ARTHUR A. PAPPAS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE 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 Insurance Commissioner's order revoking the appellant's license was supported by competent substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion or violation of law.
The Department of Insurance charged Arthur Pappas with violations of the Licensing Procedures Law while he was president of Benefit Plan Associates (B…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Arthur A. Pappas appeals a final order of the Insurance Commissioner revoking his license to sell insurance. We affirm.
The Department of Insurance (Department) charged Pappas with eight violations of the Licensing Procedures Law, Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, allegedly committed while he was acting as president of Benefit Plan Associates (BPA). BPA, New York Life Insurance Company’s third-party administrator, withdrew premiums it received for transmittal to New York Life; BPA used the funds for its operating expenses. At the request of the Department, BPA surrendered its third-party administrator’s license and ceased to operate. The Department then sought to revoke Pappas’s health and life insurance agent’s license. A hearing was conducted at Pappas’s request, culminating in the hearing officer recommending revocation of Pappas’s license. The hearing officer found that Pap-pas had committed three of the eight charged violations. Over Pappas’s exceptions, the Commissioner adopted the recommended order and entered a final order revoking the license. Pappas filed this appeal.
The Commissioner’s final order adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the hearing officer’s recommended order. We are compelled to affirm the final order because it is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Gershanik v. Department of Professional Regulations, Bd. of Medical Examiners, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985); Cohen v. School Bd. of Dade County, Fla., 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Clark v. Department of Professional Regulations, Bd. of Medical Examiners, 463 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied 475 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, the record discloses neither an abuse of discretion nor violation of law and thus, the Commissioner’s order will not be overturned. Cohen.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glass v. Dep't of Revenue, 650 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…se circumstances, we must affirm.1 . Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(C). . § 120.57(l)(b)10, Fla.Stat. (1993); Department of Transportation, Division of Administration v. Jirik, 498 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1986); Pappas v. Department of Insurance and Treasurer, 568 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So. 2d 1328 (Fla.1991); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 34…
Authorities Cited
- Barbara and Karl Cohen v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- IDY Corp. v. Freedman, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Ricardo O. Gershanik, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Neubauer v. Hort Soper, 463 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Daniel J. Clark, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 463 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)