Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ganter v. Department of Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 28, 1993No. 92-263Published

1DissentZehmer, Judge

I agree that the Department of Insurance is obligated by the applicable case and statutory law to prove that Ganter personally “knew or should have known” of the alleged acts of misconduct committed by his salesman Schetina. Under the authorities cited in the majority opinion, the Department of Insurance is authorized to impose civil penalties involving the suspension or revocation of a person’s license to engage in an occupation only upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the licensee personally participated in alleged acts of misconduct or, when the alleged acts of misconduct are…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bach v. Florida State Bd. of DentistryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
  2. Pic N'Save v. Dept. of Business Reg.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
  3. Hartnett, Inc. v. DEPARTMENT OF INS. OF STATEDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  4. Thomas v. DEPT. OF INS. AND TREASURERDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API