ROBIN HOOD v. Fla. Office of Ins. Reg., 4D03-3376.

Decision Date13 October 2004
Docket NumberNo. 4D03-3376.,4D03-3376.
Citation885 So.2d 393
PartiesROBIN HOOD GROUP, INC., Jeannie B. Cook a/k/a Barbara J. Cook, Kristan J. Fewkes, Michael Fewkes, Fewkes Management Corporation, and Corey Lama, Appellants, v. FLORIDA OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION and Kevin M. McCARTY, as Director, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jeffrey Deery and Richard B. Weinman of Winderweedle, Haines, Ward & Woodman, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.

Clifford A. Taylor, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Insurance Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellees.

SHAHOOD, J.

Appellants, Robin Hood Group, Inc. (Robin Hood), Jeannie B. Cook a/k/a Barbara J. Cook (Cook), Kristan J. Fewkes, Michael Fewkes, Fewkes Management Corporation, and Corey Lama (collectively, appellants) appeal the Immediate Final Order entered by the Office of Insurance Regulation. We affirm.

Cook (and a partner who is not involved in these proceedings) operated a company called Robin Hood International Ltd., Inc. (Robin Hood International). The company was an Illinois corporation in the viatical insurance business.1 In 1996, on behalf of Robin Hood International, Cook submitted an application for a license as a viatical settlement provider with the State of Florida Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner. The application was denied for several reasons, including failure to fully comply with application requirements and failure to disclose details concerning several bankruptcy filings by Cook. Cook disputed the findings and requested an administrative hearing, but later withdrew that request and the matter was closed. In September 1997, the Department of Insurance (DOI) entered a Cease and Desist order finding that, despite the denial of its application, Robin Hood International had been performing the functions of a viatical provider in Florida. DOI directed the company to immediately discontinue such activities or be subject to penalties.

In November 2000, Cook and Kristan Fewkes (Fewkes) formed Robin Hood, a Florida corporation. Two years later, on behalf of Robin Hood, Cook and Fewkes submitted an application for a viatical insurance broker license in Florida. In the application, it was explained that Robin Hood International remained a viable corporation solely for the purpose of "taking care of old business" and was not actively pursuing new business. Robin Hood was presented as being a separate entity, with the same address and "essentially the same business." The DOI sent Cook a Notice of Denial, advising that the application was denied on the basis that Robin Hood had, in June 2001 and in June 2002, "performed the functions of a viatical settlement provider, or ha[d] entered into or solicited viatical settlement contracts without first having obtained a license from the Department, in violation of Section 626.9912, Florida Statutes." The DOI also served Cook with an Investigative Subpoena commanding her to turn over various documents relating to her business to assist the DOI in determining "the existence of any violation of the Florida Insurance Code."

Jay Paul Newton (Newton), a special investigator with the Florida Department of Financial Services (Office of Insurance Regulation, formerly DOI), filed an affidavit stating that he accessed Robin Hood's website under an assumed name to ascertain whether the company was doing viatical business without a license. He completed the information request form on the web site, giving a fictitious name and using an email address created specifically for this purpose. Three days later, he received a federal express package of information from Robin Hood sent to the Georgia address he had provided in the request. The cover letter from Robin Hood had an address in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, as did the self-addressed envelope provided for him to return his completed Viatical/Life Settlement Application. Also included in the packet were the following: (1) Viatical/Life Settlement Application; (2) Physician Diagnosis and Competency Statement; (3) Insured Statement of Consent; (4) Notice of Disclosure; (5) Life Insurance Release Form; and a(6) Medical Release Form.

Based on Newton's investigation, the Office of Insurance Regulation entered an Immediate Final Order finding that Robin Hood was in violation of the insurance laws for conducting viatical settlements without a license, and directing Robin Hood and all parties involved to immediately cease and desist from transacting any new viatical insurance business. In addition, Cook was directed to send a letter (to be approved by the department) to each and every viator, policyholder, agent, investor, broker, salesperson, etc. notifying them that no further applications would be accepted, and to deliver to the department a complete accounting of all life insurance contracts purchased, sold or negotiated since the inception of Robin Hood in Florida. The order stated that the issuance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • McCloskey v. Dep't of Fin. Servs.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 2015
    ...as insurance. See § 626.99245(4), Fla. Stat. (2004), repealed by ch. 2005–237, § 24, Laws of Fla.; Robin Hood Grp., Inc. v. Office of Ins. Reg., 885 So.2d 393, 394–95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ; Accelerated Benefits Corp., 813 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In amendments adopted by the Legis......
  • McCloskey v. Dep't of Fin. Servs.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 2015
    ...See § 626.99245(4), Fla. Stat. (2004), repealed by ch. 2005-237, § 24, Laws of Fla.; Robin Hood Grp., Inc. v. Office of Ins. Reg., 885 So. 2d 393, 394-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Accelerated Benefits Corp., 813 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In amendments adopted by the Legislature, effec......
  • Kodsy v. Department of Financial Services, 4D07-54.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2008
    ...demonstrate `immediacy, necessity and fairness,' no hearing is required prior to emergency action." Robin Hood Group, Inc. v. Fla. Office of Ins. Reg., 885 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Witmer, 631 So.2d at 341) (emphasis added). "[I]t is not sufficient merely to allege a statu......
  • Valls v. State, 3D18-1825
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 10, 2018
    ...health, safety or welfare, and that this conduct is likely to continue in the absence of the Order. Robin Hood Group, Inc. v. Fla. Office of Ins. Reg., 885 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ; Broyles v. Dep't of Health, 776 So.2d 340, 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We further hold that the Order......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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