Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     649835
Filing Accepted:  10/3/2022
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BUTLER   First Name   STEPHEN
Street Address * 21483 PEACHLAND BLVD
City, State Zip * PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33954
Email Address * FLBBUTLER10@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BUTLER   First Name   STEPHEN
Policy # * UHV 2486525 10 Claim #* 22FL00169734
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* INNOCENT First Name * KIMBERLY Initial
Street Address* 1580 SAWGRASS CORPORATE PARKWAY, SUITE 130
City, State Zip* SUNRISE , FL 33323
Email Address * KIMBERLY@INNOCENTLAWFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10969
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* AARON STRANGE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES In Form HO 00 03: Coverage A - Dwelling Item 1.a. is replaced by the following: The dwelling on the “residence premises” used mainly as your private residence shown on the Declarations, including attached structures, other than fences, and attached wall-to-wall carpeting if damage to the dwelling is caused by a covered loss. Form UPC 191 02 18, SPECIAL PROVISIONS - FLORIDA, SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST, par. A. 1.a, pg. 2 of 17. SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST Coverage A - Dwelling And Coverage B- Other Structures In Form HO 00 03: Item A.1. is deleted and replaced by the following: We insure against sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage A and B. 2. We do not insure, however, for loss: c. Caused by: (6) Any of the following: (a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; Under 2.b. and c. above, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. Form UPC 191 02 18, SPECIAL PROVISIONS - FLORIDA, SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST, par. A. 1., pg. 6 of 17.; Form HO 00 03 05 11, SPECIAL PROVISIONS - FLORIDA, SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST, par. A.2.,A.2.c.(6)(a), and closing paragraphs of paragraph 2 , pg. 9 of 24.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“INSURER”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of Stephen Butler’s (“Insured”) claim of loss. INSURER’S principal address is 800 2nd Avenue South, SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33701. INSURER has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. INSURER has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the INSURED’S insurance claim for damages. INSURER has failed to promptly settle the Insured's insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insured's pleas otherwise, INSURER has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its Insured under the policy. This claim involves the Insured's property located at 21483 Peachland Blvd, Port Charlotte, FL 33954, which sustained significant damage from a plumbing failure on or around July 11, 2022. Specifically, a plumbing failure occurred due to a pressurized water line under the shower. INSURER acknowledged the claim and assigned a field adjuster to inspect the loss. In correspondence dated September 27, 2022, INSURER’s Adjuster, Aaron Strange incorrectly determined that although “the sudden rupture of the line was understood to be the cause of the observed damages, this is supported from the water usage records provided to our office. The deterioration of the water line leading up to it’s [sic] eventual failure is understood to be from wear and tear over time. Your policy provides coverage for the ensuing water damage; however, it excludes coverage for wear, tar [sic], and/or deterioration.” The Policy is an All-Risk Policy, which covers sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage A and B. Further, the Property provides coverage for ensuing losses. INSURER has acknowledged that “the sudden rupture of the line” was the cause of the loss. Yet, it improperly asserts that coverage is excluded due to wear and tear even though the policy specifically states that the loss must be caused by “wear and tear” for that exclusion to apply. To date, it has been ninety five (95) days since the claim was reported and INSURER has failed to fully indemnify its Insured for this loss. The Insured, of course, is very disappointed with INSURER’s poor investigation and nonpayment of the claim. The Insured has retained a public adjuster, Adam Donatelle of Donatelle Claim Advisors, who has prepared an estimate of the Insured's damages, which totals $22,954.75. Therefore, demand is hereby made as follows: Estimate $22,954.75 Less Deductible $2,500 LESS PRIOR PAYMENT $6,579.74 TOTAL $13,875.01. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the Insured may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. INSURER has breached this duty. The Insured were and still are, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit their insurance claim, e.g., retaining a public adjuster, an attorney, and other experts to force INSURER to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to them. INSURER has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured. INSURER’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the Insured is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the Insured contend that INSURER’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, INSURER must tender to the Insured $13,875.01 as set forth above, plus interest. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
Kimberly@innocentlawfirm.com 12-28-2022 The Carrier has resolved the instant CRN to the satisfaction of the Insured and thus, the Insured hereby withdraws the instant CRN.
