14-003733 Wallace Moorehand vs. State Farm Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 6, 2015.

Summary: Petitioner, an insurance agent for State Farm, is an independent contractor, thus beyond the protections of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WALLACE MOOREHAND,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 3733

STATE FARM ,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case on October 13,

2014, via video tele conference at locations in Pensacola,

Florida, and Tallahassee, Florida , before Suzanne Van Wyk , a

duly - designated Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Glenn A. Crickenberger, Esquire

Gary, Williams, Parenti and Watson, PLLC

221 East Osceola Street

Stuart, Florida 34994

For Respondent: J. Robert McCormack, Esquire

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak

& Stewart, P.C.

100 N orth Tampa Street, Suite 1600

Tampa, Florida 33602

Mark Mallery, E s quire , (Qualified Rep. )

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak

& Stewart, P.C.

701 Poydras Street, Suite 3500

New Orleans, Louisiana 70139

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

W hether Petitioner, Wallace Moorehand, wa s an employee of

Respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as

defined by the Florida Civil Rights of 1992, at the time alleged

discriminatory employment practice (s) took place.

PRELIMINARY STATEMEN T

Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination against

Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations

(Commission) on January 14, 2014. On July 11, 2014, after

investigation of PetitionerÓs charge, the Commission found no

cause to believe that a n unlawful employment action had

occurred.

Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief with the

Commission on August 14, 2014 . T he Commission referred the case

to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division ) on

August 14, 2014 . N either party responded to the Initial Order

entered on August 15, 2014, and the undersigned unilaterally set

the hearing for October 13, 2014 , via video teleconference in

Pensacola, Florida, and Tallahassee, Florida .

On October 1, 2014, t he parties moved to bifurcate the

hearing and go forward solely on the issue of whether Petitioner

was an employee o f, or an independent contractor for ,

Respondent. The undersigned granted the motion and the hearing

commenced as schedule d on October 13, 2014. Petitioner

tes tified on his own behalf. PetitionerÓs Exhibits AA, Y, Z,

and X, were admitted into evidence. Respondent offered the

testimony of Keith Flexsenhar. RespondentÓs Exhibits B, W, U,

R, and V, were admitted into evidence, and the undersigned took

official r ecognition of RespondentÓs Exhibits C, D, E, F, S, and

T.

A Transcript of the proceedings was filed on November 4 ,

2014. The undersigned granted two separate extensions of time

for the parties to submit Proposed Recommended Orders. Both

parties timely f iled Proposed Recommended Orders, which have

been considered in preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1 . Petitioner , Wallace Bruce Moorehand, is an African -

American male residing in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida.

2 . Petitioner holds Florida insurance agent license

A183690, which was issued on February 27, 1991. Petitioner

studied extensively and was subject to a formal examination in

order to obtain his license.

3 . Respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company (State Farm), 1 / is a private entity headquartered in

Bloomington, Illinois, engaged in the business of selling and

servicing various types of insurance products including auto,

health, and fire insurance for personal and business customers.

4 . Petitioner maint ains that he is an employee of State

Farm, rather than an independent contractor therefor e , allowing

him to bring a claim of unlawful employment discrimination under

the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

5 . Between March 1991 and February 1993, Petitioner worked

as a Trainee Agent with State Farm. It is undisputed that

Petitioner was a State Farm employee during his tenure as a

Trainee Agent.

6 . On March 1, 1993, Petitioner executed a State Farm

AgentÓs Agreement. Amon g the relevant contractual provisions

are the following:

The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce

to writing the objectives, obligations, and

responsibilities essential to the

relationship between the Agent, operating as

an independent contractor, and State Farm.

[State Farm] believe[s] that agents

operating as independent contractors are

best able to provide the creative selling,

professional counseling, and prompt and

skillful service essential to the creation

and maintenance of successful multiple - l ine

companies and agencies. We do not seek, and

will not assert, control of your daily

activities, but expect you to exercise your

own judgment as to the time, place, and

manner of soliciting insurance, servicing

policyholders, and otherwise carrying out

the provisions of this Agreement. You have

chosen this independent contractor

relationship, with its opportunities for

financial reward and personal satisfaction,

in preference to one which would place you

in an employee status.

