01-002496
William G. Roe &Amp; Sons, Inc. vs.
Five Star Packing And Auto Owners Insurance Company
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 5, 2002.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 5, 2002.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8FIVE STAR PACKING, )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) Case No. 01 - 2495A
23)
24WILLIAM G. ROE & SONS, INC., )
31AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & )
37GUARANTY COMPANY, )
40)
41Respondents. )
43_______________________________ )
45)
46W ILLIAM G. ROE & SONS, INC., )
54)
55Petitioner, )
57)
58vs. ) Case No. 01 - 2496A
65)
66FIVE STAR PACKING AND AUTO )
72OWNERS INSURANCE COMPAN Y, )
77)
78Respondents. )
80)
81RECOMMENDED ORDER
83Upon due notice, William R. Cav e, an Administrative Law
93Judge for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a formal
103hearing in these matters on November 7, 2001, in Winter Haven,
114Florida.
115APPEARANCES
116Case No. 01 - 2495A
121For Petitioner: H. Christopher Tompkins, II, Esquire
1281706 South Kings Avenue
132Brandon, Florida 33509 - 6216
137For Respondent: Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire
144W. G. Roe & Peterson & Myers, P.A.
152Sons, Inc. 141 5th Street, Northwest
158Post Office Drawer 7608
162Winter Haven, Florida 33883
166For Respondent: No appearance
170United States
172Fidelity &
174Guaranty Co.
176Case No. 01 - 2496A
181For Petitioner: Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire
188W. G. Roe & Peterson & Myers, P.A.
196Sons, Inc. 141 5th Street, Northwest
202Post Office Drawer 7608
206Winter Haven, Florida 33883
210For Respondent: H. Christopher Tompkins, II, Esquire
217Five Star 1706 South Kings Avenue
223Packing Brandon, Florida 33509 - 6216
229For Respondent: Jack P. James, Esquire
235Auto Owners Post Office Box 3
241Insurance Co. Lakeland, Florida 33802
246STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
250Case No. 01 - 2495A
255Does Respondent, William. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. (Roe & Sons)
266owe Five Star Packing (Five Star) monies as alleged in the
277Complaint for citrus contracted for under various written
285contracts entered into by the parties?
291Case No. 01 - 2496A
296Does Respondent Five Star owe Roe & Sons monies as alleged
307in the Complaint for damages sustained by Roe & Sons as a result
320of the breach of alleged oral contracts between the parties by
331Five Star?
333PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
335Case No. 01 - 2495A
340By a Complaint dated August 22, 2000, and filed with the
351Office of Citrus License and Bond, Florida Department of
360Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) on September 12,
3682000, and a First Amended Complaint dated January 5, 2001, and
379filed with the Department on January 10, 2001, Five Star seeks
390payment of an alleged balance due from Roe & Sons under various
402written contracts between the parties for the sale of
411tangerines, white grapefruit, and temple oranges. Roe & Sons
420denied the allegations within the Complaint and a lleged the
430affirmative defenses of settlement, breach of a written
438contract, and breach of oral contract. Additionally, Roe & Sons
448filed a counterclaim in the amount of $97,000.00 for breach of
460contract in Five Star's failure to purchase a certain quantit y
471of ruby red grapefruit under alleged oral contracts.
479Case No. 01 - 2496A
484By a Complaint dated November 10, 2000, and filed with the
495Department on November 15, 2000, Roe & Sons seeks payment from
506Five Star for alleged damages suffered due to the failure of
517Five Star to perform under two alleged oral contracts with Roe &
529Sons for the purchase of a certain quantity of ruby red
540grapefruit.
541By letter dated June 25, 2001, the Department referred
550these matters to the Division of Administrative Hearings
558(Division) for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and
568for the conduct of a formal hearing. The cases were
578consolidated for hearing on July 17, 2001.
585At the hearing, Five Star presented the testimony of Larry
595Thompson. Five Star's Exhibits 1 - 4 were admitted in evidence.
606Roe & Sons presented the testimony of W. A. Alford, Morgan Roe,
618and William Roe. Roe & Sons' Exhibits 1 - 12 were admitted in
631evidence.
632A Transcript of this proceeding was filed with the Division
642on November 28, 2001. The parties fil ed their Proposed
652Recommended Orders under an extended time frame with the
661understanding that any time constraint imposed under Rule 28 - 106
672(1), Florida Administrative Code, was waived in accordance with
681Rule 28 - 106(2), Florida Administrative Code.
688FINDIN GS OF FACT
692Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
700adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact
710are made:
7121. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Five Star
722was a citrus fruit dealer as that term is defined in Subse ction
735601.03(8), Florida Statutes, and was licensed and bonded in
744accordance with Chapter 601, Florida Statutes.
7502 . At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Roe & Sons
762was a citrus fruit dealer as that term is defined in Subsection
774601.03(8), Florida St atutes, and was licensed and bonded in
784accordance with Chapter 601, Florida Statutes.
7903. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, both Five
800Star and Roe & Sons were subject to the provisions of
811Chapter 601, Florida Statutes.
8154. Five Star bought, sold, and delivered citrus fruit to
825various citrus processing facilities and packing houses in
833Central Florida during the 1999 - 2000 citrus fruit season.
8435. During the 1999 - 2000 citrus fruit season, Roe & Sons
855operated a packing house in Winter Haven, Florida, and regularly
865purchased citrus fruit for the fresh fruit market, and sold
875citrus fruit that it had purchased to other citrus fruit dealers
886such as Five Star.
8906. The Complaint in Case No. 01 - 2495A was filed with the
903Department by Five Star on September 12, 2000, and was timely
914filed in accordance with Subsection 601.66(1), Florida Statutes.
922On January 5, 2001, before the Department referred this matter
932to the Division, Five Star filed its First Amended Complaint
942with the Department.
9457. The Complaint in Ca se No. 01 - 2496A was filed with the
959Department by Roe & Sons on November 10, 2000, and was timely
971filed in accordance with Subsection 601.66(1), Florida Statutes.
9798. On December 6, 1999, Roe & Sons and Five Star entered
991into a Participation Marketing Agr eement, Contract No. B233Q,
1000for tangerines wherein Roe & Sons was to purchase Sunburst
1010Tangerines from Five Star. Roe & Sons purchased 2,124 boxes of
1022Sunburst Tangerines from Five Star for which Roe & Sons paid
1033Five Star $23,534.84. There is no disagreem ent as to these
1045tangerines. However, Five Star contends that the tangerines
1053supported by Trip Ticket Nos. 225488, 225489, 225490, 225491,
1062and 225492 were delivered to Roe & Sons but that Five Star did
1075not receive payment. Roe & Sons has no Trip Ticket re ceipts or
1088any other record indicating that these tangerines were delivered
1097to Roe & Sons. However, Larry Thompson of Five Star testified
1108that Trip Ticket Nos. 225488, 225489, and 225490 were filled out
1119by the harvester and that he was present when the tan gerines
1131represented by those Trip Tickets were delivered to Roe & Sons.
1142Thompson also testified that he filled out Trip Ticket Nos.
1152225491 and 225492 and was present when the tangerines
1161represented by those Trip Tickets were delivered to Roe & Sons.
1172The Trip Tickets indicate that the tangerines were being
1181delivered to Roe & Sons under Contract No. B233Q. Copies of the
1193Trip Tickets along with the testimony of Larry Thompson, which
1203is credible, is sufficient to show that the tangerines
1212represented by Trip Tickets Nos. 225488, 225489, 225490, 225491,
1221and 225492 were delivered to Roe & Sons, notwithstanding that
1231Roe & Sons has no records of these tangerines being delivered to
1243Roe & Sons by Five Star. Therefore, Roe & Sons owes Five Star
1256$8,645.67 for the tan gerines represented by Trip Ticket Nos.
1267225488, 225489, 225490, 225491, and 225492. However, Five Star
1276stipulated that it owed Roe & Sons $2,667.60 for 684 boxes of
1289tangerines delivered to Five Star by Roe & Sons on January 13,
13012000. The adjusted amount owed Five Star by Roe & Sons for
1313tangerines is $5,978.07.
13179. On February 11, 2000, Roe & Sons and Five Star entered
1329into a Fresh Cash Purchase Agreement, Contract No. B333S,
1338wherein Roe & Sons agreed to purchase an estimated 25,000 boxes
1350of Marsh whi te grapefruit from Five Star for an agreed price of
1363$1.35 Per Pound Solids (PPS) Gross. Contract No. B333S
1372contained the following Special Clauses: "FRUIT MUST BE A
1381MINIMUM 10.00 BRIX AND 9.00 RATIO. PRICE FOR FRUIT NOT MEETING
1392THIS MINIMUM SCORE WILL BE NEGOTIATED AS THE LOADS ARE
1402RECEIVED." The "Movement Date" under Contract No. B333S was to
1412be "SEASONAL," which the parties stipulated meant that there was
1422no specified date for delivery, only that the grapefruit was to
1433be delivered during the 1999/2000 season. Contract No. B333S
1442also contained the following clause: "Fruit not meeting
1450contract ratio or brix requirements but otherwise suitable to
1459BUYER will be discounted by .10 per unit measure P/S or returned
1471to SELLER at BUYER's sole discretion."
147710. On March 31, 2000, Roe & Sons entered into a second
1489Agreement, Contract No. B376B, wherein Roe & Sons agreed to
1499purchase an estimated 7,000 boxes of Marsh white grapefruit from
1510Five Star for an agreed price of $1.50 PPS Gross. Contract No.
1522B376B contained the following special clause: "Must be 10 Brix
1532and 9 Ratio minimum or $0.15 PPS Penalty." Although Contract
1542No. B376B contained no Movement Date, the parties agreed that
1552the grapefruit was to be delivered during the 1999/2000 season.
156211. Morgan Roe tes tified that when Roe & Sons entered into
1574multiple contracts with the same party to furnish citrus fruit
1584during same season, Roe & Sons had an unwritten internal policy,
1595which required the other party to the multiple contracts with
1605Roe & Sons to fulfill the requirements of the first contract
1616before Roe & Sons would accept citrus fruit under any subsequent
1627contract. Roe & Sons did not make Five Star aware of this
1639unwritten internal policy at the time that either the first or
1650second contract was executed by F ive Star. Likewise, neither
1660the first nor the second contract contained any language which
1670would require Five Star to fulfill the first contract before Roe
1681& Sons would be required to accept grapefruit under the second
1692contract.
169312. Between March 28, 200 0 and May 9, 2000, Five Star
1705delivered 7,649 boxes of white grapefruit to Roe & Sons. Five
1717Star contends that Roe & Sons owes Five Star $43,614.77 after
1729adjustments for unloading charges and research and advertising
1737taxes for the grapefruit delivered. Ro e & Sons contends that it
1749owes Five Star $40,106.96 after adjustments for unloading
1758charges and research and advertising taxes for the grapefruit
1767Five Star delivered. Five Star contends that the majority of
1777the grapefruit was delivered under Contract No. B376B and that
1787Five Star should have been paid $1.50 PPS for the grapefruit
1798delivered under Contract No. B376B. However, only Trip Ticket
1807Nos. 48433, 48434, 77569, 77570, 77571, 77572, and 77573 were
1817specifically marked as being delivered under Contract N o. B376B,
1827which Five Star contends it should have been paid $1.50 per
1838pound solids since this grapefruit met all the specifications of
1848the contract. However, Roe & Sons contends that since Five
1858Star's commitment under Contract No. B333S had not been total ly
1869fulfilled, Roe & Sons was only required to pay Five Star $1.35
1881per pound solids for all of the grapefruit delivered between
1891March 28, 2000 and May 9, 2000, notwithstanding that some of the
1903Trip Tickets indicated that the grapefruit was being delivered
1912u nder Contract B376B. Roe & Sons' contention was based on its
1924internal policy that the first contract, Contract No. B333S, had
1934to be fulfilled before Roe & Sons was required to honor the
1946second contract, Contract No. B376B. There is insufficient
1954evidence to support Roe & Sons' contention that its internal
1964policy is an industry standard, notwithstanding the testimony of
1973W. A. Alford to the contrary, which lacks credibility. Roe &
1984Sons has failed to show that Five Star was required to fulfill
1996Contract No. B 333S before Roe & Sons was required to accept
2008fruit under Contract No. B376B. Roe & Sons should have allowed
2019Five Star $1.50 PPS for the grapefruit delivered under Contract
2029No. B376B. Five Star conceded that none of the other Trip
2040Tickets indicated that the grapefruit was being delivered under
2049Contract No. B376B. Therefore, Roe & Sons' Net Return amount
2059should be adjusted upwards to account for the difference ($0.15)
2069in the price PPS for the above listed Trip Tickets. After
2080adjustment (13,497.78 PS x $0 .15 PPS = $2,024.67), Roe & Sons
2094owes Five Star the sum of $42,131.63 ($40,106.96 $2,024.67)
2106for the grapefruit delivered under Contract Nos. B333S and
2115B376B. Other than the adjustment for the difference in PPS, Roe
2126& Sons Net Return amount is correct. Five Star's Net Return
2137amount incorrectly takes credit for grapefruit at $1.50 PPS that
2147was not delivered under Contract B376B and fails to take credit
2158for grapefruit delivered to Roe & Sons on May 9, 2000, under
2170Trip Ticket Nos. 4134 and 212720.
