UNIMED, PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, etc., et al. v. STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA UNIMED, Professional Liability Insurance Company, Ltd. (PLIC), etc., et al., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. Appellants, CASE NO. 1D03-1667 v. STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION, Appellee. _________________________/ Opinion filed April 13, 2004. An appeal from an order of the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation. John Radey, Karen Asher-Cohen and Natalie Futch of Radey Thomas Yon & Clark, Tallahassee; Julianna K. Burke of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellants. Susan Dawson of the Office of Insurance Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellants seek review of an Immediate Final Order entered by appellee (the Office of Insurance Regulation) pursuant to section 120.569(2)(n), Florida Statutes (2002), ordering appellants to cease and desist from the transaction of any new or renewal insurance business in Florida. The order lacks a factual recitation demonstrating the existence of an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare, as required by section 120.569(2)(n). It is, instead, predicated solely on conclusory allegations implying that appellants failure to be licensed in Florida, by itself, constitutes an immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare. The order is substantively indistinguishable from those held to be deficient by this court in Commercial Consultants Corp. v. Department of Business Regulation, 363 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), American Insurance Association v. Florida Department of Insurance, 646 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), Crudele v. Nelson, 698 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), Florida Association of Health Maintenance Organizations v. State Department of Insurance, 771 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and United Insurance Company of America v. State Department of Insurance, 793 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). As all of those decisions emphasize, it is not sufficient merely to allege a statutory violation; instead, the order must contain a factual recitation sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an imminent threat of specific incidents of irreparable harm to the public interest requiring use of the extraordinary device afforded by section 120.569(2)(n). Commercial Consultants, 363 So. 2d at 1164. Accord United Ins. Co. of Am., 793 So. 2d at 1184 (quoting from Commercial 2 Consultants). Because the Immediate Final Order does not recite facts sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare as required by section 120.569(2)(n), we reverse. REVERSED. WEBSTER, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
