09-004714PL Department Of Financial Services vs. Clyde Janner Holliday, Iii Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, October 15, 2010.

Summary: Wholesale brokers collected premiums from retail agents, but failed to remit the premiums to the insurance company or the program managers for the insurance company.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09 - 4714PL

)

CLYDE JANNER HOLLIDAY, III , )

)

Respondent . )

)

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 09 - 5323PL

)

CLYDE JANNER HOLLIDAY, IV, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in th e s e case s

on January 28 and February 1 and 22 , 2010, by video

teleconference in Tallahassee and Lakeland, Florida, and on

June 30, 2010, in Lakeland, Florida, before Susan B. Harrell, a

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David J. Busch, Esquire

Melinda Hilton Butler, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0333

For Respondent s : Sarah H. Dennis, E squire

411 Lithia Pinecrest Road

Brandon, Florida 33511

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are whether Respondents violated

Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and

626.611(13), Florida Statutes (2008) , 1 and, if so, what

discipline should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 11, 2009, Petitioner, Department of Financial

Services (Department), filed a six - count Administrative

Complaint against Respondent, Clyde Janner Hollid ay, III

(Mr. Holliday, III), and a six - count Administrative Complaint

against Clyde Janner Holliday, IV (Mr. Holliday, IV). Both

Administrative Complaints alleged that Respondents violated

Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and

626.611(13), Florida Statutes. Respondents requested

administrative hearings, and the cases were forwarded to the

Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an

Administrative Law Judge to conduct the final hearings. By

Order dated October 15, 2009, the ca ses were consolidated.

The cases were scheduled for final hearing on December 9,

and 10, 2009. The Department filed a motion to continue, which

was granted, and the final hearing was rescheduled for

January 28, 2010, but was continued because certain exhi bits had

been filed untimely. The final hearing reconvened but was not

concluded on February 1, 2010. The f inal h earing was reconvened

on February 22, 2010, and Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 were

admitted in evidence. The f inal h earing was not concluded on

February 22, 2010, and, after several continuances, the final

hearing was reconvened and concluded on June 30, 2010.

At the final hearing, the Department presented the

deposition testimony of Carla Jinks, Donald Kaitz, Maria

Castellanos, Joseph Valunta s, and Scott Garner. Petitioner's

Exhibits 1 through 6 and 8 were admitted in evidence.

Petitioner's Exhibit 7 was proffered, but not admitted. At the

final hearing, Respondents testified on their own behalf.

Respondent s ' Exhibit 1 was admitted in evid ence.

The portions of the final hearing conducted on February 1,

2010, and June 30, 2010, were transcribed and were filed on

February 24, 2010, and July 19, 2010. The parties requested

that they be allowed to file their proposed recommended orders

45 days after the last T ranscript was filed. Their request was

granted. The Department filed its Proposed Recommended Order on

August 31, 2010. As of the date of this Recommended Order,

Respondents have not filed a proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to the allegations in the

Administrative Complaints, Mr. Holliday, III, was a licensed

Florida surplus lines (1 - 20) agent, a life and health (2 - 18)

agent, a general lines (property and casualty) (2 - 20) agent, an

independent adjust er (5 - 20), and agent in charge at

International Brokerage and Surplus Lines, Inc. (IBSL).

Mr. Holliday, III, h a d been associated with IBSL since its

inception in 1993.

2. At all times material to the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, IV, was licensed in

Florida as a general lines (2 - 20) agent.

3. At all times material to the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint, Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Holliday,

IV, were officers and owners of IBSL. Most recently,

Mr. Holliday, II I, was the secretary of IBSL. He handled the

underwriting and risk placement for the agency.

4. From approximately March 1993 to April 2009,

Mr. Holliday, IV, was the president of IBSL. As president of

IBSL, Mr. Holliday, IV's, duties included signing a greements

which established IBSL's business function as that of a general

managing agent and signing agreements which empowered IBSL to

collect premiums on behalf of insureds.

