Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins. v. Fee, CASE NO. 1D16–5408 & 1D16–5416

Decision Date09 May 2017
Docket NumberCASE NO. 1D16–5408 & 1D16–5416
Citation219 So.3d 172
Parties NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMPENSATION INSURANCE, Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, and David Altmaier, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, Appellants, v. James F. FEE, Jr., Individually, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Thomas J. Maida, James A. McKee, Benjamin J. Grossman, and Nicholas R. Paquette of Foley & Lardner LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc.; Shaw P. Stiller, Chief Assistant General Counsel, and C. Timothy Gray and

Lacy End–Of–Horn, Assistant General Counsels, for Appellants Florida Office of Insurance Regulation and David Altmaier.

John K. Shubin, Salvatore H. Fasulo, Lauren G. Brunswick, and Mark E. Grafton of Shubin & Bass, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

Andrea Flynn Mogensen of Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., Sarasota, for Amicus Curiae The Florida Press Association, The First Amendment Foundation, and The Associated Press, Inc.

Richard A. Sicking of Touby, Chait & Sicking, P.L., Coral Gables, for Amicus Curiae Florida Professional Firefighters, Inc.

ROWE, J.

The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) appeal the trial court's order invalidating OIR's approval of a 14.5% increase in workers' compensation insurance rates. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the order in its entirety.

I. Facts

OIR regulates all insurance activities in Florida, including all activities relating to workers' compensation insurance. Insurance companies writing workers' compensation insurance policies in Florida must seek approval from OIR when setting or changing insurance rates by filing a rate proposal. OIR reviews filings seeking a rate change to determine if the proposed rate is "excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory ... in accordance with generally accepted and reasonable actuarial techniques." § 627.062(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). In determining whether the rate proposal should be approved, OIR may examine the statistical data supporting the proposed rate, and it may hold a public hearing. §§ 627.091(2), .101, Fla. Stat. (2015). OIR takes official action on rate filings through its agency head, the Commissioner of Insurance Regulation, currently David Altmaier. See §§ 20.121(3)(a)1., (4), Fla. Stat. (2015).

Insurers have the option of directly filing rate change proposals with OIR or joining a licensed rating organization that will file the proposals on their behalf. § 627.091(4), Fla. Stat. (2015). A rating organization is defined as "every person, other than an authorized insurer, whether located within or outside this state, who has as his or her object or purpose the making of rates, rating plans, or rating systems." § 627.041(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). NCCI is a licensed rating organization operating in more than forty states. And it represents and files rate proposals on behalf of most of the workers' compensation insurers in Florida.1 Before 1991, the responsibility for establishing rates fell to NCCI's Classification and Ratings Committee. NCCI had such a committee in each state in which it operated, including Florida. These rate-determination committees were composed of representatives of competing workers' compensation insurers who would meet periodically to fix the rates to be submitted for approval to insurance regulators. The committees were disbanded in 1991. Since then, no specific committee at NCCI has been assigned responsibility for overseeing, reviewing, or preparing rate filings. In Florida, the responsibility for rate determinations falls to a single employee of NCCI, one of its actuaries—Jay Rosen.

Before filing a rate proposal with OIR, Rosen analyzes certain data to determine whether there is a need for a change in insurance rates. After he decides that a rate change is needed, a Technical Peer Review meeting is convened where other NCCI actuaries challenge Rosen's conclusions in order to assist him in defending his recommended rate proposal. The next step in the process is a Phase II meeting where Rosen provides an overview to other actuaries and members of NCCI's regulatory division explaining how he arrived at his rate proposal. After these meetings, Rosen prepares the documents that are filed with OIR.

II. Procedural History

NCCI announced in a May 2016 press release that, as a consequence of the supreme court's decision in Castellanos v. Next Door Company , 192 So.3d 431 (Fla. 2016), which declared unconstitutional the statutory cap on claimants' attorneys' fees in workers' compensation cases, a significant increase in workers' compensation insurance rates would be necessary. Following this announcement, James F. Fee, Jr., an attorney and the sole owner of a law firm that purchases workers' compensation insurance in Florida, requested from NCCI "all pertinent information relating to all NCCI rate and rule filings affecting Florida Workers' Compensation premiums that were in effect for the calendar years 2006 through 2016." Fee made this request shortly before NCCI submitted a proposal to OIR for a 17.1% increase in the overall statewide workers' compensation insurance rate; he made a second records request after the proposal was submitted. NCCI responded by providing Fee with the records it submitted to OIR with its rate filing.

