Sun Coast Home Care, Inc. v. State, Department of Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun Coast Home Care, Inc. v. State, Department of Insurance

710 So. 2d 120, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1998 WL 171478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1998

DocketNo. 97-00780

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 710 So. 2d 120 (Sun Coast Home Care, Inc. v. State, Department of Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sun Coast Home Care, Inc. v. State, Department of Insurance, 710 So. 2d 120, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1998 WL 171478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Sun Coast Home Care, Inc. (Sun Coast), appeals a declaratory statement issued by the Department of Insurance pursuant to section 120.565, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). The declaratory statement ruled that two contracts for services offered by Sun Coast were insurance. We reverse because the record before the Department was insufficient to support this declaration.

In November 1996, Sun Coast filed a petition for a declaratory statement. Sun Coast asked the Department to issue a statement that their “service contracts [were] not insurance or health insurance as defined by sections 624.02 and 624.603.” The allegations in Sun Coast’s petition are very limited. It contains five short paragraphs describing the factual circumstances involved and attaches two proposed contracts: an annual membership plan and a lifetime membership plan. These contracts are not lengthy documents and do not contain detailed terms and conditions.

Without requesting supplemental pleading or conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Department issued a declaratory statement adverse to Sun Coast, affirmatively ruling that the two contracts were insurance. The Department’s statement correctly observes that whether a contract is insurance depends on its purpose, effect, contents, and import, rather than its terminology. See Boyle v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 578 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In determining whether a contract is insurance, courts generally examine five factual elements. See Professional Lens Plan, Inc. v. Department of Ins., 387 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The fundamental problem in this ease is that the abbreviated record does not contain the factual information necessary to make the legal decision requested by Sun Coast, much less the decision that the Department actually made.

The Department has the discretion to conduct a hearing on a petition for declaratory statement. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 4-121.043(2). When it is called upon to issue a declaratory statement that is not supported by specific facts, it may decline to issue the statement. See Florida Optometric Assoc. v. Department of Prof. Reg., Bd. of Opticianry, 567 So.2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). It does not, however, have the authority to issue a declaratory statement adverse to the petitioner when the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support the declaration.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Sun Coast Home Care, Inc. (Sun Coast), appeals a declaratory statement issued by the Department of Insurance pursuant to section 120.565, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). The declaratory statement ruled that two contracts for services offered by Sun Coast were insurance. We reverse because the record before the Department was insufficient to support this declaration.

In November 1996, Sun Coast filed a petition for a declaratory statement. Sun Coast asked the Department to issue a statement that their “service contracts [were] not insurance or health insurance as defined by sections 624.02 and 624.603.” The allegations in Sun Coast’s petition are very limited. It contains five short paragraphs describing the factual circumstances involved and attaches two proposed contracts: an annual membership plan and a lifetime membership plan. These contracts are not lengthy documents and do not contain detailed terms and conditions.

Without requesting supplemental pleading or conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Department issued a declaratory statement adverse to Sun Coast, affirmatively ruling that the two contracts were insurance. The Department’s statement correctly observes that whether a contract is insurance depends on its purpose, effect, contents, and import, rather than its terminology. See Boyle v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 578 So.2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). In determining whether a contract is insurance, courts generally examine five factual elements. See Professional Lens Plan, Inc. v. Department of Ins., 387 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The fundamental problem in this ease is that the abbreviated record does not contain the factual information necessary to make the legal decision requested by Sun Coast, much less the decision that the Department actually made.

The Department has the discretion to conduct a hearing on a petition for declaratory statement. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 4-121.043(2). When it is called upon to issue a declaratory statement that is not supported by specific facts, it may decline to issue the statement. See Florida Optometric Assoc. v. Department of Prof. Reg., Bd. of Opticianry, 567 So.2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). It does not, however, have the authority to issue a declaratory statement adverse to the petitioner when the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support the declaration.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 So. 2d 120, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1998 WL 171478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-coast-home-care-inc-v-state-department-of-insurance-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack