05-001732 Robert Donovan Construction Inc. vs. Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Workers' Compensation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 29, 2005.

Summary: Petitioner considered the subcontractors` certificates of insurance as proof that workers` comp. insurance had been secured. Respondent cannot treat both the general contractor and subcontractors as employers in determining responsibility for insurance.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION )

INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 05 - 1732

)

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' )

COMPENSATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative

Hearings, by its designated Administrative Law Judge, P. Michael

Ruff, held a final hearing in the above - styled case in Shalimar,

Florida, on August 24, 2005. T he appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael William Mead, Esquire

Post Office Drawer 1329

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549

For Respondent: David C. Hawkins, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be resolved in this pro ceeding concern

whether the Petitioner properly secured the payment of workers'

compensation benefits for employees by securing proper workers'

compensation insurance coverage, as delineated by Subsection

440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2004) and, if not, wh at if any

penalty for such failure is warranted.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arose when a Stop Work Order (05 - 072 - 1A) (SWO)

was issued by the Respondent Agency requiring the Petitioner

Robert Donovan Construction, Inc. (Petitioner) (Donovan) to ceas e

business operations because of alleged failure to obtain proper

workers' compensation insurance coverage as provided in the

workers' compensation law Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, at the

Petitioner's Florida job site. The Respondent issued an Amended

O rder of Penalty Assessment (AOPA) assessing a penalty in the

amount of $76,945.90 pursuant to Subsections 440.107(3)(d) and

(7), Florida Statutes (2004.)

The Petitioner elected to contest the SWO and penalty

assessment by filing a petition for hearing. The Petition was

referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and

ultimately to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed. The Respondent

presented the testimony of two witnesses at the final hearing,

Ra lph Taylor, the Respondent's investigator and Maureen Haxton, a

senior underwriter with Auto Owners Insurance Company, who

testified by deposition. The Respondent introduced 23 exhibits

which were admitted into evidence. The Petitioner presented the

test imony of William J. Grubbs, a construction manager with DH

Corporation, and Keith Cowart, an insurance agent, who testified

via deposition. Additionally, the Petitioner introduced three

exhibits which were admitted into evidence. Upon conclusion of

the h earing the parties ordered a transcript and requested an

extended period to file proposed recommended orders. Thus

Proposed Recommended Orders were timely filed on September 22,

2005, and have been considered in the rendition of this

Recommended Order.

FI NDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner in this proceeding is a Florida

corporation engaged in the construction industry. Its business

domicile is Destin, Florida, and the job site at issue was in the

town of Cinco Bayou, Florida. The Respondent is an agency of the

State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter

440, Florida Statutes, specifically Section 440.107, Florida

Statutes (2004), requiring employers to secure the payment of

compensation benefits for employees in the event they have an on -

the - job injury. In this proceeding the Respondent has charged

that the Petitioner failed to abide by the workers' compensation

insurance coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes,

regarding two subcontractors, Scott Williams, d/b/a Viny l

Masters, LLC, (Williams) domiciled in Alburn, Alabama, and J & L

Concrete a/k/a Moses Construction, Inc., (J & L) of Liliburn,

Georgia.

2. There is no dispute that the Petitioner did not have its

own workers' compensation insurance policy as of Februar y 10,

2005. The most recent policy ended July 2, 2003. The Petitioner

thus did not itself secure payment of workers' compensation on

behalf of Williams or J & L during the period of proposed penalty

assessment, September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005 .

3. The Petitioner was the general contractor engaged to

perform construction operations at 1028 Anniston Court, Cinco

Bayou, Florida (job site), on February 10, 2005, the date of the

investigator's inspection visit and investigation. The

Petitioner was sub - contracting certain vinyl siding work at that

job site to Williams, a subcontractor.

4. The Respondent's investigator, Ralph Taylor, conducted

his investigation at the job site and observed four workers

installing vinyl siding. Upon investigati on he determined that

the four workers were employed by Williams in this effort and

identified the workers as Juan Oriz, Noe Mendieta, Jose Palma,

and Jose Aboyte.

5. Mr. Taylor's investigation revealed that Williams did

not have a current workers' compe nsation exemption applicable to

Florida law nor did he have a Florida workers' compensation

insurance policy. He determined this by examination of the

Respondent's data base, the Coverage and Compliance Automated

System (CCAS). Williams informed Mr. Tayl or, however, that he

had obtained a policy of workers' compensation insurance through

the Cruchfield Insurance Agency of Birmingham, Alabama. A

facsimile of the declaration page from a workers' compensation

insurance policy issued by Alabama Home Builders Self Insurance

Fund to Vinyl Masters, LLC (Williams) was transmitted to

Mr. Taylor by a representative of the Cruchfield Insurance Agency

of Birmingham.

6. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees

engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida policy or

endorsement for such employees which employs Florida class codes,

rates, rules, and manuals that are in compliance with the

provisions of Chapter 440 as well as the Florida Insurance Code.

See § 440.10(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2004). Florid a Administrative

Code Rule 69L - 6.019(2) requires that in order for an employer to

comply with Sections 440.10(1)(g) and 440(38)(7), Florida

Statutes, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove

the fact of workers' compensation coverage for empl oyees engaged

in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid

certificate of authority in the State of Florida.

7. The insurance policy held by Williams did not satisfy

the standard. First, the Alabama Home Builders self - insurance

fund i s not authorized to write insurance in Florida. Secondly,

the premium was based on a rate that was less than the Florida

premium rate. The policy declaration page shows that Alabama

Home Builders insured Vinyl Master effective January 1, 2005, for

carpen try operations under class code 5645 at a premium of $20.58

per $100 of payroll. The premium rate using Florida rates for

that same class code should have been $38.40 for $100 of payroll.

Thus Vinyl Masters/Williams was not in compliance with the

coverag e law requirements at that job site at the time of the

investigation on February 10, 2005.

8. Employers employing on job sites in Florida are required

to keep business records that enable the Respondent to determine

whether the employer is in complianc e with the workers'

compensation law. § 440.107(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). Investigator

Taylor issued a request for production of business records to

Williams on February 10, 2005. That same date the Respondent

issued a request for production of business re cords to the

Petitioner. Each request asked the employer to produce, for the

preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll, payments

to each subcontractor, and proof of insurance. Williams produced

no records. The Petitioner produced no record s related to

employment of Williams or Vinyl Masters.

9. When an employer fails to provide requested business

records which the statutes requires it to maintain and to make

available to the Respondent Agency, the Respondent is authorized

to impute that employer's payroll using "the statewide average

weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), multiplied by l.5."

§ 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. (2004). The statewide average weekly

wage for the four quarters beginning June 30, 2004, was $651.38.

10. T he Respondent thus could have imputed payroll for the

entire three - year period for which it requested business records

which were not produced. The Respondent imputed payroll however,

for a lesser period, January 11, through February 10, 2005. This

corre sponds to the one - month period that the four Williams

workers had told Investigator Taylor that they had worked "in the

area."

11. The amount that the Petitioner would have paid in

premium under Section 440.107(7)(e), Florida Statutes (2004),

based on pa yroll imputed from the statewide average weekly wage

of $651.38 for work under class code 5651, during the period

January 11, through February 10, 2005, multiplied by the

statutory multiplier factor of 1.5, yields a penalty amount of

$5,629.52.

12. In any event, Williams did not properly secure the

payment of compensation for Williams or the four workers in

question, named above. Under Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida

Statutes, (2004), the Petitioner could became the "statutory

employer" of Williams a nd its workers if Williams, the

subcontractor, had not secured the payment of workers'

compensation.

13. The credible evidence at hearing reveals, however, that

Williams has already entered into a payment agreement with the

Respondent to pay the subject penalty, referenced above,

concerning Williams' failure to have "Florida - complaint" workers'

compensation coverage properly secured for Florida workers and

Florida operations. Additionally, the testimony of Mr. Grubbs,

the manager for the Petition er (which is accepted), reveals that

the four workers in question only worked three days at most.

Moreover, their hourly wage rate was only $15.00 per hour.

Therefore, although the Petitioner supplied no business records

in advance to the investigator re garding the subcontractor,

Williams, which might allow the Respondent to impute payroll

based on average weekly wage for calculation for a penalty under

the applicable statutory authority; in this de novo proceeding

context, the Petitioner did supply sworn testimony and records

showing the actual wage rate and time worked for these employees,

thus obviating use of the average weekly wage and imputed payroll

for penalty calculation.

14. Additionally, the Petitioner showed, through the

testimony of Mr . Grubbs, that indeed the Petitioner had a

certificate of insurance showing, to the best of Petitioner's

knowledge at the time, that Williams had secured the payment of

workers' compensation through the Alabama insurance carrier,

named above, in accordance with accepted industry practice. Thus

the Petitioner was under a good faith, reasonable belief that

this subcontractor, Williams, had secured proper payment of

workers' compensation coverage at the time the Petitioner engaged

Williams as a subcontractor on the job - site in question.

15. In summary, in view of these facts the assessment of

penalty to the Petitioner is incorrect. The Investigator,

Mr. Taylor's, testimony itself shows that had he known that the

workers only worked for three days, the penal ty should only be

based upon that amount of work or hours applied to the penalty

calculation formula. Because Williams has undertaken and agreed

to pay the penalty in question for not properly securing workers'

compensation coverage, no penalty is justifi ably assessed against

the Petitioner. If that were done the Respondent, in effect,

would be treating both Williams and the Petitioner as employers

of the same employees simultaneously, for the same job and

occurrence. No evidence justifying this, given t he relevant

statutory scheme and case law, has been adduced.

Subcontractor J & L Concrete

16. In response to the Respondent's request for business

records from the Petitioner concerning subcontractor J & L

Concrete, the Petitioner produced ledgers showin g payments to

J & L. The Petitioner contracted with J & L during the period

September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005. During that period

it paid J & L $155,413.98 for labor under class code 5403.

17. During this period of time J & L had a work ers'

compensation policy covering its employees issued by Auto Owners

Insurance Company of Lansing, Michigan (Auto Owners). The

testimony of Maureen Haxton, a senior underwriter in the workers'

compensation underwriting department of Auto Owners, confirme d

that a policy endorsement was issued which took effect on

July 13, 2004. That endorsement listed the State of Georgia in

item 3A but did not list the State of Florida in item 3A. Auto

Owners later issued a policy endorsement on May 10, 2005, that

added Florida to item 3A, effective on March 18, 2005.

18. The later endorsement issued by Auto Owners was not

effective on February 10, 2005, when the SWO was issued to the

Petitioner. The penalty sought to be assessed against the

Petitioner for work attr ibutable to J & L, based upon Section

440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes (2004), is based on

remuneration paid by the Petitioner to J & L for work under class

code 5403 for period September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005.

19. Keith Cowart is an authori zed insurance agent for Auto

Owners Insurance Company. His agency is located in

Lawrenceville, Georgia. He originally issued a workers'

compensation policy to J & L in July of 2002 and a current policy

is in effect for J & L to and including July 2006 and was in

effect during the penalty assessment period.

20. Mr. Cowart testified that had an employee in Florida

suffered an injury on or before February 10, 2005, that the

employee would have received workers' compensation benefits from

Auto Owners an d that employees injured in Florida would have

received the level of benefits required by Florida law. Cowart

indicated in his testimony that there are annual audits of J & L,

under their contractual arrangement, by Auto Owners, to determine

how much of i ts payroll is attributable to work conducted in

Florida for workers' compensation insurance premium purposes.

The J & L payroll is audited annually and J & L is billed a

premium rate based upon Florida work and payroll and premium

rates for workers' compe nsation insurance attributable to work

done by its employees in the State of Florida. J & L is thus

charged a higher premium for employees working in Florida and is

obligated to pay that Florida premium rate. J & L previously

paid $40,000.00 in payroll f or Florida workers on Florida jobs

and was billed Florida premium rates for workers' compensation

coverage based upon that payroll after an annual audit. It was

projected for the year 2005 - 2006 J & L would owe premiums for at

least $70,000.00 of workers' compensation payroll in Florida and

had paid premiums due for workers' compensation coverage in the

past for Florida job workers based upon Florida premium rates,

according to Mr. Cowart.

21. In summary, the evidence, including Mr. Cowart's sworn

tes timony, establishes that J & L had a workers' compensation

policy coverage in effect during the period of alleged non -

compliance. Mr. Cowart opined that injured Florida employees

during that period of time would have received the benefits

authorized by F lorida law. He established that J & L was charged

Florida premium rates, and pursuant to the audit being conducted

in July 2005, would be charged Florida premium rates for workers,

jobs performed, and payroll attributable to Florida during the

period of t ime in question in this case. Although the

endorsement issued by Auto Owners showing Florida as a listed

state in "item 3A," for purposes of the rule cited below, did not

take effect until after March 18, 2005, the persuasive evidence,

in the form of Mr. Cowart's testimony, shows that J & L had

secured workers' compensation coverage which paid Florida -

mandated benefits at Florida premium rates for workers at Florida

jobs at times pertinent to the SWO. Moreover, the Petitioner

required the sub - contractor J & L to provide evidence of workers'

compensation coverage and relied on that evidence reasonably and

in good faith. It changed its position to its detriment by

continuing to work on the job without securing its own

appropriate coverage.