217613. Fiv e Star contends that Roe & Sons' cull adjustment
2187was excessive and that Roe & Sons owed Five Star $1,688.52 for
2200excessive cull adjustment. Five Star's contracts with Roe &
2209Sons provides that Roe & Sons has the right to reject unsuitable
2221fruit. Although Five Star presented testimony as to what might
2231constitute "excessive cull adjustment," it failed to present
2239sufficient evidence to show that the "culled fruit" was suitable
2249and that Roe & Sons' "cull adjustment" was excessive.
2258Therefore, Five Star is not entitled to any adjustment for cull
2269adjustment.
227014. Roe & Sons contends that sometime around April 11,
22802000, Larry Thompson for Five Star and William Roe for Roe &
2292Sons entered into an oral contract wherein Five Star was to
2303purchase 30,000 boxes of field run ruby red grapefruit with a
23159.00 ratio at a price of $1.20 PPS. Roe & Sons reduced these
2328terms to writing and designated it as Contract S2057. Roe &
2339Sons also contends that sometime around April 14, 2000, Larry
2349Thompson for Five Star and William Roe f or Roe & Sons entered
2362into an oral contract wherein Five Star was to purchase 15,000
2374boxes of elimination red grapefruit at a price of $1.10 PPS.
2385Roe & Sons reduced these terms to writing and designated it as
2397Contract S2060. Larry Thompson testified that he refused to
2406agree to, or to sign, either of these alleged contracts on the
2418basis that he did not agree to handle any specific quantity
2429(number of boxes) of red grapefruit for Roe & Sons. Larry
2440Thompson testified that he agreed to handle some (no specif ic
2451quantity) of red grapefruit for Roe & Sons at the price and
2463specifications stated. Based on Larry Thompson's testimony,
2470which is credible, there was never any valid contract, oral or
2481otherwise, wherein Five Star agreed to purchase a specific
2490quantity ( boxes) of red grapefruit from Roe & Sons,
2500notwithstanding William Roe's testimony to the contrary, which
2508lacks credibility in this regard, or the fact that Five Star did
2520purchase a number of boxes of red grapefruit from Roe & Sons,
2532for which Five Star agre es that it owes Roe & Sons.
254415. Between April 12, 2000 and April 20, 2000, Five Star
2555purchased some 2,760 boxes of red grapefruit at a price of $1.10
2568PPS, represented by ticket nos. 71146, 71149, 64019, 64024, and
257864585. The total PPS of the boxes was 13 ,094.44 for a gross
2591price of $14,403.88 (13,094.44 PS x $1.10 PPS = $14,403.88).
2604After adjusting the gross price for hauling and unloading
2613charges and advertising tax, the total amount owed Roe & Sons by
2625Five Star was $10,972.86.
263016. Between April 12, 20 00 and April 20, 2000, Five Star
2642purchased some 4,355 boxes of red grapefruit at a price of $1.20
2655PPS, represented by ticket nos. 214720, 214721, 71147, 71148,
266471150, 214722, 214723, 214724, and 214725. The total PPS of the
2675boxes was 21,387.92 for a gros s price of $25,665.50 (21,387.92
2689PS x $1.20 PPS = $25,665.50). After adjusting the gross price
2701for hauling and unloading charges and research and advertising
2710tax, the total amount owed Roe & Sons by Five Star was
2722$21,621.11.
272417. Five Star alleged that it owed Roe & Sons the sum of
2737$32,593.97. However, Five Star stipulated that Roe & Sons
2747should be given credit for $4,336.37 in hauling charges paid by
2759Roe & Sons, which brings the total owed to Roe & Sons for red
2773grapefruit by Five Star to $36,930.34.
278018. Subsequent to the purchase of the above red grapefruit
2790by Five Star from Roe & Sons, Five Star advised Roe & Sons that
2804Five Star would not be purchasing any more red grapefruit from
2815Roe & Sons. As a result of this decision by Five Star, Roe &
2829Sons advised Five Star that Five Star could continue to deliver
2840white grapefruit under Contract Nos. B333S and B376B, but that
2850any monies due Five Star for grapefruit delivered on theses
2860contracts would be applied against any damages suffered by Roe &
2871Sons for Five St ar's failure to honor the alleged oral contracts
2883to purchase red grapefruit from Roe & Sons.