Before OIR could act on NCCI's rate filing, the supreme court decided Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg , 194 So.3d 311 (Fla. 2016), holding that the 104–week statutory limit on temporary total disability benefits was unconstitutional, and reinstating a 206–week limitation on these benefits. NCCI responded to the Westphal decision by amending its filing to propose a rate increase of 19.6% to go into effect on October 1, 2016. After NCCI amended its filing, OIR provided notice that it would conduct a public hearing on the proposed rate increase. Fee then made another request to NCCI, seeking any information related to the amended rate filing and any additional information related to his prior requests. Two weeks later, NCCI provided Fee with documents it submitted to OIR associated with its 2016 amended rate filing. Days later, OIR published on the internet all of NCCI's rate filings from 2006 through 2016.

Fee then filed suit against NCCI, OIR, and Commissioner Altmaier and sought to enjoin the public hearing on NCCI's amended rate filing. Fee alleged that (1) NCCI violated the Sunshine Law, section 286.011, Florida Statutes (2015), by failing to provide notice of or a meaningful opportunity to participate in committee meetings where its rate proposals were discussed; (2) the amended rate filing was void ab initio due to violations of the Sunshine Law; (3) NCCI violated section 627.291(1), Florida Statutes, by denying Fee access to records regarding the rate proposal; and (4) NCCI violated the Public Records Act by failing to respond to Fee's records requests.

Despite the pending complaint, the public hearing proceeded as scheduled on August 16, 2016. At the four-hour hearing, every person who filled out a speaker card spoke, including an actuary Fee hired to present testimony in opposition to the proposed rate increase. OIR also allowed for additional commentary by holding open the time for written public comments for an extra seven days. But after reviewing NCCI's rate proposal and considering public comments on the proposal, OIR rejectedthe proposed 19.6% increase as unjustified. OIR determined that only a 14.5% rate increase was appropriate. NCCI then submitted a revised rate proposal requesting a 14.5% rate increase. On October 5, 2016, Commissioner Altmaier issued a final order approving the revised rate proposal.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Fee's complaint after the Commissioner approved the final order, but before the rate went into effect. After hearing testimony and receiving documentary evidence, the court determined that the order approving the rate increase was void because NCCI and OIR violated the Sunshine Law under three separate statutory provisions: section 627.091(6), Florida Statutes ; section 286.011, Florida Statutes ; and section 627.093, Florida Statutes. The trial court also concluded that NCCI violated sections 627.291(1) and 119.07, Florida Statutes, when it denied Fee access to its records. NCCI and OIR appeal.

III. Analysis

We review the trial court's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. McDougall v. Culver , 3 So.3d 391, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). But we review the trial court's interpretation of the law de novo. Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc. , 990 So.2d 473, 476 (Fla. 2008) ("We review the statutory interpretation conducted by the trial court to reach this ultimate ruling de novo, while we defer to those factual findings of the trial court that are supported by competent, substantial evidence from the record.").

A. Alleged Sunshine Law Violations

The trial court found that NCCI and OIR violated Florida's Sunshine Law in three respects. First, the trial court determined that NCCI violated section 627.091(6), Florida Statutes, by conducting meetings of the statutory rate-determination committee outside the sunshine. Second, the trial court found that OIR delegated its authority over rate filings to NCCI, subjecting NCCI's rate proposal activities to the sunshine requirements of section 286.011, Florida Statutes. And third, the trial court concluded that section 627.093, Florida Statutes, requires NCCI to conduct its activities in the sunshine.

i. Section 627.091(6), Florida Statutes

Florida's Sunshine Law finds its origins in section 286.011, Florida Statutes (2015), which provides:

All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, including
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Patel v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 24 Septiembre 2018
    ... ... the servicers, or their affiliates, either a fee related to the placement of the coverage or ... 3. In each case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on ... Allen v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2015). In ... , inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory[,]" Natl Council on Comp. Ins. v. Fee , 219 So.3d 172, ... ...
  • Jackson v. City of South Bay
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 15 Febrero 2023
    ...reviewed for competent substantial evidence, while its interpretation of the law is reviewed de novo. Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins. v. Fee, 219 So.3d 172, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see also Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Sarasota, 48 So.3d 755, 761 (Fla. 2010). "Whether a g......
  • Holifield v. Big Bend Cares, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Agosto 2021
    ... ... Instead, Appellant agrees that this case involves a latter instance of an agency ... Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. , 898 So. 2d 69, 73 (Fla. 2005) (quoting ... and not to private entities." Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins. v. Fee , 219 So. 3d 172, 177 (Fla ... ...
  • Burdoo v. Plympton
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Mayo 2017
    ... ... PLYMPTON, Appellee.CASE NO. 1D152036District Court of Appeal of Florida, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT