DENNIS VICTOR DANIELS, APPELLANT,
v.
BILL GUNTER, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER AND TREASURER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the agency's finding of using a 'light box' was not supported by substantial, competent evidence and reversed that portion of the order.
An insurance secretary testified that the appellant used a 'light box' to trace signatures on insurance applications. No forged documents or victim te…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unfair Or Deceptive Acts Or Practices cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Chief Judge.
Appellant Daniels has appealed the one-year suspension of his insurance licenses. We reverse only the portion of the agency’s final order which found that appellant used a “light box” in violation of various provisions of the insurance code;1 such a finding is not supported by substantial, competent evidence.
Watkins, a secretary employed at appellant’s insurance agency, testified before a hearing officer that on numerous Fridays a “light box” was used by Daniels and others to trace signatures on insurance applications. Watkins also related an incident involving an irate customer who presented himself at Daniels’ office to complain that he had not signed an application which bore his signature. No allegedly forged documents were introduced, no names of alleged forgery victims were presented, and no victims of the alleged forgeries testified at the hearing. The uncorroborated testimony of Watkins is insufficient to sustain the agency’s finding that appellant improperly used the “light box.” The remaining findings and conclusions in the final order are affirmed.
Appellant’s license was suspended for one year, the maximum penalty authorized by section 626.641, Florida Statutes (1981). We do not know whether the same penalty would have been imposed for the remaining violations absent the finding concerning the “light box.” Therefore, we VACATE the penalty and REMAND for reconsideration thereof in light of this opinion.
HOBSON and LEHAN, JJ., concur. . The agency’s final order concluded that appellant’s conduct with regard to the “light box” constituted violations of section 626.611(5) (willful deception with regard to an insurance policy), section 626.611(7) (lack of fitness or trustworthiness), section 626.611(9) (fraudulent or dishonest practices), and section 626.621(6) (unfair or deceptive acts or practices), Florida Statutes (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Werner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…t constituted “generally prevailing peer performance.” On this question of fact, only two witnesses’ testimony was germane. Both testified, and it was for the hearing officer to decide whom to believe. We acknowledge conflict with Daniels v. Gunter, 438 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “It is well-established that a factual finding by an administrative agency will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by ‘substantial evidence.’ ” Osborne Stern, 670 So. 2d at 933. Accord, e.g., Jenkins v. State Bd. of Ed…