G-58 (i.e., question the Kesishes as to whether they wanted to reverse the liquidation within the grace period for doing so). The evidence cited in support of the allegation and proposed finding is documentation of the initial purchase of E-92F in April 2010, not the addition in June 2010. There was no clear and convincing evidence that actions taken by the Respondent resulted in Agent Carter circumventing the replacement notice requirement, or that the Respondent should be held responsible for what Agent Carter did or did not do regarding the EquiTrust annuity. According to the Respondent, he made no investment recommendations to Mrs. Kesish, and all such recommendations were made by Agent Carter. He testified that he only took action in accordance with the wishes of Mrs. Kesish, who was being advised by Agent Carter. He denied that his purpose was to generate commissions or fees for himself or for Agent Carter, or to enable Agent Carter to conceal the replacement of the Genworth annuity. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent's testimony was false. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order cites the testimony of Tarek Richey regarding his concerns about the Respondent's use of an ACAT to liquidate annuities, transfer of the proceeds to Pershing accounts at Transamerica, and use of those funds to purchase other annuities. Mr. Richey is a FINRA- licensed securities broker at Questar Capital Corporation, who employed and supervised the Respondent for about a month in early 2011, after he left Transamerica in December 2010. While supervising the Respondent, Mr. Richey was advised of OFR's investigation of the Respondent and reviewed the Respondent's documentation on the subject of OFR's investigation. One of Mr. Richey's concerns from his review of the Respondent's documentation was the use of ACAT, which would not guarantee that the client is aware of resulting surrender charges and tax consequences. He also was concerned that ACAT could have been used to bypass and avoid the use of forms required to analyze the suitability of annuities purchased for the Kesishes (and other clients). While he expressed these concerns, Mr. Richey had no personal knowledge and did not testify that the Kesishes (or the other clients) actually were unaware of surrender charges and tax consequences, or that liquidation was not suitable or in their best interest. Another of Mr. Richey's concerns was that the use of ACAT could result in the replacement of annuities without completing the required forms that would provide notice to the insurance company that its annuity was in the process of being replaced and give it an opportunity to conserve its annuity. Mr. Richey did not know that the use of ACAT actually resulted in the bypass of the replacement policy notice requirements for the Kesishes and other clients. He also did not testify that the Respondent should be held responsible for what Agent Carter did or did not do regarding replacement notices. Ms. Rego testified (based in part on discussions with a financial planner who did not testify) that she did not think the Genworth and EquiTrust transactions were not in the best interest of the Kesishes, mainly because of the Genworth surrender charge and tax consequences. There was no other expert testimony on the subject, and the evidence was not clear and convincing that those transactions were unsuitable or not in their best interest. (Count III) The Kesishes owned a Riversource Life Insurance Company (Riversource) annuity (R-30) that they bought on October 5, 2006. The contract had declining withdrawal charge rates that held at eight percent for the first four years. It had a death benefit rider. On March 23, 2010, a letter on the Respondent's Transamerica letterhead, written in English and signed by Mrs. Kesish, directed Riversource to list the Respondent as the Kesishes' financial advisor. On April 23, 2010, Mrs. Kesish signed a form directing Riversource to liquidate R-30. She also signed a form saying she knew there would be surrender charges. On April 26, 2010, Riversource sent the Kesishes a check for $26,430.07 (which was net after $2,454.30 in surrender charges). The testimony from Ms. Rego as to whether the liquidation of the Riversource annuity was contrary to the Kesishes' best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements, was similar to her testimony with respect to the Genworth liquidation. There was no other expert or other clear and convincing evidence. (Count IV) The Kesishes also had Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American) annuities in the amounts of approximately $560,854 (GA-25) and $28,785 (GA-00), which were purchased in January 2010. GA-25 was owned by the Kesishes' trust, with Mrs. Kesish as trustee; GA-00 was owned by Mr. Kesish. By June 4, 2010, they had contract values of $580,854.71 and $29,970.46, respectively. On June 18, 2010, Agent Carter took Mrs. Kesish to lunch. A letter dated June 18, 2010, signed by Mrs. Kesish for her and her husband, written in English on the Respondent's Transamerica letterhead, directed the transfer of GA-25 to a Transamerica Pershing account (TA-25). An ACAT form dated June 20, 2010, signed by Mrs. Kesish and the Respondent, directed the liquidation of Mr. Kesish's GA-00 and the transfer of the proceeds to the Kesishes' Transamerica Pershing account. This transaction took effect on July 7, 2010.5/ After becoming involved through Attorney Hook, Ms. Rego had numerous discussions with Mrs. Kesish and with Agent Carter regarding the Kesishes' investments. Agent Carter attempted to explain and justify his actions to Ms. Rego and blame other insurance agents who he claimed had essentially stolen his clients by tricking them into replacing Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (Allianz) annuities sold to them by him with GA-25 and GA-00. Ms. Rego's research notes evidence her understanding that the Great American sales to the Kesishes were unsuitable. During Ms. Rego's discussions and research throughout June 2010, the Respondent's name did not come up, and Ms. Rego was unaware of the Respondent having anything to do with the Kesishes. When she learned about the Respondent's role on July 8, 2010, she attempted to contact him. On July 15, 2010, she faxed the Respondent to instruct him to stop acting on behalf of the Kesishes. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent did not follow Ms. Rego's instructions.6/ On July 17, 2010, Great American sent Mr. Kesish a conservation letter urging him not to surrender GA-00. Ms. Rego then contacted Great American and had the surrender of GA-25 and GA-00 stopped. Had the transactions not been stopped, the Kesishes $60,000 in surrender charges would have been imposed. There was no other expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of the Great American annuities was contrary to the Kesishes' best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Counts V through VI–-Edith Paz Edith Paz was born on January 20, 1926, and lives in Sun City Center. She has a high school diploma and held various jobs, from retailing to making plates in a dental office. Mrs. Paz married a GI returning from World War II. Her husband was successful in business before his retirement. Meanwhile, Mrs. Paz founded a successful real estate business and invested in the stock market. Mr. Paz died in 1999. In 2001, Mrs. Paz created a revocable trust with herself as trustee. When Mrs. Paz retired, she moved to Sun City Center. She did some investing, but was dissatisfied with her investments and her financial representative at the time. About that time, she met Glenn Cummings, an insurance agent who was a less experienced associate of Agent Carter and also not FINRA- licensed. After several conversations, Agent Cummings gained her trust and advised her to liquidate and consolidate her assets before deciding what other financial products to purchase. He referred her to the Respondent for that purpose. Agent Cummings and Mrs. Paz testified that he referred Mrs. Paz to the Respondent on the advice of Agent Carter to save "exit fees" on liquidating her investments. The evidence was not clear as to how the Respondent would be able to do this. The Respondent testified to his understanding that Mrs. Paz wanted to get out of the stock market and switch to more stable investments and that she had a bad relationship with her stockbroker. The Respondent's testimony is consistent with Mrs. Paz's actual losses in the stock market and her testimony that she listened to and followed the advice of Agent Cummings because she was dissatisfied with her prior financial advisor, a Mr. Shrago. Mrs. Paz testified that she spoke to the Respondent just once, briefly. That conflicts with the testimony of the Respondent and Agent Cummings. Their testimony was that there were several telephone conversations after the initial contact. They related that the Respondent mailed Mrs. Paz the forms that needed to be filled out, that Agent Cummings was with Mrs. Paz when she filled out the forms, and that both spoke to the Respondent several times during the process. According to Agent Cummings, this happened on July 29, 2010, when he visited Mrs. Paz to show her illustrations regarding the annuities he was recommending. While there, he helped her complete the forms the Respondent had sent to have her investments liquidated and consolidated into a Transamerica Pershing account. There also was conflict in the testimony as to whether anyone explained investment options and consequences to Mrs. Paz. She testified that no one gave her any explanation. Agent Cummings testified that he explained everything in detail to Mrs. Paz and that she also talked to the insurance agents who represented the companies whose annuities she would be surrendering. He testified that Mrs. Paz knew exactly what she was doing. The Respondent testified that he had no involvement in those explanations. He testified that he simply made sure he understood what Mrs. Paz wanted him to do for her. (Count V) In May 2007, Mrs. Paz purchased a Jackson National Life Insurance Company (Jackson National or JNL) annuity (JNL-42A) on the advice of Mr. Shrago. The initial premium was $100,000, and it was issued with a five-percent bonus. As of May 25, 2007, it had an account balance of $105,017.01 and was receiving an annual rate of return of 7.75 percent. On July 12, 2010, Mrs. Paz signed a letter directing Jackson National to make the Respondent, who held an appointment to represent Jackson National, her agent-of-record on JNL-42A. The change took effect on July 15, 2010. On July 29, 2010, Jackson National faxed the Respondent a statement of account for JNL-42A, listing the balance as $108,253.48 (which reflected a prior withdrawal of $2,500 by Mrs. Paz). The statement disclosed the surrender charges in effect. After her discussions with Agent Cummings, Mrs. Paz signed forms requesting that JNL-42A be liquidated and the proceeds rolled over into a Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American or GA) annuity (GA-61). The Respondent facilitated the rollover. As a result of the rollover, Mrs. Paz incurred surrender charges of $4,871.41 and a partial recapture of the initial bonus in the amount of $2,706.34, for a total loss of $7,577.75. The Petitioner alleged, and Mrs. Paz testified, that the Respondent never discussed with her that there would be surrender charges. The Respondent did not disagree, but explained that he understood Agent Cummings already had done so and that he just made sure he was following Mrs. Paz's wishes. Concurring, Agent Cummings testified that he did explain the surrender charges to Mrs. Paz. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent's actions "insulated M[r]s. P[az] from comparative financial counseling by her then current Jackson National insurance agent Gary Mahan." This was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, there was evidence that it was Mrs. Paz's choice to change agents, that Mr. Mahan knew about the change, and that he had no objection to the Respondent taking over for him as agent of record on the policy. The Petitioner also alleged that the Respondent "provided [Agent Cummings] with the Transamerica brokerage application, transfer forms and letter of instructions to transfer JNL 42A" to the Respondent as account representative. It was not proven that these documents were not mailed to Mrs. Paz in accordance with the Respondent's testimony. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of Mrs. Paz's Jackson National annuity and purchase of a Great American annuity was contrary to her best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Mrs. Paz testified that Agent Cummings initially told her she would have to pay the Respondent $1,500 as a fee for his services with respect to JNL-42a and later told her the fee would be $2,600. Agent Cummings testified that the Respondent told her what his fee would be during the telephone conversation on July 29, 2010. Regardless who told Mrs. Paz what the Respondent's fee would be, or what she was told it would be, Mrs. Paz made out a $2,607.28 check to Agent Cummings' company, Big Financial, on July 29, 2010. On August 2, 2010, Big Financial gave the Respondent a check made out to the Respondent for $2,530, with the notation "Paz." (It is not clear from the evidence why the Big Financial check was made out for $2,530. When the DFS investigator questioned the discrepancy, Agent Cummings reimbursed Mrs. Paz $77.28.) The Respondent deposited the check the next day. The Allianz compliance guide prohibited agents from charging an additional fee for services that customarily are associated with insurance products. The Great American compliance guide prohibited fraudulent acts. By accepting the check from Big Financial, the Respondent received a fee from Mrs. Paz that was not authorized. (Count VI) Prior to meeting Agent Cummings or the Respondent, Mrs. Paz had investment accounts with Wedbush (WB-37) and Wells Fargo. There were two Wells Fargo accounts, an IRA (WF-15), and a trust account (WF-70). As of June 30, 2010, the Wedbush account (WB-37) had a balance of $349,438.11. The Wells Fargo IRA account (WF-15) had a net value of $51,737.11 prior to June 30, 2010. The Wells Fargo trust account (WF-70) had a balance of $332,798.76 prior to June 2010. The Respondent and Mrs. Paz communicated in the same manner they did for the Jackson National transaction. Mrs. Paz signed forms that enabled the Respondent to transfer the funds in the Wedbush and Wells Fargo accounts into two Transamerica brokerage accounts (TA-02) and (TA-86) using ACAT. Some of the forms referred to the Respondent as Mrs. Paz's "investment professional," but the sole purpose of the Respondent's involvement was to use Transamerica as a funnel to transfer funds from one investment to another. By August 11, 2010, the funds in the TA-02 account were used to purchase an Allianz annuity sold by Agent Cummings in the amount of $335,589.65. The funds in the TA-86 account were used to purchase a Great American annuity (GA-60) sold by Agent Cummings in the amount of $45,769.38. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of Mrs. Paz's Wedbush and Wells Fargo accounts and purchase of an Allianz annuity was contrary to her best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. Counts VII and VIII-–The Penwardens Wayne Penwarden was born on December 4, 1943. His wife, Sandra, was born on October 10, 1939. They inherited some money and decided to invest it. As of August 31, 2009, they had Morgan Stanley investment accounts that totaled close to half a million dollars. They also had an annuity with ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (ING) purchased for $150,000 on April 24, 2008. Agent Carter became acquainted with the Penwardens and introduced them to the Respondent. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged that the Respondent provided required forms to Agent Carter for him to get the Penwardens signatures and, then, used funds from their Transamerica accounts to fund the purchase of Allianz annuities, which was deceitful and against the wishes of the Penwardens. The Petitioner's proposed recommended order proposed no such findings, and there was no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was guilty of those acts, that he said or did anything to deceive or mislead or withhold information from them, or took any action regarding them without their full knowledge and consent. (Count VII) On September 30, 2009, the Penwardens signed a change of agent request to make the Respondent their new ING insurance agent. They also signed CAI forms to open Transamerica brokerage accounts and transfer the funds from the Morgan Stanley investment accounts into them, using ACAT. The funds in the Transamerica accounts were then used to purchase Allianz's indexed annuities sold to the Penwardens by Agent Carter. On September 23 and October 16, 2009, the Penwardens purchased two Allianz MasterDex X annuities (MD-47) and (MD-24), respectively, with initial premium payments of $141,269.40 for MD-47 and $373,979.59, plus a premium bonus of $37,397.96, for MD-24. On June 17, 2010, acting on instructions from Agent Carter on behalf of the Penwardens, the Respondent liquidated the ING annuity. On June 30, 2010, the Penwardens added the $115,281.47 proceeds from the liquidation of the ING annuity to MD-47. The Petitioner proposed a finding that the surrender of the ING annuity cost $6,000 in surrender charges, which is true. The Petitioner omits from its proposed finding that the Penwardens received a premium bonus on the Allianz policy that more than offset the ING surrender charge. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the liquidation of the Penwardens' Morgan Stanley accounts and ING annuity and purchase of Allianz annuities was contrary to their best interests, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. (Count VIII) The Penwardens became dissatisfied with Agent Carter, and on November 9, 2010, signed a letter drafted by the Respondent on Transamerica letterhead to substitute him for Agent Carter as their sole financial advisor. On November 12, 2010, the Respondent was notified by Allianz that he would receive no commissions as servicing agent on policies sold to the Penwardens by another agent. On or about November 22, 2010, $37,408.54 was transferred from the Allianz MD-47 annuity into a new Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (Nationwide or NW) annuity (NW-08). The Respondent also effected a partial Internal Revenue Code, section 1035, exchange from the MD-47 annuity to a new annuity purchased from Nationwide (NW-09) for $23,746.19. On November 7, 2011, the Respondent faxed a request to transfer funds from the MD-24 annuity to fund a North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American or NA) annuity (NA-68). The Petitioner proposed a finding that the Respondent undertook these transactions on November 22, 2010, and on November 7, 2011, in order to benefit himself alone by generating commissions to replace the servicing agent commissions he was not getting on the Allianz policies. This was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. To the contrary, the Respondent explained that the transactions were done for the Penwardens' benefit after discussions regarding the benefits of diversifying out of the Allianz annuity into other annuities, which was accomplished cost-free. There was no clear and convincing evidence that these transactions were contrary to the Penwardens' best financial interest or that they were done solely to benefit the Respondent. There was no expert testimony or other clear and convincing evidence that the partial transfers from the Penwardens' Allianz annuities to other Nationwide and North American annuities were contrary to their best interest, unsuitable, or in violation of suitability form or replacement notice requirements. In early December 2011, Mr. Penwarden replaced the Respondent with another insurance agent. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent went to the Penwardens home to harangue them for two hours about their decision to switch agents. The only evidence on this allegation was the deposition testimony of Mr. Penwarden and the testimony of the Respondent. Mr. Penwarden's testimony as to what occurred was vague. The Respondent agreed that he was disappointed that the Penwardens were switching agents, but testified that he went to the home to retrieve the policies he sold to the Penwardens, which would have to be returned to the insurance companies to cancel at no cost during the "free-look" period. He testified that he waited for an hour or more while Mr. Penwarden tried to find the policies in his home. The evidence was not clear and convincing, and the Petitioner did not propose a finding as to this allegation. Count IX and Related Affirmative Defenses Count IX is based on the Final Order entered in OFR's securities case against the Respondent as an additional ground for discipline under section 626.621(13), Florida Statutes. The Respondent cites it in his affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel on Counts I through VIII. See Finding 2, supra. The Respondent also argues that the additional charge is barred by the ex post facto clause of the Florida constitution and due process clauses of the United States and Florida constitutions. As to the due process argument, the Respondent admitted the OFR Final Order in his answer to the original charges. He also had ample opportunity to demonstrate prejudice from the added charge, which he could not, and to present legal arguments, which he did. As to ex post facto, section 626.621(13) was added to the Florida Statutes, effective June 1, 2011. See Ch. 175, §§ 47 and 53, Laws of Fla. (2010). That was before the Respondent entered into the Stipulation and Consent Agreement that formed the basis for the OFR Final Order. Disciplinary guidelines for section 626.621(13) were added to the Florida Administrative Code on March 24, 2014. Fla. Admin. Code R. 69B-231.090(13). As to the collateral estoppel defense, the Respondent testified that he entered into the settlement with OFR because he was under heightened supervision by his employer due to securities violations, and he did not think any employer wanted to provide the required supervision (which he referred to as "baby-sitting.") The Respondent did not testify that he relied on the OFR Final Order to bar charges by DFS or that he believed the OFR Final Order would bar DFS charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Agent and Agency Services, enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating section 626.611(7) and rule 69B-215.210 under Count V, and section 626.621(13) under Count IX, dismissing the other charges, and suspending the Respondent's insurance licenses for 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2014.
