CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 718477
...Tannenbaum of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for Amicus Curiae Attorney's Title Insurance Fund, Inc. PADOVANO, J. This is an appeal from a final judgment declaring a state statute unconstitutional on its face. The trial court held that section 627.782(8), Florida Statutes violates the right to equal protection of the law because it imposes a burden on non-lawyer title insurance agents that is not also imposed on lawyers who sell title insurance. We conclude the legislature had a rational basis to limit the application of section 627.782(8) to non-lawyer title insurance agents....
...Title insurance can be sold in Florida either by a title insurance agent who is licensed by the Department of Insurance or by a lawyer who is a member in good *601 standing of the Florida Bar. In either case, the title insurance premium rates are regulated by the Department of Insurance under Chapter 627, Florida Statutes. Section 627.782(8) authorizes the Department to promulgate a rule requiring its licensees to provide relevant information for use in setting title insurance rates....
...condition of the title insurance industry. Based on this authority, the Department adopted rule 4-186.013, Florida Administrative Code, which requires all licensees under Chapter 626 to provide statistical data for use in setting rates. On its face, section 627.782(8) makes no distinction between lawyers and non-lawyers....
...members in good standing of the Florida Bar are exempt from the licensure requirements of Chapter 626. Because lawyers are not "licensees" of the Department of Insurance, they are not subject to the Department's reporting requirements authorized by section 627.782(8) and required by rule 4-186.013. Keys Title and Abstract Co., Inc., initiated an action for declaratory relief against the Department of Insurance on July 31, 1996, to challenge the constitutionality of section 627.782(8)....
...According to this test, the court must uphold the statute if the classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental objective. See Pennell v. City of San Jose,
485 U.S. 1,
108 S.Ct. 849,
99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988). Our analysis in this case is governed by the rational relationship test, because section
627.782(8) does not impair a fundamental right or affect a suspect class of persons....
...So.2d at 465. This definition of the test imposes a heavy burden on the party challenging a statute on equal protection grounds. Keys Title and Abstract argues that the Legislature had no reason to exclude lawyers from the reporting requirements of section 627.782(8), because the statute does not address a matter pertaining to the regulation of attorneys....
...They are all engaged exclusively in the business of writing title insurance policies. Consequently, the expense data they could provide to the Department of Insurance would be a more accurate indicator of the appropriate premium rates. In our view, section 627.782(8) is rationally related to a valid governmental purpose, and the classification in the law is reasonably designed to achieve that purpose....
...We reverse the decision of the trial court and uphold the validity of the statute. Reversed. DAVIS, J., concurs. BENTON, J., dissents with opinion. BENTON, J., dissenting. Keys Title and Abstract Co., Inc. (Keys Title), "a non-lawyer title agent," proved that section 627.782(3), Florida Statutes (1997), as implemented by Florida Administrative Code Rule 4-186.013, places burdens on title insurance agents who are not lawyers that it does not place on title insurance agents who are lawyers, simply because they are lawyers....
...must obey and charge the promulgated title insurance rates mandated by Chapter 627, Florida Statutes. 8. It is undisputed between parties, and indeed based upon the deposition of Wally Senter, it appears that the non-attorney title agents comprise a small minority of the title agents in the State of Florida. *604 9. Section 627.782(8), Florida Statutes, denies non-attorney title agents equal protection of the laws under the Federal and State Constitutions by requiring "licensees" only, i.e., non-attorney title agents, to submit data to the Department of Insuranc...
...der the State and Federal Constitutions. Even though the court today reverses the trial court's ruling on the statute, the majority opinion does not discuss the fate of Florida Administrative Code Rule 4-186.013, which was also challenged below. [2] Section 627.782, Florida Statutes (1997), as its title indicates ("Adoption of rates"), has to do with how the Department of Insurance determines the amount of premiums charged for title insurance....
...Any legislative purpose to spare from reporting requirements agents who do very little business is rationally accomplished by an exemption dependent on the number or amount of title insurance policies an agent writes, not on the agent's membership in the bar. Section 627.782, Florida Statutes (1997), is "deficien[t] under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitutions of Florida and the United States." State v....