* * *

Section 1 Î MUTUAL CONDITIONS AND DUTIES

* * *

B. You are an independent contractor for

all purposes. As such you have full control

of your daily activities, with the right to

exercise independent judgment as to time,

place, and manner of soliciting insurance,

servicing policyholders, and otherwise

carrying out the provisions of this

Agreement.

C. State Farm will furnish you, without

charge, manuals, forms, records, and such

other materials and supplies as we may deem

advisable to provide. All such property

furnished b y us shall remain the property of

[State Farm].

* * *

D. Information regarding names, addresses,

and age of policyholders of [State Farm];

the description and locations of insured

property; and expiration or renewal dates of

State Farm policies acquired or coming into

your possession during the effective period

of this Agreement, or any prior Agreement,

except information and records of

policyholders insured by [State Farm]

pursuant to any governmental or insurance

industry plan or facility, are trade se crets

wholly owned by [State Farm]. All forms and

other materials, whether furnished by State

Farm or purchased by you, upon which this

information is recorded, shall be the sole

and exclusive property of [State Farm].

E. The expense of any office, incl uding

rental, furniture, and equipment; signs;

supplies not furnished by us; the salaries

of your employees; telegraph; telephone;

postage; advertising; and all other charges

or expense incurred by you in the

performance of this Agreement shall be

incurred at your discretion and paid by you.

* * *

L. We retain the right to prescribe all

policy forms and provisions; premiums, fees,

and charges for insurance; and rules

governing the binding, acceptance, renewal,

rejection, or cancellation of risks, and

adju stment and payment of losses.

7 . Petitioner testified that it was his intent to enter

into an independent contractor relationship with State Farm.

8 . On January 1, 1997, Petitioner entered into a second

State Farm AgentÓ s Agreement, containing similar, if not

identical, provisions.

9 . The record was not clear why Petitioner entered into a

second AgentÓs Agreement in 1997. Petitioner testified that

State Farm eliminated some retirement benefits in 1997 ,

requiring all agents to execute a new Agreement . However, on

cross - examination, Petitioner testified, ÐI misspokeÑ 2 / and

admitted that the original AgentÓs Agreement does not refer to a

pension or other retirement benefit.

10 . Petitioner has conducted business as an agent of State

Farm at the same l ocation in Mary Esther, Florida , for 2 1 years.

11 . State Farm compensates Petitioner through commission

on sales of insurance policies and other products. According to

the AgentÓs Agreement, State Farm also offers a sales incentive

of five percent of production earnings in the prior year. State

Farm has never paid Petitioner a salary.

12 . Pursuant to the AgentÓs Agreement, State Farm also

compensate s Petitioner by providing a life insurance policy of

$100,000 payable to his designate d beneficiary upon his death,

provided that Petitioner has not obtained age 70 or terminated

the AgentÓs Agreement.

13 . Petitioner has his own Federal employer tax ID number.

14 . Petitioner owns the building in which his State Farm

office is located.

15 . Petitioner pays all the expenses of his office,

including telephone, electricity, water, furniture, office

supplies, and office equipment .

16 . Petitioner currently has two employees, but has

previously employed up to nine people at his State Farm office.

17 . Petitioner pays his employees a salary , rather than on

an hourly basis, at his choosing. Petitioner sets his

employeesÓ work schedules.

18 . Petitioner pays his employees Ó payroll taxes, decides

whether they will receive commissions, and, if so, the amount of

said commissions. Petitioner offers his employees paid

holidays, vacation t ime, and sick leave .

19 . Petitioner does not receive either vacation time or

sick leave from State Farm. Petitioner has elected to secure

health insurance thr ough State Farm for himself and his family.

Petitioner offers his employees the opportunity to participate

in the same health insurance plan he has elected to purchase.

