« Atwater's former bank one of weakest in Florida | Main | Charlie Crist signs worker's comp bill, vetoes auctioneering »

Did McCarty's insurance deputy lie to Congress?

Coventry First LLC, a viaticals company has written a letter to Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty demanding that his office correct "false and misleading" testimony that deputy commissioner Mary Beth Senkewicz allegedly gave during an April 29th Congressional hearing.

At issue: Senkewicz said Coventry "refused to file an Annual Report for the period ending December 31, 2008..."

The problem, says Coventry lawyer Frank J. Santry's letter: "Only seven weeks earlier, on March 10, 2009, Ms. Senkewicz signed a letter [attached as Exhibit 1] to Coventry which read:

'On February 25, 2009, the Office of Insurance Regulation (“Office”) received Coventry First, LLC’s “Coventry”) audited financial statement, report of life expectancy providers and license fee. The Office acknowledges that this fulfills Coventry’s 2 obligations under Section 626.9913(2), Florida Statutes for calendar year 2008.'

Oops. Seems like a simple thing to clear up, right? Nah. It took McCarty's office the entire day to produce this response: "We have received the Coventry letter, reviewed it, and will send a response to the Senate Committee next week. Coventry’s underlying allegation in its letter regarding Deputy Senkewicz’s testimony is false."

This is the second time in as many weeks that McCarty/his office has been accused of deception. Bradenton Sen. Mike Bennett said the commissh lied to him. More here on that.

Coventry's letter is here: Download Letter to McCarty


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Forget this Coventry thing, it looks like McCarty has more explaining to do,. The letter includes this report about the Office of Insurance Regulation's track record on rulemaking:

“Unfortunately, this sort of illegal rulemaking has become the norm for the Office of Insurance Regulation. Forty-six Florida agencies have rules in force published in the Florida Administrative Code. The Office of Insurance Regulation is one sub-agency of one of those 46 agencies. The searchable online database of the Division of Administrative hearings shows that from 2004 through mid-May, 2009, there were 17 cases in which proposed rules of any Florida agency were declared unlawful by an administrative law judge. The single sub-agency, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation, was the losing agency in 9 of the 17 cases.

“The problem is further illustrated by the facts that, of the 23 cases since 2004 through mid-May 2009 in which proposed rules of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation are or have been challenged before an administrative law judge, the agency has never won a case. In 10 cases the proposed rules were declared unlawful by the judge. In 2 cases, the challenged proposed rules were voluntarily withdrawn by the OIR. One case was dismissed when OIR agreed to amendments to the proposed rule acceptable to the challenging party. In two cases, the OIR is presently considering changes to the proposed rule which the parties have indicated have a reasonable likelihood to resolve the case. Six cases were closed without a ruling. Two cases are being held in abeyance.”

The comments to this entry are closed.