...at 279-80. The trial court's implicit conclusion that Florida Administrative Code Rule 4-186.013 cannot stand if the statutory provision purporting to authorize it falls is correct in my view. As to the judgment that today revives both the rule and section
627.782(8), Florida Statutes (1997)because I perceive no "logical connection between the classification involved and the stated purpose to be achieved by the statute," McGregor,
336 So.2d at 1159I respectfully dissent....
...This point was rejected by the trial court and is raised here in a cross appeal. We find the privacy argument to be without merit. [2] The trial court assumed that its ruling on the statute rendered the challenge to Florida Administrative Code Rule 4-186.013 moot: 11. Because Section 627.782(8), Florida Statutes, has been declared unconstitutional to the extent that it authorizes the Department to, by Rule, require licensed non-attorney title insurance agents to submit statistical information which cannot be required of u...
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 899, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2034, 2000 WL 1535354
...For reasons expressed below, we affirm the trial court's order declaring the statutes unconstitutional. MATERIAL FACTS S. Clark Butler, a builder and developer, challenges the constitutionality of sections
626.611(11), [1]
626.8437, [2]
626.9541(1)(h)3.a., [3] *1212
627.780, [4]
627.782 [5] and
627.783 [6] of the Florida Statutes (1997) and rule 4186.003(13)(a) *1213 of the Florida Administrative Code, [7] which prohibit title insurance agents from negotiating or rebating to their clients any portion of the risk premium charged for the issuance of title insurance....
...[8] Under the Insurance Code and administrative rules in effect at the time Butler filed suit, for policies sold by agents, title insurers are guaranteed thirty percent of the risk premium and title insurance agents retain the remaining seventy percent. See § 627.782(1)....
...rcumstances, applies to title insurance agents as well. The circuit court denied Butler's motion, finding that section
626.572 does not apply to title insurance agents. Butler then filed a second amended complaint, adding sections
626.8437,
627.780,
627.782 and
627.783 to his constitutional *1214 challenge....
...um, which was an amount intended to cover the risk assumed by the title insurer. See §§
627.7711, .782, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1992). Under the newly structured law, the title insurer must receive no less than thirty percent of the risk premium. See id. §
627.782(1)....
...um, to be unconstitutional. CONCLUSION In sum, we hold that the decision in Dade County applies to the statutes at issue in this case, [18] and in accordance with Dade County, we hold that sections
626.611(11),
626.8437,
626.9541(1)(h)3.a.,
627.780,
627.782 and
627.783 of the Florida Statutes and rule 4-186.003(13)(a) of the Florida Administrative Code, to the extent they prohibit title insurance agents from rebating a portion of their risk premium, are unconstitutional under article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution....
...[4] The provisions in chapter 627, Florida Statutes, relate to insurance rates and contracts. Under section
627.780, Florida Statutes (1997), no person may "knowingly quote, charge, accept, collect, or receive a risk premium for title insurance other than the risk premium adopted by the department." Id. §
627.780(1). [5] Section
627.782, Florida Statutes (1997), relating to the adoption of rates, states: (1) Subject to the rating provisions of this code, the department must adopt a rule specifying the risk premium to be charged in this state by insurers for the respective types of title insurance contracts and services incident thereto....
...(8) The department may, by rule, require licensees under this part to annually submit statistical information, including loss and expense data, as the department determines to be necessary to analyze risk premium and related title services rates, retention rates, and the condition of the title insurance industry. Id. § 627.782....
...cific deviation from the adopted risk premium, and a title insurer or title insurance agent may petition the department for an order authorizing and permitting a specific deviation above the reasonable charge for other services rendered specified in s. 627.782(1)....
...The department shall rule on all such petitions simultaneously. (2) If, in the judgment of the department, the requested deviation is not justified, the department may enter an order denying the petition. An order granting a petition constitutes an amendment to the adopted risk premium, and is subject to s. 627.782....