20 . State Farm reports PetitionerÓs earnings to the

Federal Government on IRS Form 1 099, not Form W - 2. State Farm

does not withhold social security, Medicare, or federal income

taxes, from PetitionerÓs commission checks.

21 . Despite overwhelming evidence of PetitionerÓs

independent contractor relationship with State Farm, Petitioner

maintains that State Farm exercises a degree of control over

PetitionerÓs livelihood that renders the independent contractor

status a sham. Peti tioner testified that State Farm controlled

PetitionerÓs business, not only by contract, but also Ðby

innuendo, by assertion, by intimidation.Ñ 3 /

22 . First, Petitioner testified that there was no

difference between the way State Farm managed PetitionerÓ s

business as a Trainee Agent and as an independent contractor.

However, Petitioner admitted that only as a Trainee Agent was he

required to submit daily time logs and weekly accountings of his

activities.

23 . Petitioner offered into evidence a letter in which a

State Farm Agency Manager criticized PetitionerÓs priorities,

time utilization, attitude, and required him to attend a series

of training meetings. However, the letter was clearly written

when Petitioner was a Trainee Ag ent.

24 . Next, Petitioner argues that State Farm controls whom

he hires at his agency, as well as the hours his agency must be

open to the public.

25 . Any employee of Petitioner who will be licensed to

sell State Farm products on behalf of Petitioner is required to

undergo background screening and enter into an AgentÓs Licensed

Staff Agreement. The Agreement defines the nature of the

employment as with the Agent, rather than State Farm; defines

the scope of the employeeÓs authority, i.e., the Agent may

delegate to employees in - office binding authority on motor

vehicle, residential risks, and personal property - casualty

insurance coverage.

26 . PetitionerÓs clerical staff, and any other non -

licensed staff, is not required to undergo background screening

or enter into an AgentÓs Licensed Staff Agreement.

27 . Petitioner Ós office is open 9 :00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m.

each weekday. Petitioner testified that he chose those hours

because those are the ones Ð clients most wanted.Ñ State Farm

does not dictate the particular hours Petitioner works.

28 . State Farm provides an after - hours call center from

5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on weekdays to take calls from clients

and potential clients when PetitionerÓs office is closed.

P etitioner maintains that because the call center is only

available after 5:00 p.m. , State Farm dictates that his office

remains open until 5:00 p.m. daily.

29 . If Petitioner chose to close his office before

5:00 p.m. on weekdays , the only consequence would be missed

business opportunities.

30 . Next , Petitioner argues that State Farm controls his

business by requiring Petitioner to sell Ð multiple lines Ñ of

insurance, rather than selling only automobile or homeownersÓ

policies. Petitioner testified th at State Farm pressures him to

sell life and health insurance policies, as well as banking

products more recently - available through State Farm.

31 . State Farm does not set quotas for any product line.

Agents are free to choose which products they will s ell as part

of their overall business decisions.

32 . State Farm encourages its Agents to sell all products

offered by the company in order to service the needs of clients.

33 . Some State Farm products require special licenses,

such as a securities lice nse to sell mutual funds offered by

State Farm.

34 . State Farm does not require agents to obtain any

specialty license.

35 . Petitioner voluntarily obtained a securities license

to offer mutual funds to his clients.

36 . Next, Petitioner argues that State Farm does not allow

him to operate his agency in a truly independent manner.

Rather, Petitioner maintains that he is required to submit a

business plan for approval by State Farm and attend extensive

trainings which interfere with the independent na ture of his

relationship with State Farm.

37 . State Farm requires agents to attend one training

session per year. The training is on compliance with State Farm

customer service guidelines. Agents may access the training

online and do not need to travel to take the training.

38 . State Farm provides a number of incentives to

encourage agents to maximize their performance. For example, if

an agent submits a business plan, laying out the goals and

direction for his or her agency, the agent is eligible to

r eceive leads on prospective clients that are received through

the State Farm website. However, there are no negative

consequences to those agents who choose not to submit a business

plan.

39 . Finally, Petitioner argues that State Farm restricts

Petition er from writing policies for other insurerÓs products.

