Kortun v. Sink - Initial Brief

8/8/2019 Kortun v. Sink - Initial Brief

1/53

H

C

C

-C

L

C

C

CC

-H

C

H

-t

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSTATE OF FLORIDA

FREDERICK W. KORTUM,Appellant,

v. Case No. 1D1O-2459L.T. Case No. 2009-CA-3926ALEX SINK, in her capacity asChief Financial Officer and headof the Department of FinancialServices for the State of Florida,

Appel lee.

INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, FREDERICK W. KORTUM

George N. Meros, Jr.Florida Bar No. 263321

Carlos G. MuizFlorida Bar No. 535001

GrayRobinson, P.A.Post Office Box 11189

Tallahassee, Florida 32302Telephone (850) 577-9090Facsimile (850) 577-3 3 IlAttorneys for Appe llant ,Frederick W Korturn

\255144\1 -#229921 vi

E-Copy Received Jul 19, 2010 2:19 PM


2/53

- a

o

-c

)

a

_ c a a

a a

a 0H

-

' -H I

a Cq

D

.a< a

a- a

-o

o0

f HH .o

a 2 a0 a a 0 0

o o 1 a a 0 a 0 0 c 0 a a

- .H 0l 0 z H

z l H H r z H

)- '

t a IH a c aa a a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iiiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT vSTATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 14ARGUMENT 15

STANDARD OF REVIEW 15I. The Statute Prohibits All Public Adjuster-Initiated Contact andSolicitation for 48 Hours 16

A.The plain text of the Statute prohibits al l public adjuster-initiatedcontact, written and oral 17B. Traditional canons of statutory interpretation support Plaintiffsconstruction of the Statute 17C. There is no legislative history to support the Departmentsinterpretation 19D.The Departments interpretation of the Statute contradicts itsdescription of the Task Forces draft legislative recommendations 19E. The Departments interpretation of the Statute leads to absurdresults 20

II. The Statute Violates Plaintiffs Right to Free Speech 21A.Because the Statute on its face regulates speech, the trial courterred by applying the 0 Brien standard 22B.The correct standard for reviewing the Statute is the Central Hudsonstandard 23

255144\1 -#229921 vi i


3/53

H 44

C

L

-H C

C.

:?

0 0 o C C c C C r CC C 4 C C C 0N . C 1 C o 4 C C C C C C 0 L C C C r C C C C 0

C

C r C c C D C 0C C C - C C 0

f r. The Department has not carried its burden of proof under centralHudson 261. The Department fa iled to prove that public adjuster solicitation inFlorida causes actual harm 262. The Department failed to prove that the Statute is narrowlytailored to meet the states objectives 303. This Court should follow the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts decisionstriking down a 24-hour public adjuster solicitation ban 344. The lawyer cases are inapposite 36

III. The Statute Violates Public Adjusters Right to Equal Protection. 40IV. The Statute Violates Plaintiffs Right to be Rewarded for Industry.... 44

CONCLUSION 45CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 46CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENT .47

\255144i -#229921 vi jj


4/53

0

J4

r

H 0 H 0 H CTABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesBeclcw ith v. Department ofBusiness and Professional Regulation,667 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) 24, 25, 28, 29Board of Trustees ofState University ofNew York v. Fox,492 U.S. 469 (1989) 30,31Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital,488 U.S. 204 (1988) 16Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm n ofNew York,447 U.S. 557 (1980) passimCraigmiles v. Giles,312 F.3d 220 (6h Cir. 2002) 43Department ofEducation v. Lewis,41 6 So. 2d455 (F la. 1982) 24Drake v. Walton Coun ty,6So.3d717(Fla. 1t DCA2009) 15Edenfield v. Fane,507 U.S. 761 (1993) passimFlorida Bar v. Went-For-It , Inc .,515U.S.618(1995) 24,36,40Fraternal Order ofPolice v. Department ofState,392 So. 2d 1296 (FIa. 1980) 44Gore Newspaper o. v. Department ofRevenue,398 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4h DCA 1981) 18Insurance Adjustment Bureau v. Insurance Commissioner,542A.2d1317(Pa. 1988) 25,34,35Jacques v. Department ofBusiness and Professional Regulation,15 So. 3d 793 (F la. 1st DCA 2009) 42Leisure Resorts, Inc. v. Frank I Rooney, Inc.,654 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1995) 17Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Jacobs,841 So. 2d 447 (F la. 2003) 42Mason v. The Florida Bar,208 F.3d 952 (1 1h Cir. 2000) 30New York State Ass ii ofRealtors, Inc . v. Shaffer,27 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 1994) 28

\255144\1 -#22992! vi


5/53

0

I 0-

1 0

C

'

0

0

.