rswanner@upcinsurance.com 12-28-2022 INSURED: STEPHEN BUTLER Claim No. : 22FL00169734 Policy No : UHV 2486525 10 DFS File No. : 649835 CRN Date : 10/03/2022 We received a copy of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (the “Notice”) filed against United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“UPC”). The Florida Department of Financial Services assigned Filing Number 649835 and acceptance date of 10/03/2022. Please note that UPC specifically denies the allegations set forth in the Notice and has at all times acted in good faith in responding to the claim. Also, this will confirm that UPC and THE INSURED(S) reached an amicable resolution of Claim Number 22FL00169734, which is the subject of the Notice, including a full satisfaction of the claim and a cure of all defects alleged in the Notice. If this understanding is incorrect in any way, please contact me immediately. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Ryan Swanner Claims Adjuster II FL License: W075429
er@beharbehar.com 11-14-2022 November 14, 2022 Submitted Via DFS Online Website Department of Insurance Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-032 Insured: Stephen Butler Insurer: United Property & Casualty Insurance Company Policy: UHV 2486525 10 Claim #: 22FL00169734 DFS File Number: 649835 RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that the undersigned represents United Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter “UPC”) in the dispute filed by Stephen Butler (“Insured”) on October 3, 2022. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by UPC to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “Civil Remedy Notice” or “CRN”), submitted on behalf of the Insured. The following shall serve as a brief summary of the claim. Immediately upon receipt of the Insured’s claim, UPC retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property, to evaluate the damage, and determine whether water damage was present. On September 27, 2022, UPC issued an actual cash value (ACV) payment to the Insured for $6,579.74. Without having provided proof of repairs, on October 3, 2022, the Insured filed this CRN and Notice of Intent identified as filing #58763. The Insured demanded $13,875 for indemnity and $5,000 for attorney fees. On October 10, 2022, UPC offered the Insured $11,375.26 to resolve the claim. On November 11, 2022, UPC informed the Insured that it has not received any evidence from the Insured that the repairs have commenced or been completed. UPC informed the Insured that he may be entitled to additional payment once repairs are completed, and he provides proof of repairs to UPC. UPC offered the Insured $13,375.26 to resolve his claim. To date, the Insured has failed to respond to UPC’s offer. A. THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE The Civil Remedy Notice alleges that UPC violated the following Florida Statutes: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(2) – A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) – Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. UPC denies any violation of the referenced statutory provisions and denies that it improperly handled the Insured’s claim or that it failed to settle or adjust the claim in good faith. The CRN statutes require the Insured to specify the specific Policy provisions claimed to have been violated. Here, the Insured claims the following provisions were violated: SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES In Form HO 00 03: Coverage A – Dwelling Item 1.a. is replaced by the following: The dwelling on the “residence premises” used mainly as your private residence shown on the Declarations, including attached structures, other than fences, and attached wall-to-wall carpeting if damage to the dwelling is caused by a covered loss. Form UPC 191 02 18, SPECIAL PROVISIONS - FLORIDA, SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST, par. A. 1.a, pg. 2 of 17. SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST Coverage A - Dwelling And Coverage B- Other Structures In Form HO 00 03: Item A.1. is deleted and replaced by the following: We insure against sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage A and B. 2. We do not insure, however, for loss: c. Caused by: (6) Any of the following: (a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; Under 2.b. and c. above, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. Form UPC 191 02 18, SPECIAL PROVISIONS - FLORIDA, SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST, par. A. 1., pg. 6 of 17.; Form HO 00 03 05 11, SPECIAL PROVISIONS - FLORIDA, SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST, par. A.2.,A.2.c.