CONCLUSIONS OF LA W

22. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2004).

23. The Agency has the burden of proving justification for

the SWO and penalty it seeks to assess by clear and convincing

evidence. Department of Banking and Finance Division of

Securities and Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern and Co. , 670

So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). All employers in the State of Florida

as statutorily defined, are required to secure the payment of

workers' compensation for their employees. §§ 440.10(1)(a) and

440.38(1), Fla. Stat. (2004).

24. "Employer" is defined as "every person carrying on any

employment . . ." § 440.02(16), Fla. Stat. (2004). "Employment

. . . means any service performed by an employee for the purpose

of employing 'him or her' and 'with respect to the construction

industry, [includes] all private employment in which one or more

employees are employed by the same employer." § 440.02(17)(a)

a nd (b)2. Fla. Stat. (2004).

25. A contractor is obligated to secure the payment of

workers' compensation for its subcontractor or the employees of

its subcontractor when the subcontractor fails to do so.

Subsections 440.10(1)(b) and (c), Florida Statu tes (2004),

provide pertinently as follows:

(b) In case a contractor sublets any part

or parts of his or her contract work to a

subcontractor or subcontractors all of the

employees of such contractor or

subcontractors engaged in such contract work

shall b e deemed to be employed in one and

the same business or establishment, and the

contractor shall be liable for, and shall

secure, the payment of compensation to all

such employees, except to employees of a

subcontractor who has secured such payment .

(c) A contractor shall require a

subcontractor to provide evidence of

workers' compensation insurance . . . .

(emphasis supplied).

26. Under the circumstance where the subcontractor has not

secured such payment of workers' compensation benefits, the

general c ontractor situated as the Petitioner, can become the

"statutory employer" of both the subcontractor and the

subcontractors employees. See , e.g. , Llluch v. American

Airlines, Inc. , 899 So. 2d 1146, 1147 - 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

27. The Petitioner was the general contractor at the job

site in question and sublet parts of the work to Williams and

J & L. Williams had no valid workers' compensation coverage

since its workers' compensation policy was written with a

carrier who had no authority to issue work ers' compensation

insurance coverage in Florida and which coverage was not shown

to represent the payment of Florida premium rates. The

Petitioner, however, complied with the plain and ordinary

meaning and purpose of Subsection 440.10(1)(c), Florida

Statu tes, by requiring the subcontractor, Williams, to provide

evidence of workers' compensation insurance. It acted in good

faith and reasonably relied on that representation by the

certificate of insurance supplied by Williams. It relied to its

detriment by accepting the "proof" of coverage provided by

Williams and foregoing the obtaining of its own coverage.

28. An employer who elects to secure the payment of

workers' compensation by obtaining a commercial insurance policy

must assure that the policy com ports with Florida law. In

pertinent part the statutes and rules germane to the issue in

this case specify as follows:

Subject to s. 440.38, any employer who has

employees engaged in work in this state

shall obtain a Florida policy or endorsement

for such employees which utilizes Florida

class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that

are in compliance with and approved under

the provisions of this chapter and the

Florida Insurance Code.

See § 440.10(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (2004).

29. Subsection 440.38(7), Flo rida Statutes (2004),

provides in relevant part as follows:

Any employer who meets the requirements of

subsection (1) through a policy of insurance

issued outside of this state must at all

times, with respect to all employees working

in this state, maintai n the required

coverage under a Florida endorsement using

Florida rates and rules pursuant to payroll

reporting that accurately reflects the work

performed in this state by such employees.

30. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L - 6.019(3)(4),

provid es as follows:

(3) In order to comply with Section

440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Florida

Statutes, for any workers' compensation

policy or endorsement presented by an

employer as proof of workers' compensation

coverage for employees engaged in work in

this state:

(a) The policy information page (NCCI Form

#WC00 00 001A) must list 'Florida' in item

3.A. and use Florida approved classification

codes, rates, and estimated payroll in

item 4.

(b) The policy information page endorsement

(NCCI Form #WC89 06 0 0 B) must list

'Florida' in item 3.A. and use Florida

approved classification codes, rates, and

estimated payroll in item 4.

(4) A workers' compensation policy that

lists 'Florida' in item 3.C. of the policy

information page (NCCI Form #WC 00 01 A)

does not meet the requirements of Sections

440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), F.S., and is not

valid proof of workers' compensation

coverage for employees engaged in work in

this state.

31. The above findings of fact reveal that the endorsement

issued by Auto O wners to J & L on October 21, 2004, does not

list Florida in item 3.A., and thus does not comport with the

above - quoted legal requirements. Additionally, the endorsement

issued by Auto Owners on May 10, 2005, effective March 18, 2005,

while it does compor t with Florida legal requirements quoted

above, was not effective until March 18, 2005, and therefore

after the non - compliance/penalty period at issue in this case.

Therefore, J & L Concrete did not have a Florida endorsement

listing Florida in item 3.A o f the policy in question during the

period of non - compliance specified in this case, which was

September 8, 2004 through February 10, 2005.

32. It also true, however, based upon the Auto Owner's

Agent, Mr. Cowart's, testimony that, as found above, wo rkers'

compensation coverage paying a Florida benefit level did exist

in favor of J & L during times pertinent to this case, and that

J & L was obligated to pay Florida premium rates for Florida

jobs for that coverage to Auto Owners (by virtue of its audit

process).

33. In any event, the Petitioner, Donovan, exercised due

diligence in complying with the plain and ordinary meaning and

the purpose of Subsection 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by

requiring both subcontractors, Williams and J & L, to prov ide

evidence of workers' compensation insurance in the form of

certificates of insurance. It reasonably relied on the evidence

of coverage to its detriment by foregoing obtaining its own

coverage for the relevant employees, which the law permits it to

do.

34. The practice of reliance on the face of a certificate

of insurance by a contractor who has been presented with a

purportedly valid certificate of insurance, has been addressed

by the courts within the context of Section 440.10, Florida

Statutes. In Criterion Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering &

Drywall , 582 So. 2d 799, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court

found that an insurance company should have reasonably expected

that a contractor would rely on a certificate of insurance

presented to that contractor:

We find that it was foreseeable to Hartford

that Evans Blount would use the certificate

of insurance as proof of workers'

compensation coverage. First . . . [t]he

certificate of insurance listed both

Criterion and Evans Blount as coinsureds.

The certificate was presented to Gulf Coast

as proof of workers' compensation coverage.

Second, Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes,

requires a general contractor to provide

workers' compensation coverage for a

subcontractor's employees except when the

s ubcontractor already has obtained coverage.

Therefore, Hartford should have reasonably

expected that Gulf Coast would rely on the

certificate of insurance naming Evans Blount

as a coinsured. This promise of coverage

induced Gulf Coast to subcontract with the

Evans Blount.

See also LaCroix Construction Company v. Bush , 471 So. 2d 134,

136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (the court found that the subcontractor

relied on general contractor's representation that it carried

workers' compensation coverage for all employee s who were not

covered by subcontracting and changed his position to his

detriment by continuing to work without procuring appropriate

insurance coverage).

35. Applying the analysis of the court in Criterion

Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering & D rywall and LaCroix

Construction Company v. Bush , supra , the Petitioner reasonably

relied upon the certificates of insurance regarding Williams's

and J & L's coverage. It satisfied the requirements of

Subsection 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

36. Fi nally, the Respondent agency has entered into an

agreement with Williams for it to pay the penalty assessed

related to its four employees regarding the job at issue ( see

the above findings regarding the actual wage rate and days

worked). The Respondent in this proceeding also seeks to impose

the same penalty on the Petitioner. It is thus effectively

seeking to treat both Williams and the Petitioner as the

employer of the identical workers for the identical job and time

period. There is nothing in the sta tutes relied on by the

Respondent that authorizes the Respondent to define two

businesses as the employer of the same employees or that

requires an employee to be covered by two employers, which is

essentially what the Respondent is doing by also seeking t o

impose the penalty on the Petitioner for the same situation for

which it has imposed it on Williams. Pursuant to Section

440.10, two businesses cannot be defined as the employer for the

same workers for the same job. Therefore, no penalty is

warranted for Petitioner Donovan. See Department of Financial

Services, Division of Workers' Compensation v. AFS LLC , DOAH

Case No. 05 - 0958 (Recommended Order: August 26, 2005).

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, th e evidence of record, the candor and

demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of

the parties, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent

Agency rescinding Stop Work Order number 05 - 0721 - 1A issued to

the Petitioner on February 10, 2005, and the Amended Order of

Penalty Assessment issued to the Petitioner on March 30, 2005.

DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2005, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

P. M ICHAEL RUFF

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of th e

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 29th day of November, 2005.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael William Mead, Esquire

Post Office Drawer 1329

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549

David C. Hawkins, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Le gal Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4229

Honorable Tom Gallagher

Chief Financial Officer

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to t his Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.