5. IBSL ceased doing business on May 1, 2009.

6. In the insurance industry, a common method of procuring

insurance involves a retail producer, a wholesale broker , and a

program manager. A customer desiring insurance contacts its

local insurance agent, which is known as a retail producer, and

applies for insurance. The retail produ cer has a producer

agreement with a wholesale broker, who has a producer agreement

with a program manager. The program manager r epresents

insurance companies.

7. The retail producer sends the customer's application to

the wholesale broker, and the wholes ale broker contacts the

program manager and forwards the application to the program

manager. The program manager will provide a quote if the

insurance company is willing to insure the customer. The quote

is passed back to the customer via the wholesale b roker and the

retail producer. If the customer decides to take the insurance,

the program manager will issue a binder to the wholesale broker,

who will submit the binder to the retail producer. The

wholesale broker will issue an invoice for the premium t o the

retail producer.

8. The program manager pays a commission to the wholesale

broker pursuant to its producer agreement with the wholesale

broker, and the wholesale broker pays a commission to the retail

producer pursuant to its producer agreement with the retail

producer. When the retail producer sends the premium payment to

the wholesale broker, the retail producer will deduct its

commission. The wholesale broker sends the premium amount to

the program manager less the wholesale broker's commission.

9. If the customer is unable to pay the entire amount of

the premium, part of the premium may be financed through a

premium finance company. The premium finance company may pay

the premium to the retail produ cer or to the wholesale broker.

10. Internat ional Transportation & Marine Agency, Inc.

(ITMA) , is a program manager and is engaged in the business of

selling, brokering, and servicing certain lines of policies of

insurance written or issued by insurance companies. ITMA is a

program manager for Penn sylvania Manufacturers Insurance

Association (Pennsylvania Manufacturers), an insurance company.

11. IBSL, a wholesale broker, entered into a producer's

contract with ITMA on January 4, 2008. Wimberly Agency,

Incorporated (Wimberly) , is a retail producer located in

Ringgold, Louisiana. In 2008, Wimberly had a producer's

agreement with IBSL.

12. Carla Jinks (Ms. Jinks) is the administrative manager

for Wimberly. In October 2008, R.L. Carter Trucking (Carter)

was a customer of Wimberly and applied for mo tor truck cargo

insurance with Wimberly. Wimberly submitted an application to

IBSL and requested that coverage be bound effective October 28,

2008, for Carter.

13. IBSL contacted ITMA and received a binder for a policy

with Pennsylvania Manufacturers. The cost of the policy was

$9,500 .00 plus a policy fee of $135 .00 for a total of $9,635 .00 .

Carter paid Wimberly $2,500 .00 as a down payment and financed

the remainder of the cost with Southern Premium Finance, LLC ,

who paid the financed portion directly to Wimberly. Wimberly

deducted a ten percent commission of $950 .00 and sent the

remainder, $8,635 .00 to IBSL. The check was deposited to IBSL's

clearing account.

14. On January 22, 2009, Carter contacted Ms. Jinks and

advised that he had received a noti ce of cancellation effective

January 22, 2009, due to non - pay ment to Pennsylvania

Manufacturers. On the same date, Ms. Jinks received a facsimile

transmission from IBSL , attaching the notice of cancellation and

stating: "There was some confusion with the payment we send

[sic] and we are working on getting it reinstated. "

15. There were some e - mails between Wimberly and

Mr. Holliday, III , concerning the placement of coverage with

another company. IBSL was unable to place coverage for Carter.

By e - mail dated January 30, 2009, Ms. Jinks advised

Mr. Holliday, III , that she had been able to place coverage for

Carter and requested a return of the premium paid on a pro rata

basis. She advised Mr. Holliday, III , that the return premium

should be $7,651.35. By e - mail dated January 30, 2009,

Mr. Holliday, III , stated:

We will tender the return as quickly as it

is processed by accounting. I do sorely

regret the loss of this account, and our

inability to get the Tr avelers quote agreed

on a timely basis.

16. By February 19, 2009, Wimberly had not received the

return premium from IBSL. Ms. Jinks sent an e - mail to

Mr. Holliday, III , on February 19, 2009, asking that the return

premium be rushed to Wimberly so that i t could be used to pay

for the replacement policy. As of the date of Ms. Jinks'

deposition on November 16, 2009, neither Mr. Holliday, III;

Mr. Holliday , IV ; nor IBSL had given the return premium to

W imberly.