289119. As a result of Roe & Sons' position concerning the
2902alleged oral contracts, Five Star made no further deliveries of
2912white grapefruit to Roe & Sons under Contra ct Nos. B333S and
2924B376B. Instead, Five Star sold the white grapefruit that was to
2935be delivered to Roe & Sons under Contract Nos. B333S and B376B
2947to Silver Springs Citrus at a much reduced rate PPS due to the
2960decline in the grapefruit market in what Five S tar described as
2972an attempt to mitigate damages under Contract Nos. B333S and
2982B376B.
298320. Five Star alleged that Roe & Sons owed Five Star
2994$4,822.31 for 840 boxes of temple oranges purchased by Roe &
3006Sons. However, Five Star stipulated that Roe & Sons was
3016entitled to a credit of $355.58 due to an accounting error by
3028Five Star. The adjusted amount owed to Five Star for temple
3039oranges by Roe & Sons is $4,466,73.
304821. Roe & Sons alleged in its First Affirmative Defense to
3059Five Star's Complaint that the parti es had reached a settlement
3070of their respective claims. However, based on the testimony of
3080Larry Thompson denying that a settlement had been reached, which
3090is credible in this regard, and the fact that the check for the
3103amount of the alleged settlement wa s never received or
3113negotiated by Five Star, supports Five Star's position that the
3123parties had not reached a settlement.
312922. In its Second Affirmative Defense, Roe & Sons alleged
3139that Five Star breached Contract No. B333S by failing to deliver
3150white gra pefruit in accordance with the specifications set forth
3160in the contract. Roe & Sons failed to present sufficient
3170evidence to support this affirmative defense.
317623. Roe & Sons' Third Affirmative Defense, Setoff, and
3185Counterclaim to Five Star's Complaint is based on Five Star's
3195breach of the alleged oral red grapefruit contracts. Roe & Sons
3206failed to present sufficient evidence to show that the alleged
3216oral red grapefruit contracts were in fact valid contracts.
322524. Roe & Sons alleges in its Complaint filed in
3235Case No. 01 - 2496A that Five Star breached the alleged oral
3247contracts for red grapefruit. Roe & Sons failed to present
3257sufficient evidence to show that the alleged oral red grapefruit
3267contracts were in fact valid contracts.
3273CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
327625. The Division has jurisdiction over the parties and the
3286subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1),
3295Florida Statutes.
329726. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the
3308affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal.
3316Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. ,
3324396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Therefore, Five Star must
3336prove by a preponderance of the evidence the allegations
3345contained in its First Amended Complaint. Likewise, Roe & Sons
3355must prove by a p reponderance of the evidence the allegations
3366contained in its Complaint. Department of Banking and Finance,
3375Division of Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern
3384and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996), and Subsection
3394120.57(1)(j), Florida Statu tes.
339827. There was no mutual agreement as to the material terms
3409of the alleged red grapefruit contracts between Five Star and
3419Roe & Sons. Particularly, there was no agreement as to the
3430quantity of red grapefruit that Five Star was to purchase under
3441the alleged contract. Therefore, there was no valid enforceable
3450contract as to the red grapefruit. See Winter Haven Citrus
3460Growers Association v. Campbell & Sons Fruit Company , 773 So. 2d
347196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Without a valid contract, Roe & Sons'
3483request for a Setoff or Counterclaim claimed in its answer to
3494Five Star's First Amended Complaint fails. Likewise, Roe &
3503Sons' Complaint alleging damages due to Five Star's breach of
3513the red grapefruit contact for its failure to purchase a certain
3524quantity of red grapefruit fails.
352928. Five Star has met its burden to show that it is
3541entitled to payment from Roe & Sons as follows:
3550Tangerines $ 5,978.07
3554White Grapefruit $42,131.63
3558Temple Oranges $ 4,466,73
3564Total $52,576.43
3567Minus Amount Owed Roe
3571& Sons for red
3575grapefruit $36,930.34
3578Net owed to Five Star
3583by Roe & Sons $15,646.09
358929. Five Star claims that it is entitled to damages due to
3601the breach of Contract Nos. B333S and B376B for the purchase of
3613a certain number of boxes of white grapefruit by Roe & Sons.
