MARIA AMELIA POU, 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.
Maria Amelia Pou, an insurance agent, appealed an administrative order temporarily suspending her license. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed findings that she unlawfully withheld funds and failed to timely refund unearned premiums, but reversed findings of willful misrepresentation and willful misappropriation due to insufficient evidence.
The court reversed the findings of willful misrepresentation and willful misappropriation because the record lacked clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, but affirmed the findings that funds were unlawfully withheld and that the agent failed to refund unearned premiums within a reasonable time. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the penalty.
[1] In a licensing disciplinary procedure, the burden is on the agency to establish allegations by clear and convincing evidence.
[2] The standard of review for administrative agency decisions is whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the administrative law judge.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the burden on the Department at the administrative hearing was to establish the allegations in the administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence”
Establishes the standard of proof required in licensing disciplinary procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePou, an insurance agent, mishandled an insurance premium of $997 paid by a customer. The funds remained in the agency's escrow account and were never …
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 Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Maria Amelia Pou appeals an order of the Department of Insurance temporarily suspending her license. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
As this is a licensing disciplinary procedure, the burden on the Department at the administrative hearing was to establish the allegations in the administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla.1987); Hoover v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 676 So. 2d 1380, 1382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Our standard of review is whether there was competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the administrative law judge. See § 120.68(6)(b), Fla. Stat. After consideration of the record and the contentions of the parties, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that the appellant insurance agent willfully misrepresented the insurance premium to the customer, as opposed to simply making an error. Since the element of willfulness is not supported by the record, we reverse with respect to paragraph 56 of the recommended order.1
We also reverse so much of paragraph 57 as held that the insurance agent willfully misappropriated an insurance premium amount of $997 which was paid by the agency customer. Here, the funds remained at all times in the agency’s escrow account. At no time were the funds withdrawn, much less applied for some improper purpose. The finding of willfid misappropriation is reversed.2 We affirm the remainder of paragraph 57, which found that (a) funds were unlawfully withheld, and (b) the insurance agent failed to refund the insureds’ unearned premium within a reasonable time after the insurance was cancelled. We also affirm paragraph 55. We remand this case to the insurance commissioner to reconsider the issue of penalty in light of this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. The recommended order was adopted in its entirety by the Department of Insurance in its final order. . Section 626.611(10), Florida Statutes (1993), prohibits misappropriation but does not define the term. Misappropriation has been defined as:
The unauthorized, improper, or unlawful use of funds or other property for purpose other than that for which intended. Black's Law Dictionary 998 (6th ed. 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hialeah Racing Ass'n, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 907 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…license application. Finding no merit to Hialeah Racing’s arguments on appeal, we affirm. The record demonstrates that the Department’s order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); Pou v. Dept. of Ins., 707 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Pershing Indus., Inc. v. Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 591 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Additionally, this court will not overturn an agency’s construction of a statute it has been entrusted to administer where its interpretation i…
Authorities Cited
- Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987)
- Katherine A. Hoover, M.D. v. The Agency FOR Health Care Admin., 676 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)