17. K.V. Carrier Services, Inc. (K.V.) , is a retail

producer located in Medley, Florida. I n 2007, K.V. and IBSL

entered into a business arrangement with IBSL. Under the

arrangement, K.V. was the retailer, IBSL was the wholesale

broker, ITMA was the program manager, and Pennsylvania

Manufacturers wa s the insurance company.

18. K.V. collected the down payments for the policy

premiums from its customers and sent the down payments to IBSL.

The remainder of the premiums were financed by financing

companies, who sent the remainder of the premiums to IBS L. IBSL

was supposed to send the monies paid for the premiums to ITMA.

19. The following customers made down payments to K.V. and

financed the remainder of their premiums with a financing

company.

(1) E & E Trucking Service

(2) OD Transport, Inc.

(3) Fermin Balzald u a

(4) Eduardo Bravo

(5) Carlos Ramirez

(6) Edwin Bello

(7) Janet Rodriguez

(8) UTL, Inc.

(9) Prestige Transport USA

(10) JNL Transportation, Inc.

(11) Valdir Santos

(12) DJ Express

(13) PL Fast Carrier

(14) Ysis Transport

K.V. sent th e down payments for these customers to IBSL. The

financing company sent the remainder of the premiums for these

customers to IBSL. The total amount of premiums sent to IBSL

for these customers was $19,768.45. IBSL did not sen d the

premium payments for t hese customers to ITMA. The policies for

these customers were cancelled for non - payment.

20. K.V. found another company that was willing to insure

K.V.'s customers. K.V. paid the down payments for the new

policies from its own funds, hoping that IBSL wo uld repay the

finance company with any unearned premiums that would be

returned to IBSL as a result of the cancellations.

21. ITMA sent an invoice called an Account Current

Statement to IBSL for the business conducted in the month of

November 2008. The t otal amount owed to ITMA was listed as

$55,116.32. The invoice included the premium for the policy

issued for Carter, less IBSL's commission. The premiums for the

policies issued to Eduardo Bravo; Fermin Bazaldua; JNL

Transportation, Inc.; Janet Rodrigue z; OD Transport, Inc.; and

Prestige Transport USA were also included in the Account Current

Statement for the business that IBSL conducted in November.

IBSL was required to pay the $55,116.32 by December 15, 2008,

but did not do so.

22. ITMA received a check from IBSL dated December 31,

2008, for $25,000 .00 . A notation on the check indicated that it

was a partial payment for the November business. The check was

unallocated, meaning IBSL did not state to which premiums the

partial payment should be appl ied. Mr. Holliday, III, claimed

that IBSL had sent a bordereaux along with the check showing to

which policies the payment applied. Mr. Holliday, III's,

testimony is not credited.

23. Donald Kaitz (Mr. Kaitz) , the president of ITMA,

communicated with on e of the Respondents, who advised Mr. Kaitz

that he needed another week or so to collect some premiums from

his retail producers. On January 12, 2009, ITMA received a

telephone call from IBSL , stating that IBSL could not pay the

balance owed to ITMA and t hat ITMA should take whatever action

it felt necessary.

24. As a result of the communication from IBSL, ITMA

issued notices of policy cancellation on all applicable policies

listed in the Account Current Statement which was to be paid on

December 15, 2008 . Copies of the cancellation notices were sent

to the insureds and IBSL.

25. ITMA issued pro rata return premiums based on the

number of days that each policy had been in effect. The return

premiums were sent to IBSL by a check for $18,790.06.

Addition ally, ITMA sent IBSL a list of the policies that had

been cancelled, showing the earned premiums which had b een

deducted from the $25,000.00.

26. IBSL received and retained a net of $30,116.32 , which

was owed to ITMA. This amount is derived by deducting the

$25,000 .00 , which IBSL sent to ITMA , from the $55, 116.32 , which

was owed to ITMA.

27. By letter dated April 2, 2009, IBSL sent K . V . a check

for $524.80, which stated:

We have totaled all amounts owing to IBSL by

KV Carrier Service, and we have totaled all

pro rated commissions owing by IBSL to KV

Carrier Services for the benefit of your

clients and have included our check # 1025

in the final amount of $524.80 to settle the

account.

All net unearned premiums for other than

unearned commissions which ar e funded herein

you must contact the insurance carriers

involved and request payment under the

provisions of Florida Statutes #627.7283.

28. Federal Motor Carriers Risk Retention Group,

Incorporated (FMC), is an insurance company , which sells

commercial auto liability insurance, specifically targeted to

intermediate and long - haul trucking companies. CBIP Management,

Incorporated (CBIP), is a managing general underwriter for FMC.

29. FMC had an agreement effective June 1, 2008, with

IBSL , allowing IBSL t o act as a general agent for FMC. As a

general agent for FMC, IBSL was given the authority to accept

risk on behalf of FMC. IBSL was given a fiduciary

responsibility to accept insurance applications, provide quotes,

and bind coverage. Once IBSL binds a policy for FMC, FMC issues

a policy and is responsible for the risk. IBSL would receive

the down payment from the retail agency , and, in most cases, the

finance company would pay the balance of the premium directly t o

IBSL.

30. The agreement between FMC and IBSL provided that IBSL

was to provide FMC a monthly report of premiums billed and

collected, less the agreed commission. The report was due by

the 15th of the month following the reported month. In turn,

FMC was to issue a statement for the balance due, and IBSL was

required to pay the balance due within 15 days of the mailing of

the statement following the month in which the policy was

written.

31. In August 2008, FMC began to notice that IBSL was

selling premiums lower than FMC's rating guidelines . IBSL owed

FMC approximately $186,000 .00 , which was due on August 15, 2008.

IBSL sent FMC a check, which was returned for insufficient

funds. FMC contacted IBSL and was assured that the check was

returned due to a clerical error and an error by the ban k.

Assurances were given to FMC that funds would be transferred to

FMC the following day; however, FMC did not receive payment

until five days later.

32. In September 2008, Joseph Valuntas (Mr. Valuntas) , the

chief operating officer for FMC, paid a visit to Mr. Holliday,

III, and Mr. Holliday, IV. Mr. Valuntas expressed his concerns

about the delay in receiving payment in August. He also pointed

out that IBSL had taken some risks which were not rated properly

and that there were some risks in which IBSL w as not following

the underwriting guidelines.

33. After his visit with the Hollidays, Mr. Valuntas wrote

a letter to IBSL, restricting IBSL to writing in Florida and

limiting the amount of gross written premium to no more than

$100,000 .00 per month. IB SL did not adhere to Mr. Valuntas'

instructions. An example of IBSL's conduct involved the writing

of a policy for Miami Sunshine Tran s fer, which is a risk

category designated as public delivery. Public delivery was not

a standard that FMC insured and, a s such, was not covered by

FMC's reinsurance.

34. Beginning on or about September 21, 2008, FMC began

getting complaints from policyholders and retail agents about

cancellations of policies that had been paid timely and in full.

Although the retail agent s had paid the premiums in full to

IBSL, IBSL had not forwarded the premiums to FMC.

35. By October 2008, IBSL owed FMC approximately

$120,000 .00 in past due premiums. FMC officially terminated the

IBSL agreement in October 2008. IBSL sued FMC for breac h of

contract.

36. On December 22, 2008, FMC received a check from IBSL

in the amount of $25,122.80, but IBSL did not specify what

premiums were being paid by the check.

37. From February 1, 2006, through November 20, 2008, IBSL

had a business relationsh ip with Markel International Insurance

Company Limited (Markel), an entity for which IBSL was writing

insurance. IBSL was a coverholder for Markel, meaning that IBSL

could produce insurance business for Markel and had the

authority to collect and process premiums and bind insurance on

Markel's behalf.

38. Once the premiums were collected by IBSL, they were to

be reported to Markel, and, within a maximum of 45 days, IBSL

was to remit to Markel the aggregate gross written premiums less

IBSL's commission.