3625However, assuming arguendo that Roe & Sons breached the above
3635referenced contracts, Five Star's attempt to mitigate damages
3643was inappropriate . Since Roe & Sons agreed to continue
3653accepting the white grapefruit from Five Star under Contract
3662Nos. B333S and B376B with the account showing a credit to Five
3674Star for damages under the alleged red grapefruit contracts, the
3684more appropriate approach wo uld have been to continue delivery
3694of the white grapefruit and receive a credit for the full price
3706under the contracts, and negotiate or litigate the validity of
3716the alleged red grapefruit contracts and Roe & Sons alleged
3726breach of the white grapefruit con tracts. Due to a declining
3737red grapefruit market, Five Star's approach to mitigation of
3746damages resulted in damages being created rather than mitigated.
3755RECOMMENDATION
3756Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
3766Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and
3776Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Roe & Sons to
3787pay Five Star the sum of $15,646.09 and denying Five Star any
3800damages in regard to Contract Nos. B333S and B376B. It is
3811further recommended that Roe & Sons be denied any relief in
3822regards to the alleged red grapefruit contracts.
3829DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2002, in
3839Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
3843____________________________________
3844WILLIAM R . CAVE
3848Administrative Law Judge
3851Division of Administrative Hearings
3855The DeSoto Building
38581230 Apalachee Parkway
3861Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
3866(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675
3874Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6947
3880www.doah.state.fl.us
3881Filed with the Clerk of the
3887Division of Administrative Hearings
3891this 5th day of March, 2002.
3897COPIES FURNISHED :
3900Hank B. Campbell, Esquire
3904Gray, Harris, Robinson, Lane, Trohn
3909Post Office Box 3
3913Lakeland, Florida 33802
3916United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
39224311 West Waters Avenue, Suite 401
3928Tampa, Florida 33614
3931Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief
3936Bureau of License and Bond
3941Department of Agriculture
3944and Consumer Services
3947541 East Tennessee Street
3951India Building
3953Tallahassee, Florida 32308
3956Richard Ditschler, Gen eral Counsel
3961Department of Agriculture
3964and Consumer Services
3967The Capitol, Plaza Level 10
3972Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0810
3977Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire
3982Peterson & Myers, P.A.
3986141 5th Street, Northwest
3990Post Office Drawer 7608
3994Winter Haven, Florida 33883
3998H. Christopher Thompkins, II, Esquire
40031706 South Kings Avenue
4007Brandon, Florida 33509 - 6216
4012Jack P. James, Esquire
4016Post Office Box 3
4020Lakeland, Florida 33802
4023Honorable Charles H. Bronson
4027Commissioner of Agriculture
4030Department of Agriculture
4033an d Consumer Services
4037The Capitol, Plaza Level 10
4042Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0810
4047NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4053All parties have the right to submit exceptions within 15 days
4064from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this
4075Recomme nded Order should be filed with the agency that will
4086issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 03/05/2002
- Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held November 7, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/05/2002
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/25/2002
- Proceedings: Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, Wm. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/25/2002
- Proceedings: Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, Wm. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/07/2002
- Proceedings: Respondent`s, WM. G. Roe & Sons, Inc., Proposed Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/14/2002
- Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
- Date: 11/28/2001
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
- Date: 11/07/2001
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/04/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Bay Park Reporting from S. Carver confirming the request for court reporter services for hearing on November 7, 2001 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/11/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Cave from H. C. Tompkins, II in reply to Initial Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/10/2001
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for November 7, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Winter Haven, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/07/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Cave from d. Lockwood, III in reply to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/05/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Cave from D. Lockwood, III in reply to Order Granting Continuance (filed via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/17/2001
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance issued (parties to advise status by September 5, 2001).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/15/2001
- Proceedings: Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing (filed by W. G. Roe & Sons, Inc. via facsimile).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/06/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to C. Wentworth from S. Carver regarding address change filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/06/2001
- Proceedings: Letter to C. Bowman from S. Carver confirmation for services of a court reporter filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/17/2001
- Proceedings: Order of Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 01-002495A, 01-002496A)
- PDF:
- Date: 06/27/2001
- Proceedings: Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, WM. G. Roe &Sons, Inc. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/27/2001
- Proceedings: Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim of Respondent, WM. G. Roe &Sons, Inc. filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- WILLIAM R. CAVE
- Date Filed:
- 06/27/2001
- Date Assignment:
- 06/27/2001
- Last Docket Entry:
- 12/03/2004
- Location:
- Winter Haven, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
Counsels
-
Auto Owners Insurance Company
Address of Record -
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
Address of Record -
Douglas A Lockwood, III, Esquire
Address of Record -
Christopher Thompkins, II, Esquire
Address of Record -
Douglas A Lockwood, Esquire
Address of Record