Office of Insurance Regulation & Financial Services Commission v. Secure Enterprises, LLC
124 So. 3d 332
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- OIR and the Financial Services Commission challenged an ALJ Final Order invalidating Form 1699 and Form 1655, and Florida Admin. Code Rule 690-170.0155(k).
- Legislature amended section 627.0629(1) in 2006 and 2007 to require insurers to provide windstorm mitigation credits to consumers, influencing rate filings and discounts.
- OIR amended rule 690-170.017 and Form 1699 to reflect the statutory intent and the ARA wind-resistive features study; Form 1699 links credits to wind mitigation features.
- Appellee, Appellee Secure Door (a garage door bracing product manufacturer), challenged the rules/forms, alleging invalid delegation and misrepresentation of credits for non-glazed garage doors.
- ALJ held Appellee had standing and found Form 1699 and Form 1655 invalid; the Final Order was challenged on appeal.
- The Florida Supreme Court reversed, concluding the ALJ erred in finding standing; the merits of the rule challenges were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Appellee substantially affected by rules; within zone of interest; injury in fact. | Appellee lacks concrete injury and is outside the zone of interest; no standing. | ALJ erred; standing lacking |
| Injury in fact | Appellee's sales potential and economic impact show real injury-in-fact from rule effects. | Injury is speculative and not real or immediate. | No real or immediate injury shown |
| Zone of interest | Legislation protects manufacturers by ensuring credits align with statute’s purpose; Appellee’s interests are within protected zone. | Zone limited to consumers and insurers; manufacturers’ profits not within scope. | Appellee not within zone of interest |
| Merits of rule invalidation | Rules/Forms exceed delegated authority or misstate credits (garage-door issue). | Rules/Forms valid as a delegated legislative action. | Not reached due to lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 15 So.3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (standing based on direct injury and zone of interest)
- Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry v. Florida Dental Hygienist Association, 612 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (standing where economic/professional interests implicated)
- Televisual Communications, Inc. v. State, Department of Labor and Employment Security/Division of Workers’ Compensation, 667 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (industry-wide impact and potential financial injury support standing)
- Lanoue v. Fla. Dept. of Law Enforcement, 751 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (injury-in-fact cannot be speculative)
- Jacoby v. Fla. Bd. of Med., 917 So.2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (zone-of-interest test for challenging rules)