39 . T. Scott Garner (Mr. Garner) is an expert auditor and

financial analyst who currently works for Northshore

International Insurance Services (Northshore), an insurance and

reinsurance consulting firm. Markel retained Mr. Garner to

determine the amount o f money that IBSL should have sent to

Markel for business transacted by IBSL for the period between

February 1, 2006, and November 20, 2008.

40. In doing his analysis, Mr. Garner used the

bordereauxs which IBSL prepared and provided to Markel.

Bordereau xs are monthly billing reports or accounts receivable

reports. Mr. Garner also used data from Omni, which is a

software system that was used by IBSL. Mr. Garner used the

following procedure to determine what IBSL owed Markel. He

determined how much risk IBSL wrote during the time period, that

is, the gross written premium. He identified the amount of

money that Markel had received from IBSL for the time period.

Next he determined the amount that should have been received

from IBSL, the gross written pr emiums minus IBSL's commissions.

He compared what should have been remitted to Markel with the

amount that was actually received by Markel.

41. Based on his analysis, Mr. Garner calculated that IBSL

owed Markel $1,208,656.61. Mr. Garner's analysis is cr edited.

42. Respondent submitted a FSLSO Compliance Review

Summary, which was done by the Florida Surplus Lines Office. At

the final hearing, Mr. Holliday, III, viewed the report to mean

that Markel was incorrect in the amount of money that was owed

to i t by IBSL. The report does not indicate that the policies

on which the premium variances were noted were policies issued

by Markel. Additionally, in his review, Mr. Garner eliminated

duplicate transactions in determining the amount owed to Markel.

The r eport did give a long list of policies, which should have

been reported to Florida Surplus Lines Office , but IBSL had

failed to report the policies .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

43. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2009).

44. The Department has the burden to establish the

allegations in the Administrative Complaint s by clear and

convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v.

Osbor ne Stern and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).

45. The Department alleges that Respondents violated

Subsections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(10), and

626.611(13), Florida Statutes, which provide:

The department shall deny an application

for, suspend , revoke, or refuse to renew or

continue the license or appointment of any

applicant, agent, title agency, adjuster,

customer representative, service

representative, or managing general agent,

and it shall suspend or revoke the

eligibility to hold a licens e or appointment

of any such person, if it finds that as to

the applicant, licensee, or appointee any

one or more of the following applicable

grounds exist:

* * *

(7) Demonstrated lack of fitness or

trustworthiness to engage in the business of

i nsurance.

* * *

(9) Fraudulent or dishonest practices in

the conduct of business un der the license or

appointment.

(10) Misappropriation, conversion, or

unlawful withholding of moneys belonging to

insurers or insureds or beneficiaries or to

ot hers and received in conduct of business

under the license or appointment.

* * *

(13) Willful failure to comply with, or

willful violation of, any proper order or

rule of the department or willful violation

of any provision of this code.

46. Section 626.734, Florida Statutes, provides:

Any general lines insurance agent who is an

officer, director, or stockholder of an

incorporated general lines insurance agency

shall remain personally and fully liable and

accountable for any wrongful act s,

misconduct, or violations of any provisions

of this code committed by such licensee or

by any person under his or her direct

supervision and control while acting on

behalf of the corporation. Nothing in this

section shall be construed to render any

per son criminally liable or subject to any

disciplinary proceedings for any act unless

such person personally committed or knew or

should have known of such act and of the

facts constituting a violation of this

chapter.

47. Mr. Holliday, III, and Mr. Hollid ay, IV, are general

lines agents who are officers of an incorporated insurance

agency, IBSL, and were regularly engaged in the operations of

the insurance agency and interacted with representatives of

Wimberly, K.V., Markel, FMC, and ITMA. As such, they a re

responsible for violations of Section 626.611, Florida Statu te s ,

committed by them or the staff of IBSL.

