Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     664480
Filing Accepted:  12/27/2022
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BRAZAO DE BARROS   First Name   SAMUEL
Street Address * 14650 TULLAMORE LOOP
City, State Zip * WINTER GARDEN, FL 34787
Email Address * BARROSGENERALSERVICES@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BRAZAO DE BARROS   First Name   SAMUEL
Policy # * EDH4022687-06 Claim #* EDI954581
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT ROAD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FLORIDA 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12482
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* TUWANNA MING, RYAN PHILLIPS, PAULA FINSTROM, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
Other : not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct
Other : looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Claimant
Other : not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
Other : looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Claimant
Other : not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,
* 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.
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.

Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Edison Insurance Company (the “Insurer”) has committed the following in handling the Claimant’s claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of insurer before that of the Policy Holder and Claimant; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise “stone wall” claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) looking for ways to delay benefit payments; and 7) conducting inadequate investigations. The Claimant timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for wind damage sustained to the above-referenced insured property from Hurricane Ian on September 27, 2022, including the ensuing damage therefrom. The Insurer responded with a letter dated November 18, 2022, stating that the amount of covered damage did not exceed the policy deductible. The Insurer also advised some of the damage stemmed from flood, which is not covered by the policy. Ultimately, the Insurer stated that the repair cost amounted to $509.52 which fell below the Claimant’s $7,132.23.00 deductible. Given the scope and nature of the damage, the Claimant retained a public adjuster who produced an estimate on October 30, 2022, detailing $101,981.23 in covered damage due to the Claimant. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and erroneously denied coverage for the Claimant’s damage. The Insurer claims the property damage was caused by flood, but the damage was caused by wind-driven rain through the Claimant’s windows as a direct result of Hurricane Ian. Although the Insurer and Claimant are in dispute about how the property was damaged, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils coverage and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. At 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. At 697. The initial investigation by the Insurer’s field adjuster was inadequate. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances, it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Claimant’s property, including significant damage to the flooring, ceiling, and walls throughout the home. The Insurer’s estimate of the Claimant property’s loss simply would not restore the property to its pre-loss condition which is Insurer’s duty under its own contract of insurance. The Insurer has violated its duties by issuing a coverage determination that misrepresents the true scope of damages to the insured’s property and the true replacement cost of the damages. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of the Insurer over those of the Claimant, to delay the Claimant’s claim, and to delay the Claimant’s ability to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Claimant. The Insurer upon the Claimant’s loss had the duty to provide the full benefits under?the policy. These benefits include providing the Claimant with a proper investigation of the loss in addition to the funds necessary to return the property to its pre-loss condition.??However, during the course of its investigation, the insurer’s adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Claimant by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Claimant’s property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. The Insured suffered extensive interior water damage. Despite the presence of such extensive damage, the Insurer refused to conduct a mold inspection which has put the Claimant’s health at risk. Thankfully, upon inspecting the property, the Claimant’s public adjuster discovered that mold was of concern. However, it is not the job of the Claimant to inform the Insurer of visible water damage so a mold inspection can be conducted. To the contrary, it is the job of the Insurer to employ competent adjusters to know that when water damage is visible a mold inspection must be conducted. In short, Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Claimant’s interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Insurers have a duty to treat all claimants equally and the Insurer has breached this duty. The Insurer has conducted poor and inadequate investigations and has significantly underestimated the replacement costs of Claimant’s property which have frustrated and delayed resolution of the Claimant’s claim. The Insurer is placing its financial interests over those of the Claimant and the Claimant’s safety. The foregoing has only delayed the Claimant’s ability to begin restoring the home to its pre-loss condition. The insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct 2. Looking for ways to reduce recovery to the Claimant 3. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Claimant 4. Conducting inadequate investigations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the insurer must: (1) Admit full coverage for the Claimant’s loss. (2) Tender full benefits owed to Claimant under the insurance contract. (3) Pay all attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via Email: Edison Insurance Company 903 NW 65th St., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Csclaims@edisoninsurance.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jbosch@qpwblaw.com 02-20-2023 VIA DFS WEBSITE Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: Samuel Brazao De Barros Claim No: EDI954581 (“Subject claim”) Policy No: EDH4022687-06 (“Policy”) Loss Location: 14650 Tullamore Loop, Winter Garden, FL 34787 (“Property”) CRN Filing No: 664480 CRN Acceptance Date: 12/27/2022 RE: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE - DFS FILING NUMBER 664480 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned counsel represents Edison Insurance Company (“Edison”) regarding the alleged dispute as to the subject claim listed above involving an alleged windstorm event with a date of loss of September 27, 2022, made under the Policy of insurance Edison issued to the Insured listed above. This correspondence constitutes Edison Insurance Company’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Notice” or “CRN”) filed on behalf of Samuel Brazao De Barros (referenced herein as “Insured” or “Complainant”) regarding the claim listed above. Based on the below response, the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services, as it is substantively defective and objectionable for the reasons stated herein, and, without waiving objections, as it completely misstates the facts surrounding this claim. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS 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. Edison specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. Edison did not violate these provisions. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison conducted a thorough investigation in good faith and found that the loss was under the deductible. Edison proceeded to make a good faith settlement offer after receipt of a demand from counsel. 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. Edison specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison did not make any misrepresentations regarding this claim or the policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Edison specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison did not fail 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. Edison specifically denies the Complainants’ allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison did not make any misrepresentations regarding this claim or the policy. In addition to the allegations specifically denied above, Edison generally denies all allegations presented in this CRN, as Edison has not violated any statute, Code or Rule. SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS Florida Statute requires that a CRN state the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to “cure” the alleged violations within the sixty-day statutory period. See Fla. Stat. § 624. 155(3)(b)(2). See also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 774, 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). However, here, the CRN is deficient and defective in that it fails to state with sufficient specificity the necessary facts in support of the Insureds’ contentions, including but not limited to, those that would be necessary for Edison to “cure” the alleged violations. Further, the subject CRN provides what appears to be several boilerplate and conclusory statements, which fail to describe any accurate facts constituting violations of the statutes cited therein. Thus, because the allegations in the CRN are incomplete and incorrect, they fail to provide actual notice of the specific allegations and the actions that Edison could undertake to cure any alleged violations. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1193 (N. D. Fla. 2008). Blanket references to policy provisions and statutes without specification deems the Civil Remedy Notice deficient. Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Co., (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). For the reasons set forth herein, Edison hereby objects to the subject CRN and states it does not intend to waive, ratify or otherwise accept the deficiencies in the CRN, and reserves the right to contest the legal adequacy of the CRN hereinafter as appropriate. As to the content of the CRN here, it is important to note that said CRN is a nullity and should be rejected because the CRN fails to comply with the specific requirements mandated by Florida Statutes §624.155. Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(2) requires the Complainant to set forth with specificity, sufficient factual allegations to state a prima facie case of an insurer violation, so as to put the insurer on notice and be afforded the opportunity to cure the deficiency. However, the Insureds failed to do so in the subject CRN and instead only included conclusory statements, which lack even minimal specificity and/or lack the underlying factual basis to support them. The Insureds’ failure to describe any actual facts or circumstances to support the alleged statutory violations in the CRN precludes Edison from evaluating what error, if any, allegedly occurred during the claim process. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time,” the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim,” the CRN itself only provides unsupported and incorrect allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. Consequently, the CRN lacks the requisite minimal specificity and Edison is unable to determine what specifically the Complainants are claiming was done by or on behalf of Edison that constitutes the bad faith alleged. Due to the absence of specific and accurate information regarding the alleged acts or omissions by Edison which allegedly give rise to any violation of the Civil Remedy Statute, Edison is limited in its ability to set forth specific facts to address and/or refute these unsubstantiated assertions. Notwithstanding, Edison explicitly denies violations of any applicable Florida Statute in the adjustment of the Subject claim and realleges and re-asserts its specific denials to the alleged violations in the subject CRN as set forth above. In addition, Edison denies that it has conducted the practices listed under the “reasons for notice” portion of the Notice. Accordingly, without waiver of its objections, rights and defenses, Edison maintains that it has acted and continues at all times to act in good faith during the investigation and adjustment of the Insureds’ claim. Further, Edison wishes to dispel even the inference of any statutory violation and reiterates below the various reasons which clearly show the proper handling of the Subject claim by Edison. Moreover, as stated in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company (Fla. 5th DCA November 14, 2022), and as a condition precedent to bringing a first-party bad faith case, an insured must provide timely notice of the alleged violation to the authorized insurer and to the DFS. The Insureds have failed to provide such timely notice to Edison. BACKGROUND FACTS Aside from the fact that the allegations contained in the subject CRN lack specific facts, the tenor and inferences of statutory violations are wholly without merit, and Edison denies each and every one. Below are some of the relevant facts regarding the Subject claim that the Insureds failed to include in the CRN. On October 7, 2022, the Insured’s public adjuster, from Five Star Claims Adjusting called to report damages to the subject property caused by Hurricane Ian which took place on September 27, 2022. He reported damage to the following items: drywall, baseboards, as well as perimeter of windows and vinyl flooring, and the ceiling/ac unit. He did not report roof damage, as he was unable to confirm whether it was damaged. On the same day, October 7, 2022, Edison immediately sent correspondence acknowledging receipt of the claim, which included the Florida homeowner claim bill of rights as well as information on