The parties offered a great deal of testimony regarding

PetitionerÓs authority to write policies for Ðtake - out

companiesÑ assuming coverage previously pro vided by CitizensÓ

Insurance, and flood insura nce policies through the Federal

Emergency Management Agency.

40 . The undersigned finds this testimony irrelevant to the

is sue at hand. Petitioner is an agent of State Farm insurance

company. He chose that relationship. He could have chosen to

work wi th an independent insurance agency which writes policies

for any number of companies. Petitioner did not.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

41 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

j urisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding.

§§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat . (2014 ).

42 . Petitioner alleges State Farm engaged in a

discriminatory employment action against Petitioner based upon

his race, age, and gender, in violation of section 760.10,

Florida Statutes.

43 . Section 760.10(1)(a) prohibits discrimination only

against employees or prospective employees. It does not protect

independent contractors from discriminatory conduct. See

Columbus v. Mutual of Omaha , Case No. 08 - 2575 (Fla. DOAH

Dec. 29, 2008 ; FCHR Mar. 16, 2009)(ÐInasmuch as Petitioner was

not an employee of RespondentÓs at the time of the alleged

unlawful employment practices described in her Complaint, the

Complaint must be dismissed.Ñ); Assily v. Memorial Hosp. of

Tampa , Case No. 04 - 1762 (Fla. DOAH De c. 13, 2004 ; FCHR May 31,

2005)(Ð[I]ndependent contractors are not protected under Chapter

760, Florida Statutes.Ñ); see als o Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc. , 581

F.3d 175 (3d. Cir. 2009)(affirming district courtÓs conclusion

that Appellant was an independ ent contractor, not an employee ,

thus not covered under Title VII); Llampallas v. Mini - Circuits,

Inc. , 163 F.3d 1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 1998)(concluding that Title

VII protects only individuals who are employees with regard to

that individualÓs terms and conditi ons of employment ) .

44 . Whether Petitioner is an employee of State Farm is a

threshold issue in the instant case.

45 . Petitioner ha s the burden of proving that the

relationship he ha s with State Farm is that of employer -

employee. See DepÓt. of Banking a nd Ins. v. Osborne Stern and

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1996)(the party asserting the

affirmative of an issue has the burden of presenting evidence as

to that issue).

46 . The Ðhybrid economic realities testÑ applies to a

determination of whether Petit ioner i s an employee of State

Farm. Pursuant to this test, Ðit is the economic realities of

the relationship viewed in the light of the common law

principles of agency and the right of the employer to control

the employee that are determinative.Ñ Taylor v. BP Express ,

Inc. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95313 *7 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2008)

( citing Cobb v. Sun Papers, Inc. , 673 F.2d 337 (11th Cir.

1982) ) .

47 . The common law factors to be considered in conducting

that analysis are: (1) the intention of the parties; (2) the

skill required in the particular occupation; (3) the party

furnishing the equipment and the place of work; (4) the method

of payment, whether by time or by the job; (5) the type of

employment benefits provided; (6) the manner in which the work

rela tionship is terminated; (7) the importance of the work

performed as part of the business of the employer; and (8) the

manner in which taxes on income are paid. See Dahl v. Ameri -

Life Health Serv. of Sara - Bay, LLC , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73797

*10 - 11 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2006). ÐIn assessing the amount of

control an employer exercises over the employeeÓs work duties,

courts look not only to the results that are to be achieved, but

the Òmanner and means by which the work is accomplished.ÓÑ Id .

( citing Daughtrey v. Honeywell , 3 F.3d 1488, 1496 (11th Cir.

1993) ) .

Intention of the Parties

48 . PetitionerÓs intention to operate as an independent

contractor of State Farm is clearly reflected in the terms of

the AgentÓ s Agreement, which prescribe that Petiti oner was

Ðoperating as an independent contractor ,Ñ and that Petitioner

chose Ðthis independent contractor relationship, with i t s

opportunities for financial reward and personal satisfaction, in

preference to one which would place you in an employee status .Ñ

Moreover, Petitioner testified at hearing that it was his intent

to be an independent contractor of State Farm.