(6)(a), and closing paragraphs of paragraph 2 , pg. 9 of 24. The following shall serve as a summary of the facts alleged by the Insured as UPC best understands the Insured’s position: The Insured begins by explaining that insurance companies owe a duty of trust to the public. Without any facts in support, the Insured claims that UPC failed to create adequate guidelines for the proper investigation of claims and failed to settle with the Insured when the “obligation” became “reasonably clear”. The Insured also claims without factual support that UPC failed to tender the full amount owed. The Insured claims that on July 11, 2022, the Insured’s property suffered a loss as a result of a plumbing leak. The Insured goes on to claim that UPC incorrectly determined the loss was the result of wear, tear and deterioration of the plumbing lines. The Insured alleges that the loss is covered because of the “ensuing loss” provision of the Policy and that the cost to bring the property back to its pre-loss condition is $22,954.75. After factoring for prior payment and deductible, the total is reduced to $13,875.01. The Insured claims that UPC can cure the alleged violations by tendering $13,875.01, plus interest. UPC stresses that the foregoing summary of the Insured’s allegations are based on the undersigned counsel’s interpretation of the Insured’s CRN and should not be considered an admission of any of the allegations against UPC. In fact, the tenor and inference of the Insured’s allegations are wholly incorrect and without merit. A review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the investigation and claims decisions of the Insured’s claim reflects that UPC diligently investigated and adjusted the claim at issue in this dispute. UPC asserts that all actions taken by it regarding this claim have been made in good faith and for the purpose of fair, just, and timely disposition of the matter. UPC reserves its right to assert all applicable defenses. B. OVERVIEW OF INSURED’S POLICY UPC has identified the following relevant insurance Policy provisions, as follows: SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. 2. We do not insure, however, for loss: a. Excluded under Section I – Exclusions; . . . c. Caused by: . . . (6) Any of the following: (a) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration; . . . SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS . . . B. We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. . . . 3. Faulty, inadequate or defective: a. Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting; b. Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction; c. Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or d. Maintenance; of part or all of any property whether on or off the "residence premises". SECTION I – CONDITIONS . . . C. Duties After Loss C. UNDERLYING FACTS On July 27, 2022, the Insured’s public adjuster, Donatelle Claims Advisors, prepared an estimate for $22,954.75. On July 29, 2022, the Insured executed a contract with Donatelle Claims Advisors. On August 1, 2022, the Insured reported to UPC that his property suffered a plumbing water loss on July 11, 2022. The Insured reported damage to the bathroom and living room. The Insured admitted that there was no damage to the flooring as the floors had been removed prior to the loss. On August 1, 2022, UPC provided the Insured with a claim acknowledgment letter. On this same date, the Insured informed UPC that he opted out of using one of UPC’s preferred water removal companies. On August 4, 2022, UPC provided the Insured with a copy of the Policy. On this same date, UPC requested that the Insured provide a sworn proof of loss, estimates, invoices, water bills for the year prior to the loss, and photographs of the damages. On August 4, 2022, Donatelle Claims Advisors informed UPC that it was retained to assist the Insured in the handling of the claim. On August 15, 2022, Donatelle Claims Advisors signed a form with UPC reflecting that the only damage associated with the loss was to the dining room and master bathroom. On August 18, 2022, Sleuth Incorporated inspected the plumbing loss to determine the cause of the plumbing failure. Sleuth determined the loss was the result of a pressurized water leak located below the master bathroom shower. On August 19, 2022, Drypro Inc. provided UPC with a copy of its assignment of benefits and estimate of $2,561.15 for water extraction services, which was later amended to total $3,959.50. On August 19, 2022, UPC provided the Insured with a second request for information. UPC requested that the Insured provide a sworn proof of loss, copies of all costs incurred, photographs of the damage and estimates of repair. On August 19, 2022, UPC rejected AM Rapid Inspection’s assignment of benefits as it failed to comply with Florida Statute 627.7152. UPC requested that AM Rapid provide UPC with its file. On August 30, 2022, the Insured provided UPC with a sworn proof of loss. The proof of loss totaled $20,454.75. On September 7, 2022, UPC rejected Drypro Inc’s. assignment of benefits as it failed to comply with Florida Statute 627.7152. UPC requested that Drypro provide UPC with its file. On September 7, 2022, UPC rejected the Insured’s proof of loss as it contained costs to repair undamaged items. UPC also requested that the Insured provide a photo of the failed pluming fixture and water bills for the year prior to the loss. On September 16, 2022, Innocent Law Firm informed UPC that it was retained to represent the Insured. On this same date, Innocent Law Firm provided a response to UPC’s request for information in which it provided UPC with a copy of the Insured’s plumber’s invoice and copies of water bills for the year prior to the loss. On September 21, 2022, Drypro Inc. provided UPC with a mold remediation estimate for $8,933.61. On September 22, 2022, the Insured provided UPC with copies of the water bills for one year prior to the loss. On September 27, 2022, UPC issued an actual cash value payment to the Insured for $6,579.74. On October 3, 2022, the Insured filed this CRN and Notice of Intent #58763. The Insured demanded $13,875 for indemnity and $5,000 for attorney fees. On October 10, 2022, UPC offered the Insured $11,375.26 to resolve the claim. On November 3, 2022, UPC followed up with the Insured regarding its offer of $11,375.26. To date, the Insured has failed to respond to UPC’s offer other than to file the CRN at issue. On November 11, 2022, UPC informed the Insured that it has not received any evidence from the Insured that the repairs have commenced or been completed. UPC informed the Insured that he may be entitled to additional payment once repairs are completed, and he provides proof of repairs to UPC. UPC offered the Insured $13,375.26 to resolve his claim. D. LEGAL ANALYSIS The purpose of the civil remedy notice is to give the insurer an opportunity to “cure” a violation of subdivision (1)(a) or (b) of section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes – “not to give the insured a right of action to proceed against the insurer even after the insured’s claim has been paid or resolved.” Lane v. Westfield Insur. Co., 862 So.2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). For there to be a “cure” available to an insurer, what ha[s] to be cured is the non-payment of the contractual amount due to the insured. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due the insured is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy with respect to payment are fulfilled. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., supra. It appears that the Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith and is being used solely for the improper purpose of intimidating and coercing UPC into a settlement of the claim. UPC maintains that it acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured with respect to the claimed loss. UPC denies each of the allegations asserted by the Insured and specifically states, with regard to each, the following: 1. 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. UPC denies that it did not act in good faith to settle the claim with the Insured. Immediately upon receipt of the Insured’s claim, UPC retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether water damage was present. On September 27, 2022, UPC issued an actual cash value payment to the Insured for $6,579.74. Without having provided proof of repairs, on October 3, 2022, the Insured filed this CRN and Notice of Intent #58763. The Insured demanded $13,875 for indemnity and $5,000 for attorney fees. On October 10, 2022, UPC offered the Insured $11,375.26 to resolve the claim. On November 11, 2022, UPC informed the Insured that it has not received any evidence from the Insured that the repairs have commenced or been completed. UPC informed the Insured that he may be entitled to additional payment once repairs are completed, and he provides proof of repairs to UPC. UPC offered the Insured $13,375.26 to resolve his claim. To date, the Insured has not responded to the offer. 2. 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. UPC denies any violation of 624.155(1(b)(3). Immediately upon receipt of the Insured’s claim, UPC retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether water damage was present. On September 27, 2022, UPC issued an actual cash value payment to the Insured for $6,579.74. Without having provided proof of repairs, on October 3, 2022, the Insured filed this CRN and Notice of Intent #58763. The Insured demanded $13,875 for indemnity and $5,000 for attorney fees. On October 10, 2022, UPC offered the Insured $11,375.26 to resolve the claim. On November 11, 2022, UPC informed the Insured that it has not received any evidence from the Insured that the repairs have commenced or been completed. UPC informed the Insured that he may be entitled to additional payment once repairs are completed, and he provides proof of repairs to UPC. UPC offered the Insured $13,375.26 to resolve his claim. To date, the Insured has not responded to the offer. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(2) – A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy. UPC denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Immediately upon receipt of the Insured’s claim, UPC retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether water damage was present. On September 27, 2022, UPC issued an actual cash value payment to the Insured for $6,579.74. Without having provided proof of repairs, on October 3, 2022, the Insured filed this CRN and Notice of Intent #58763. The Insured demanded $13,875 for indemnity and $5,000 for attorney fees. On October 10, 2022, UPC offered the Insured $11,375.26 to resolve the claim. On November 11, 2022, UPC informed the Insured that it has not received any evidence from the Insured that the repairs have commenced or been completed. UPC informed the Insured that he may be entitled to additional payment once repairs are completed, and he provides proof of repairs to UPC. UPC offered the Insured $13,375.26 to resolve his claim. To date, the Insured has not responded to the offer. Further, the Insured fails to explain what material misrepresentations were made, thereby making it impossible for UPC to provide a more detailed response. Notwithstanding such failure, UPC denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(2). 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) - Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. UPC denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Immediately upon receipt of the Insured’s claim, UPC retained the appropriate professionals to inspect the property to evaluate the damage and determine whether water damage was present. On September 27, 2022, UPC issued an actual cash value payment to the Insured for $6,579.74. Without having provided proof of repairs, on October 3, 2022, the Insured filed this CRN and Notice of Intent #58763. The Insured demanded $13,875 for indemnity and $5,000 for attorney fees. On October 10, 2022, UPC offered the Insured $11,375.26 to resolve the claim. On November 11, 2022, UPC informed the Insured that it has not received any evidence from the Insured that the repairs have commenced or been completed. UPC informed the Insured that he may be entitled to additional payment once repairs are completed, and he provides proof of repairs to UPC. UPC offered the Insured $13,375.26 to resolve his claim. To date, the Insured has not responded to the offer. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) – Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. UPC denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The Insured fails to identify any facts or insurance policy provisions he claims were misrepresented, making it impossible for UPC to respond. Notwithstanding such failure, UPC denies any violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). Bad Faith The facts at issue do not give rise to a claim of bad faith. The elements of a cause of action for bad faith are: (a) breach of either a common law duty of good faith or a statutory duty, and (b) damages resulting therefrom. There is no single standard by which an insurer’s conduct may be measured. Instead, the Florida Supreme Court has adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances approach in evaluating whether an insurer has acted in bad faith under section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So. 2d 55, 63, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 569, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S 173 (Fla. 1995). The Laforet court determined that three factors should be taken into account in determining whether an insurer has acted in bad faith with respect to its insured: (1) the efforts or measures taken by the insurer to resolve the coverage dispute promptly or in such a way as to limit any potential prejudice to the insured; (2) the substance of the coverage dispute or the weight of legal authority on the coverage issue; and (3) the insurer's diligence and thoroughness in investigating the facts specifically pertinent to coverage. When examining UPC’s conduct in investigating the Insured’s claim considering these standards, it cannot be disputed that UPC’s conduct is beyond reproach. Upon the Insured’s submission of the claim, UPC retained the appropriate professionals, inspected the Property, and communicated with the Insured and his representatives throughout the claim process. UPC asserts that the Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith and is being used as an improper mechanism designed solely for the purpose of intimidating and coercing UPC to settle the Insured’s claim. E. Summary of Defects with the Insured's CRN • The CRN fails to provide any evidence to support the alleged violations. Because Florida Statute §624.155 creates a cause of action that does not exist at common law, it must be strictly construed. Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The requirements for a valid CRN are set forth in Florida Statute §624.155(3), which states in pertinent part: (3)(a) As a condition precedent to bringing an action under this section, the department and the authorized insurer must have been given 60 days’ written notice of the violation. (b) The notice shall be on a form provided by the department and shall state with specificity the following information, and such other information as the department may require: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, 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. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section A civil remedy notice must be sufficiently specific to provide insurers notice of the alleged wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days. Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (citing Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). Courts have held that if a CRN lacks sufficient specificity, it will be held invalid and cannot form the basis of a bad faith action against the carrier. See, e.g., Fenderson v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 31 So. 3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Here, the Insured fails to provide any factual information or evidence to support the alleged violation. Conclusory allegations devoid of factual support make a CRN vague and shotgun in nature, which is hardly the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow a carrier an opportunity to cure. Heritage Corp. of S. Florida v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008). We trust that this response addresses the allegations raised by the Insured in the Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violations. Should the Department determine it requires any additional information, the undersigned remains available to discuss any questions or concerns with respect to this Response. Sincerely, Aaron Behar, Esq. Joshua Gluck, Esq. BeharBehar
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