0

.0L-(

-o

Co

0

0

0( o((

0 C

-

,

I

0 -

(-

o

u

- -

-

L

0

-L

- .

_

/

-

,0

0

0

0

t

-

-0

c c

0

0

,

0hraiik v. Ohio State Bar Association,436 U.S. 447 (1978) 36, 37,38Pearson v. Edgar,153F .3d397(71ir. 1998) 25,33Pruett v. Harris County Bail Bond Bd.,499 F.3d 403 (5h Cir. 2007) 25, 29 , 32Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co.,514 U.S. 476 (1995 ) 30State v. Bradford,787 So. 2d81l (Fla. 2001) 22, 24, 36State v. Conforti,688 So. 2d 350 (h DCA 1997) 23Sullivan v. Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection,890 So. 2d417 (Fla.1sCA2004) 16Thompson v. Western States Medical Center,535 U.S. 357 (2002) 14,25United States v. 0 Brien,391 U.S. 367 (1968) 12,21,22,23Westerheide v. State,831 So. 2d93 (Fla. 2002) 42

Statutes 626.854(5), Fla. Stat. (2009) 5, 3 1 626 .8 54 (6 ), F la. Stat. (2009) 1, 6Other AuthoritiesMerriam Webster s Collegiate Dictionary, ]j 1 1 Ed. (2009 ) 17Task Force of Citizens Claims Handling & Resolution, Proposed Public AdjusterLegislation 10-05-07 20Task Force of Citizens Claims Handling & Resolution, Public Adjuster LegislationFinal Draft 11-20-07 7, 19Constitutional ProvisionsArt. I, 2, Fla. Const 1, 44Art. I, 4, Fla. Const 1Laws of FloridaCh. 2009-87, 15, Laws of Fla 27

\2551441 -#22992 vi iv


6/53


7/53

C

C

C ao

a (o

0 0 I c. a C 0 0aC a=' C

- aa a a

..

.

a aa

a-

a 0

ao

a-

a -a

-a

:

o

a .a

a

a _a a_

a

r0

0

0 0 aa 0

0

(

'a

-4

.a

a

a

.

c

-a

C

'

-S

.

5

C

C

--

c

a

.a

0a

0

-

La

a(

:

.

-a

C

< a

.

a -0

-

ad

'0

5

d

ac

-

C

;a

'- 0aa

C

-

C

0r

_

=

(

0

a

c

)C

0-a C

C

. .a

-a

a

a

C

ca

-=-

5

-*

C

r

0

.

c

s

C

a=a

a

. CC

0C

-P

r

-a

a

a

aa

.0

0r

a

a

a

a- a a a

( a a0

C c , 0

a

-

a C .

r

(

C

'

a

'

a

C

a

a

a aC a

&

a

C

a

aC

a

a 0

a

*

a a a a a C a C a C

C a C a - a C a C a a CSTATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

This case presents the question whether the state may impose a substantialrestriction on public insurance adjusters commercial speech in the absence of anyevidence that the states restriction alleviates a real harm.

Plaintiff Frederick W. Kortum (Plaintiff), a licensed public adjuster, filedthis lawsuit alleging that Section 626.854(6), Florida Statutes (the Statute),violates his rights under the Florida Constitution to free speech, to equal protectionof the laws, and to be rewarded fo r his industry. See Art. I, 2, 4, Fla. Con st. Asa licensed public adjuster, Plaintiff is part of a profession that has been recognizedin Florida fo r more than 50 years and that has grown significantly thi s decade.(R4-752). Defendant Alex Sink is the agency head of the Department of FinancialServices (the Department), which regulates public adjusters and is tasked withenforcing the Statute.

The Statute provides as fo llow s:A public adjuster may not directly or indirectly through any otherperson or entity initiate contact or engage in face-to-face or telephonicsolicitation or enter into a contract with any insured or claimant underan insurance policy until at least 48 hours after the occurrence of anevent that may be the subject of a claim under the insurance policyunless contact is initiated by the insured or claimant.

Since the Statute took effect , Plaintiff has no t initiated contact with or initiatedsolicitation of any claimant during the first 48 hours after a claim-inducing even t.(R4-75 1).

255144\1 -#229921 vi 1


8/53

C

C

-

C

C C C

g

C

C

C

. .C

d

C

o d

C

o

C

c

0

c

C

C

0c

.

C

C

C

0)

0

C

.

'

0 C-

- +00

= -=_

C

C

0' j

C o=

-

Documents

Kortun v. Sink - Initial Brief