49 . State FarmÓs intent to enter into a contractual

arrangement with Petitioner as an independent contractor is also

clearly reflected in the AgentÓs Agreement, which provides,

Ð[State Farm] believe [s] that agents

operating as independent contractors are

best able to provide the creative selling,

professional counseling, and prompt and

skillful service to the creation and

maintenance of successful multiple - line

companies and agencies. We do not seek, and

will not assert, control of your daily

activities, but expect you to exercise your

own judgment as to the time, place, and

manner of soliciting insurance, servicing

po licyholders, and otherwise carrying out

the provisions of this Agreement.Ñ

Skill Required in the Particular Occupation

50 . The record clearly established that the sale of

insurance and other financial products is a highly - specialized

and heavily - regula ted field. Petiti oner had to study and pass

exam , and obtain specialized licenses to sell insurance and

financial products offered by State Farm. Petitioner must

comply with both state and federal regulations governing the

sale of insurance and banking p roducts offered by State Farm.

ÐThe highly specialized nature of [PetitionerÓs] position is

indicative of an independent contractor rather than an

employee.Ñ Dahl , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73797 *12.

Party Furnishing the Equipment and Place of Work

51 . The record clea rly established that Petitioner

provides his own place of work. Petitioner owns the building in

which he chose to establish his agency. Petitioner p rovides his

own office machines, furnishings, and supplies, with the

exception of certain f orms provided by State Farm . Petitioner

pays his own utilities, and covers the other costs of operating

his agency without reimbursement from State Farm.

52. As evidence of State FarmÓs control of PetitionerÓs

equipment, Petitioner points to the State F arm - supplied

integrated phone and computer platform he uses to access

customer polic y information . Ho wever, Petitioner leases this

system from State Farm, which is further evidence of an

independent contractor relationship. See Smith - Johnson v.

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36715

*14 (M.D. Fla. July 2005).

Method of Payment

53 . Petitioner is paid strictly on commission for the

insurance policies and other products delivered , as well as

through sales incentive s . Petitioner is not on salary , is not

paid hourly, and is not otherwise compensated for the time spent

in obtaining the policies delivered. Thus, Petitioner assumes

both the financial risks and benefits of the position. These

facts are indicative of an independent contr actor status. See

Dahl , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73797 *13; Smith - Johnson , 2005 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 36715 *14 - 15.

Benefits Provided

54 . State Farm does not provide Petitioner with sick

leave, vacation days, or paid holidays. Petitioner does not

receive retirement benefits from State Farm. Pursuant to the

Agreement, after termination thereof, Petitioner may receive

continued earnings on the Ðaverage monthly premiumÑ of policies

sold prior to termination. These facts are further indicators

of Pet itionerÓs independent contractor status. See Dahl , 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73797 *13; Smith - Johnson , 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

36715 *6.

55 . State Farm does provide a life insurance policy of

$100,000 on behalf of Petitioner, payable to his designated

beneficiary, effective until Petitioner attains that age of 70,

or the Agreement is terminated.

Manner of Termination

56 . Pursuant to the terms of the AgentÓs Agreement, the

relationship terminates upon PetitionerÓs death . The Agreement

may also be term inated by either party by written notice to the

other party at any time. Termination does not require a ÐcauseÑ

finding on behalf of State Farm.

Importance of the Work Performed

57 . PetitionerÓs work on behalf of State Farm is integral

to State FarmÓs business. Keith Flexsenhar, State Farm Agency

Administration Leader, testified that State FarmÓs competitive

advantage is its Ðexclusive agency system of over 18,000

agents.Ñ State Farm relies upon its agents to sell its

insurance and banking products t o make the company profitable.

58 . State Farm provides a number of incentives to

encourage agents to maximize their performance. For example, if

an agent submits a business plan, laying out the goals and

direction for his or her agency, the agent is eli gible to

receive leads on prospective clients that are received through

the State Farm website. However, there are no negative

consequences to those agents who choose not to submit a business

plan.