48. The Department has established by clear and convincing

evidence that Respondents violated Subsections 626.611(7),

626.611 (9), 626.611 (10), and 626.611 (13), Florida Statutes, by

the following actions: collecting premiums on behalf of Markel

and not forwarding the premiums to Markel; collecting premiums

on behalf of FMC and not forwarding the premiums to FMC;

collecting premiums from Wimberly and the financing company who

financed Carter's policy premiums and not forwarding those

premiums to ITMA; collecting premiums from K.V. and the finance

company financing the premiums for K.V.'s clients and not

forwarding the premiums to ITMA; and collecting p remiums owed to

ITMA and not forwarding those premiums to ITMA. These

violations were willful in that Respondents knew that the

premiums should have been forwarded to the appropriate insurance

company or program and failed to do so.

49. The Department ha s proven the allegations in Counts I

through V of the Administrative Complaints by clear and

convincing evidence. No evidence was presented concerning the

allegations in Count VI of the Administrative Complaints.

Therefore, the Department has failed to e stablished the

violations alleged in Count VI.

50. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B - 231.040 provides

the method for calculating the penalty when there are multiple

grounds for discipline and provides:

(1) Penalty Per Count.

(a) The Department is authorized to find

that multiple grounds exist under Sections

626.611 and 626.621, F.S., for disciplinary

action against the licensee based upon a

single count in an administrative complaint

based upon a single act of misconduct by a

lic ensee. However, for the purpose of this

rule chapter, only the violation specifying

the highest stated penalty will be

considered for that count. The highest

stated penalty thus established for each

count is referred to as the Ðpenalty per

countÑ.

(b) T he requirement for a single highest

stated penalty for each count in an

administrative complaint shall be applicable

regardless of the number or nature of the

violations established in a single count of

an administrative complaint.

(2) Total Penalty. E ach penalty per count

shall be added together and the sum shall be

referred to as the Ðtotal penaltyÑ.

(3) Final Penalty.

(a) The final penalty which will be imposed

against a licensee under these rules shall

be the total penalty, as adjusted to take

into consideration any aggravating or

mitigating factors;

(b) The Department may convert the total

penalty to an administrative fine and

probation if the licensee has not previously

been subjected to an administrative penalty

and the current action does not involve a

violation of Section 626.611, F.S.;

(c) The Department will consider the

factors set forth in rule subsection 69B -

231.160(1), F.A.C., in determining whether

to convert the total penalty to an

administrative fine and probation.

(d) In the event that the final penalty

would exceed a suspension of twenty - four

(24) months, the final penalty shall be

revocation.

51. Fl orida Administrative Code Rule 69B - 231.080(7)

provides that the penalty for violating Subsection 626.611(7),

Florida Statutes, is a six - month suspension. Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69B - 231.080(9) provides that the

penalty for a violation of Subsecti on 626.611(9), Florida

Statutes, is a nine - month suspension. Florida Administrative

Code Rule 69B - 231.080(10) provides that the penalty for a

violation of Subsection 626.611(10), Florida Statutes, is a 12 -

month suspension. Florida Administrative Code Rul e 69B -

231.080(13) provides that the penalty for a violation of

Subsection 626.611(13), Florida Statutes, is a six - month

suspension.

52. The highest penalty per count is a 12 - month

suspension; thus, the penalty per count is a 12 - month

suspension. The Depa rtment has established the violations in

five counts. The total penalty is a 60 - month suspension.

However, based on Florida Administrative Code Rule 69B -

231.040(d) , the final penalty is revocation because the

suspension exceeds 24 months.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding

that Respondents committed the violations alleged in Counts I

through V of the Administrative Complaints, dismissing Count VI

of the Adm inistrative Complaints, and revoking the licenses of

Respondents.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 5 th day of October , 2010 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUSAN B. HARRELL

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 1 5 th day of October , 2010 .

ENDNOTE

1/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 200 8 version.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Sarah H. Dennis, Esquire

411 Lithia Pinecrest Road

Brandon, Florida 33511

David J. Busch, Esquire

Melinda Hilton Butler, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

612 Larson Building

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0333

Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

Department of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0390

Honorable Alex Sink

Chief Financial Officer

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0300

Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

The Capitol, Plaza Level 11

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0307

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 this Recommended Order shoul d be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.