Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     588631
Filing Accepted:  10/13/2021
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION LLC A/A/O TANA HESS   First Name  
Street Address * 5515 RAVEN CT.
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33625
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION LLC A/A/O TANA HESS   First Name  
Policy # * 1501-2102-6419 Claim #* FL21-0133265
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MITRA First Name * MITUN Initial
Street Address* 501 E. LAS OLAS BLVD SUITE 200/300
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FL 33301
Email Address * MITUN@KWGLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its claimant and with due regard for its interests. The carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and refuses to provide any sort of status of the claim. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). The carrier was immediately put on notice of the claimant’s claim. Subsequently, the claimant submitted a loss package in the amount of $28,640.18 less any applicable deductible needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition to the carrier. Thereafter, the claimant attempted to follow-up with the carrier multiple times in regard to the status of the claim and has been ignored by the carrier. The claimant has complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. More than ninety-two (92) days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of the full loss package and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery orKatranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC 501 E. Las Olas Blvd Suite 200/300, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 231-8107 | Service@KWGLegal.com any recovery to the insureds; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), and Fla. Stat. §627.7152(9)(b) making a carrier’s response to a 10-day letter with a pre-suit settlement offer, request for mediation, or demand for appraisal mandatory. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $28,640.18 less any applicable deductible; 2) Pay the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs as they have been forced to retain counsel; and 3) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been printed out and mailed. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Dalila Munoz at (754) 231-8107 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Mitun Mitra Mitun Mitra, Esquire Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kk1012@universalproperty.com 12-01-2021 December 1, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Insured: TANA HESS Complainant: APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC A/A/O TANA HESS Claim No.: FL21-0133265 Alleged DOL: 7/12/21 FNOL: 9/15/21 Policy No.: 1501-2102-6419 DFS File No.: 588631 Dear Sir/Madam: Please accept this response to Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations No. 588631 (the “Notice”) on behalf of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”). On October 13, 2021, upon information and belief, the Notice was filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC against Universal alleging violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Universal denies any and all allegations of violations of Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjudication of this matter. The Civil Remedy Notice filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC generally alleges that Universal did not attempt to settle the claim in good faith, failed to acknowledge and act promptly with respect to the claim, and denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, failed to adopt standards for proper investigation of claims, etc. Universal contends that the Civil Remedy Notice filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b), the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any… .; 5. a statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In addition to the criteria cited above, the Florida legislature created “Form DFS-10-363,” which is a Civil Remedy Notice Form that lays out an additional fifteen (15) requirements: 1. Complainant’s Name; 2. Complainant’s Address; 3. Complainant’s email address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise) 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s email address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice Similar to the five (5) criteria specifically listed in Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the fifteen (15) additional items required by the Department of Financial Services must be correctly stated with specificity in order to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing an action under Fla. Stat. § 624.155. See, Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 824438 (Fla. 4th DCA March 3, 2021) (holding that the plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was technically deficient as a matter of law for failure to comply with DFS form requirements); Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins, Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (holding that the correct policy number, one of the above listed requirements promulgated by the Florida Department of Financial Services, must be on a Civil Remedy Notice for it to be valid because Fla. Stat. § 624.155 requires a Civil Remedy Notice to have the information required by the Florida Department of Financial Services). To put it simply, a CRN is defective as a matter of law if any of the twenty (20) mandatory items cited above are missing or otherwise incorrect. The Notice filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC fails to meet the requirements of Form DFS-10-363 and Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. First, the Notice does not list an email address for the Complainant, which renders the Notice invalid as a matter of law. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 2021 WL 824438 (Fla. 4th DCA March 3, 2021) (holding that the plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was technically deficient as a matter of law for failure to comply with DFS form requirements). In addition, the Notice fails to identify the name of the Insured, the address of the Insurer, the correct Complainant type, and the correct address of the complainant. Second, with respect to the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. The Notice makes no reference to any individual. Universal is left to guess the individual(s) who are most responsible and/or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in the Notice. In order to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, the Insureds must name the individual(s) involved with specificity to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice, as filed, lacks the requisite specificity as provided in Florida Statute § 624.155. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Third, with respect to the statutory requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any Policy provision or statute. The Notice contains conjecture and supposition as opposed to any facts supporting the conclusory allegations. A written notice which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails to satisfy the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 580 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1193; see also Rousso, 2020 WL 7367059 at *3-6; Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Fourth, the Notice fails to satisfy Fla. Statute § 624.155(3)(b)(4) in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation with any degree of specificity. In particular, the Notice cites to certain vast portions of the policy at issue without specifically delineating what specific subsection was violated. The Insureds also fail to provide factual specificity for any purported violations of the policy at issue. As such, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the specificity requirement of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Finally, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how Universal may “cure” the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the only real “cure” that the Notice is seeking is full payment of a random sum unilaterally determined by Plaintiff, notwithstanding Universal’s right to investigate and adjust the loss. In addition, the Notice seeks remedies that are “extra-contractual.” A demand for cure is properly limited to the four corners of the policy and thus the extra-contractual demands render the Notice insufficient on its face. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a Civil Remedy Notice is invalid if the curative action demands more than the payment for contractual benefits under the insurer’s policy. See, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Subsequent to Talat, Florida courts, and federal courts applying Florida law, reaffirmed the rule articulated in Talat. See, Do v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 1:17-CV-23041-JLK, 2019 WL 331295, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding that a plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was invalid as a matter of law because the curative actions demanded did not concern payment of contractual benefits owned under the insurer’s policy). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, the following shall provide you with accurate facts and circumstances regarding this matter, which shall demonstrate that Universal has not violated any Policy or statutory provisions. Universal issued Policy Number 1501-2102-6419 for the period of May 14, 2021, to May 14, 2022, to Tana Hess (the “Insured”) for the real property located 5515 RAVEN CT., TAMPA, FL 33625 (the “Insured Property”). On September 15, 2021, the Insured made a claim (FL21-0133265) with Universal for water damage – weather related. On September 24, 2021, Universal inspected the property. On September 24, 2021, Universal sent Tana Hess a Letter (referred hereinafter as “Denial letter”), which stated: “Universal has been investigating this claim since it was reported on September 15, 2021. Our field adjuster inspected your dwelling and found no evidence of covered wind or hail damage to the roof and that which was observed is attributed to long term wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown and inadequate dwelling maintenance. Regretfully, we must deny the roof portion of your loss since it does not meet the policy’s Insuring Agreement.” On October 13, 2021, APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC filed a CRN, and noted that the only way to cure the defects outlined in the CRN was to pay the $28,640.18 stated in the pre-suit settlement demand, plus attorneys fees and costs, plus statutory interest. However, the Complainant has never provided a supplemental claim with an estimate totaling the $28,640.18. On October 18, 2021, Universal emailed the law office of Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC the “Denial Letter” that was sent to the insured on September 24, 2021, which reflected the loss was not covered as it was attributed to long term wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown and inadequate dwelling maintenance. Universal has been diligent in responding to the Insured’s requests and investigating the claim. The subject policy of insurance, governing statutes, and case law only permit submission of a claim and payment for covered losses. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Universal stands behind its determination on the alleged claim and maintains the Insureds’ claim was properly investigated and adjusted in good faith. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations set forth in the Notice are devoid and without merit. Universal has abided by the policy and the coverage determination was made in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties. Sincerely, /s/ Kevin R. Khosrowzadeh Kevin R. Khosrowzadeh, Esq. (FBN # 1015891) cc: Mitun Mitra mitun@kwglegal.com Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC 501 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste. 200-300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
kk1012@universalproperty.com 10-26-2021 October 26, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Insured: TANA HESS Complainant: APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC A/A/O TANA HESS Claim No.: FL21-0133265 Alleged DOL: 7/12/21 FNOL: 9/15/21 Policy No.: 1501-2102-6419 DFS File No.: 588631 Dear Sir/Madam: Please accept this response to Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations No. 588631 (the “Notice”) on behalf of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”). On October 13, 2021, upon information and belief, the Notice was filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC on behalf of TANA HESS against Universal alleging violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Universal denies any and all allegations of violations of Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjudication of this matter. The Civil Remedy Notice filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC generally alleges that Universal did not attempt to settle the claim in good faith, failed to acknowledge and act promptly with respect to the claim, and denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation, failed to adopt standards for proper investigation of claims, etc. Universal contends that the Civil Remedy Notice filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b), the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any… .; 5. a statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In addition to the criteria cited above, the Florida legislature created “Form DFS-10-363,” which is a Civil Remedy Notice Form that lays out an additional fifteen (15) requirements: 1. Complainant’s Name; 2. Complainant’s Address; 3. Complainant’s email address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise) 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s email address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice Similar to the five (5) criteria specifically listed in Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the fifteen (15) additional items required by the Department of Financial Services must be correctly stated with specificity in order to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing an action under Fla. Stat. § 624.155. See, Pin-Pon Corp v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 20-CV-14013, 2020 WL 3038576, at * 3-4 (holding that the plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was deficient as a matter of law because the email address listed for the Complainant was the attorney’s email address); Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (holding that the correct policy number, one of the above listed requirements promulgated by the Florida Department of Financial Services, must be on a Civil Remedy Notice for it to be valid because Fla. Stat. § 626.155 requires a Civil Remedy Notice to have the information required by the Florida Department of Financial Services). To put it simply, a CRN is defective as a matter of law if any of the twenty (20) mandatory items cited above are missing or otherwise incorrect. The Notice filed by APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC fails to meet the requirements of Form DFS-10-363 and Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. First, the Notice does not list an email address for the Complainant, which renders the Notice invalid as a matter of law. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 20-CV-14013, 2020 WL 3038576, AT * 3-4 (holding that failure to list the complainant’s email address rendered the Civil Remedy Notice invalid). Second, with respect to the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. The Notice makes no reference to any individual. Universal is left to guess the individual(s) who are most responsible and/or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in the Notice. In order to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, the Insureds must name the individual(s) involved with specificity to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice, as filed, lacks the requisite specificity as provided in Florida Statute § 624.155. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Third, with respect to the statutory requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any Policy provision or statute. The Notice contains conjecture and supposition as opposed to any facts supporting the conclusory allegations. A written notice which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails to satisfy the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 580 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1193; see also Rousso, 2020 WL 7367059 at *3-6; Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Fourth, the Notice fails to satisfy Fla. Statute § 624.155(3)(b)(4) in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation with any degree of specificity. In particular, the Notice cites to certain vast portions of the policy at issue without specifically delineating what specific subsection was violated. The Insureds also fail to provide factual specificity for any purported violations of the policy at issue. As such, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the specificity requirement of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Finally, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how Universal may “cure” the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the only real “cure” that the Notice is seeking is full payment of a random sum unilaterally determined by Plaintiff, notwithstanding Universal’s right to investigate and adjust the loss. In addition, the Notice seeks remedies that are “extra-contractual.” A demand for cure is properly limited to the four corners of the policy and thus the extra-contractual demands render the Notice insufficient on its face. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a Civil Remedy Notice is invalid if the curative action demands more than the payment for contractual benefits under the insurer’s policy. See, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Subsequent to Talat, Florida courts, and federal courts applying Florida law, reaffirmed the rule articulated in Talat. See, Do v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 1:17-CV-23041-JLK, 2019 WL 331295, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding that a plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was invalid as a matter of law because the curative actions demanded did not concern payment of contractual benefits owned under the insurer’s policy). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, the following shall provide you with accurate facts and circumstances regarding this matter, which shall demonstrate that Universal has not violated any Policy or statutory provisions. Universal issued Policy Number 1501-2102-6419 for the period of May 14, 2021, to May 14, 2022 to Tana Hess (the “Insured”) for the real property located 5515 RAVEN CT., TAMPA, FL 33625 (the “Insured Property”). On September 15, 2021, the Insured made a claim (FL21-0133265) with Universal for water damage – weather related. The loss was reported as “Wind storm lifted increase on roof, leak on back lanai.” On September 15, 2021, Universal received a “Hold Harmless Agreement, Direct Payment Authorization, & Assignment of Benefits,” wherein Tana Hess assigned to APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC (“assignee”) the right to receive payment for roofing repair and replacement services under the policy (referred hereinafter as “AOB”). On September 24, 2021, Universal inspected the property. On September 24, 2021, Universal sent Tana Hess a Letter (referred hereinafter as “Denial letter”), which stated: “Universal has been investigating this claim since it was reported on September 15, 2021. Our field adjuster inspected your dwelling and found no evidence of covered wind or hail damage to the roof and that which was observed is attributed to long term wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown and inadequate dwelling maintenance. Regretfully, we must deny the roof portion of your loss since it does not meet the policy’s Insuring Agreement.” On October 12, 2021, Universal received a “Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation,” which stated: “Be advised that the law office of Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC, has been retained by the above referenced company (“client”) as attorney of record relative to the subject loss referenced above.” The letter contained a pre-suit settlement demand in the amount of $28,640.18, with an attached invoice from APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC. On October 13, 2021, APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC filed a CRN, and noted that the only way to cure the defects outlined in the CRN was to pay the $28,640.18 stated in the pre-suit settlement demand, plus attorneys fees and costs, plus statutory interest. On October 18, 2021, Universal emailed the law office of Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC a Response to APEX ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC’S Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation: “Please be advised that Universal denied coverage for the above-referenced claim. Accordingly, Universal has no obligation to remit any payment for your services and your Notice is hereby rejected. It is Universal’s position that this correspondence constitutes an adequate and statutorily compliant response to your Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. However, if you deem otherwise, please contact the undersigned before filing suit so that Universal can address any concerns you may have.” On October 18, 2021, Universal emailed the law office of Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC the “Denial Letter” that was sent to the insured on September 24, 2021, which reflected the loss was not covered as it was attributed to long term wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical breakdown and inadequate dwelling maintenance. Universal has been diligent in responding to the Insured’s requests and investigating the claim. The subject policy of insurance, governing statutes, and case law only permit submission of a claim and payment for covered losses. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Universal stands behind its determination on the alleged claim and maintains the Insureds’ claim was properly investigated and adjusted in good faith. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations set forth in the Notice are devoid and without merit. Universal has abided by the policy and the coverage determination was made in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties. Sincerely, /s/ Kevin R. Khosrowzadeh Kevin R. Khosrowzadeh, Esq. (FBN # 1015891) cc: Mitun Mitra mitun@kwglegal.com Katranis, Wald & Garner, PLLC 501 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste. 200-300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008