59 . State Farm encourages its agents to sell every produ ct

that it offers. However, State Farm does not set sales quotas

for any product, or require agents to obtain specialty licenses

to sell specialized banking products.

Manner in Which Income Taxes Are Paid

60 . The record is clear that State Farm reports

PetitionerÓs earning to the federal government using IRS Form

1099. State Farm does not withhold social security, Medicare,

or federal income taxes, from PetitionerÓs commission checks.

These facts are further evidence of a n independent contractor

relationship between Petitioner and State Farm. See Dahl , 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73797 *13 - 14; Smith - Johnson , 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 36715 *15.

Conclusion

61 . S everal factors weigh in favor of finding an employer -

employee relationship between State Farm and Petitioner. State

Farm provides life insurance benefits to Petitioner , State Farm

requires Petitioner to attend one compliance training a year,

and State Farm owns customer information and the systems on

which customer information is maintained. Further , the work

performed by Petitioner is integral to the success of State

FarmÓs business.

62 . However, those factors are far outweighed by those

supporting the conc lusion that Petitioner is an independent

contractor of State Farm. The clear intent of the parties was

to enter into an inde pendent contractor relationship; that

relationship is memorialized in the explicit la nguage of the

AgentÓs Agreemen t ; State Farm do es not control the Ðtime, place,

or mannerÑ in which Petitioner solicits new business, meets with

clients, or binds policies ; Petitioner controls his office

hours , pays all the expenses of his agency business ; hires and

fires his own staff; manages his tim e, as well as that of his

employees ; pays his own income taxes ; and determines the

products he will sell for State Farm, as well as whether to

secure any specialized licenses to sell specific products. In

essence, Petitioner controls the Ðmanner and means by which the

work is accomplished.Ñ

63 . The Ðeconomic realityÑ is that Petitioner, not State

Farm, controls PetitionerÓs ability to maximize profit or loss

of PetitionerÓs insurance business.

64 . Petitioner insists that the legal issue herein is

gover ned by the definition of ÐemployeeÑ set forth in section

443.1216, Florida Statutes. Petitioner argues, in his Proposed

Recommended Order , that section 443.1216 Ðdefines an employee

and thus determines whether Petitioner can avail himself of the

Florida C ivil Rights Act of 1992.Ñ Petitioner offers no

precedent for this asserted legal position.

65 . Chapter 443, Florida Statutes, is the ÐReemployment

Assistance Program Law,Ñ and governs eligibility and

administration of unemployment benefits through the State of

Florida. Section 443.1216 does not define an ÐemployeeÑ for

purposes of the classificatio n of workers for reemployment tax .

However, that section does incorporate the Ðusual common - law

rules applicable in determining the employer - employee

relationship.Ñ

66 . To the extent that Petitioner addressed the common - law

test applicable to determini ng the employer - employee

relationship, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that Petitioner is an employee of State Farm.

67 . PetitionerÓs independent contractor relationship with

State Farm is beyond the scope of the protections afforded by

section 760.10, Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations dismiss Complaint of Discrimination No. 2014 - 00242

filed by Wallace B. Moorehand on August 14 , 2014.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6 th day of January, 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE VAN WYK

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 6 th day of January , 201 5 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / The operative AgentÓs Agreement is between Petitioner and

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Life

Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and

State Farm General Insurance Company. The Companies are

collectively r eferred to herein as ÐState Farm.Ñ

2 / T.74:12.

3 / T.19:4 - 5.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Cathy DeGenova - Carter, Esquire

State Farm Insurance

1 State Farm Plaza

Corporate Law B - 3

Bloomington, Illinois 61710

J. Robert McCormack, Esquire

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak, & Stewart, P.C.

100 North Tampa Street , Suite 3600

Tampa, Florida 33602

(eServed)

Glenn A. Crickenberger, Esquire

Gary, Williams, Parenti and Watson, PLLC

221 East Osceola Street

Stuart, Florida 34994

Mark N. Mallery

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

One Shell Square, Suite 3500

701 Poydras Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70139

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 should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.