The Order as follows: THIS CAUSE came on for consideration of and final agency action on a Petition For Variance From Rule 69B-211.042(10) (a) 6., F.A.C. Essentially, Petitioner Stair asks for relief from the application of the waiting period ...

 

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on April 15, 2008, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Legal Services, has issued an order.

The Order as follows:

THIS CAUSE came on for consideration of and final agency action on a Petition For Variance From subparagraph 69B-211.042(10)(a)6., F.A.C. Essentially, Petitioner Stair asks for relief from the application of the waiting period prescribed by that rule so as to allow his immediate licensure as an insurance agent despite his acknowledged criminal history. In support of his request, Petitioner argues that the waiting period is too long and will result in an economic hardship to him, and that, if licensed, the supervision of his mother, a licensed insurance agent, would adequately protect the interests of the insurance-buying public.

Having considered the petition, there is nothing therein that would not be found in every petition requesting a variance from the rule in question. Every such petition would urge “economic hardship” as a justification for the requested variance. If such justification were to be accepted, the rule would quickly become meaningless. Rendering administrative rules meaningless is not the purpose of Section 120.542, Florida Statutes. Rather, the purpose of that statute is to allow for infrequent exceptions to the application of administrative rules only upon the showing of a substantial hardship or the violation of principles of fairness. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he will be unable to make a living in another profession or trade, and has thus failed to show that the application of the rule's waiting period will, in and of itself, cause him an economic hardship other than that to which he is already subject. Additionally, the Petitioner has made no showing that he is being treated significantly different than any other person in a similar situation, and has thus failed to show that the principles of fairness are being violated.

Finally, it does not appear that mere supervision by a family member would adequately serve the purpose of the underlying statute, which is to ensure the integrity of the insurance profession, and to safeguard the public from those who might be easily tempted to misuse their license.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby determined that the Petition should be and is hereby denied.

A copy of the Order may be obtained by contacting: Michael Davidson, Assistant General Counsel at [phone].