mediation and claims handling. On the next day, October 8, 2022, Edison sent correspondence providing the name and contact information for the adjuster assigned to the claim. Edison received and email from the Insured’s public adjuster on the same day providing the public adjuster’s agreement and seeking the policy, and claims’ documents. The field adjuster inspected the subject property on October 17, 2022, and found no wind damage to the roof or interior damages related to the subject claim. However, she did find damage to the exterior of the property that appeared to have been related to the loss. The Insured hired ELR and Mold Hunter Pro, who sent multiple emails to Edison with duplicate documents. Between October 17 and October 31, 2022, ELR and Mold Hunter Pro sent the following to Edison: • An assignment of benefits; • A $14,246.17 estimate for dryout; • A $16,940.07 estimate for restoration cleaning; • A $2,000 estimate for contents services; • A $28,138.63 invoice for mitigation cleaning; and • A $1,127.46 invoice for contents services and a certificate of completion of content cleaning. From Mold Hunter Pro, Edison received the following: • An assignment of benefits; • A $3,000 estimate for a dry out survey and a certificate of completion; • A mold report, protocol and photos; • A $2,000 invoice for indoor air quality testing service; and • A leak detection invoice in the amount of $875; • A dry out survey report. A certified copy of the policy was sent to the public adjuster on October 31, 2022 as requested. On November 10, 2022, the public adjuster sent an email providing their photos, an estimate for $101,981.23, as well as an executed proof of loss for $94,433.23. On November 18, 2022, Edison sent its coverage determination letter to the insured explaining as follows: “Based on the estimate the damage to your property was less than your deductible. There were some items damaged by flood. Flood is not covered by your homeowner’s policy. Therefore, we are unable to make a payment for your claim.” Edison also included the estimate in this correspondence. On November 21, 2022, Edison sent correspondence to ELR informing them that coverage was not afforded for the roof or for the interior water damages, and that payment for those charges related to the interior would not be made. Edison continued to get invoices from ELR so it sent the coverage letter again on November 23, 2022. When the invoices seeking payment continued to be sent, Edison sent an email again explaining the coverage determination on December 6, 2022. On December 8, 2022, the PA requested a copy of the denial letter, which Edison promptly provided. Edison continued investigating the claim and informed the public adjuster of this continued investigation on December 18, 2022. Two days after, Edison received a letter of representation from counsel for the Insured seeking a copy of the policy and a loss run report. Then, the Civil Remedy Notice was filed on December 27, 2022 On January 10, 2022, Edison inspected the property for a second time, as part of its continued investigation, which confirmed its previous coverage determination. As such, on January 16, 2023, Edison sent correspondence to the Insured explaining again that the damages to his property were less than the deductible and that Edison was unable to issue payment for the claim. Edison further explained that the interior of the property did not have any damages consistent with a wind peril and that the damages to the interior of his property were caused by flood or rising waters. Therefore, the interior damages, the water mitigation, and mold testing/remediation were excluded from the estimate. Edison also sent correspondence to ELR explaining the same on January 16, 2023. On January 23, 2023, counsel filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation for Underpayment/Non­payment of claim stating their demand was $106,981.00. In response, on January 31, 2023, Edison sent correspondence explaining the reasons for the coverage determination and also informing of its willingness to try and negotiate to resolve the claim. As you can see, Edison inspected the loss two times to ensure its coverage determination was accurate and that the investigation was comprehensive and thorough, which yielded the same results. Edison also made a good faith attempt to resolve the claim after receiving the demand from counsel for the Insured. INACCURACY OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE SUBJECT CRN The case specific facts related to Edison’s handling of the Subject claim provided above implicitly address many of the vague allegations contained within the Insureds’ CRN and further establish that Edison undertook a thorough investigation in accordance with applicable statutory requirements and professional standards of care. It is important to note that the Insured has not provided any factual support for any of the above allegations. Instead, the facts support that Edison promptly contacted the Insured, inspected the claim shortly after it was reported, and issued a coverage determination. Edison then proceeded to inspect the loss a second time to make sure the initial determination was correct and Edison also made a good faith settlement offer after receipt of the demand. The circumstances support that Edison conducted a good faith, thorough, prompt investigation with the information provided. Insured’s counsel is alleging bad faith in a scenario where Edison went above and beyond and conducted a comprehensive, prompt investigation in good faith. Also, the Notice fails to set forth any specific policy language alleged to have been violated. Instead, the notice states, “the violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.” This confirms that Edison consistently acted in accordance with the terms and condition outlined in the policy and has not violated same. Furthermore, contrary to the requirement to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time”, the purpose of which is “to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve [the] claim”, the Civil Remedy Notice itself only provides completely false allegations with no basis in fact or circumstances. For example, the Civil Remedy Notice repeatedly, falsely states Edison misrepresented and underestimated the loss. This is not true. The CRN also falsely claims the damage was caused by wind when in reality most of the damage was caused by flood which is not covered by the subject policy. The CRN accuses Edison of delaying the claim when in reality, the initial coverage determination was provided within six weeks of reporting the claim. After reviewing the large discrepancy between Edison’s estimate and the PA estimate, Edison went above and beyond and reinspected the loss to see if an agreement could be made as to the scope. Counsel is seeking coverage for flood damage which is simply not covered. Edison did not misrepresent the scope or delay the claim as alleged. Edison did not conduct an inadequate investigation. Furthermore, the tenor and inferences of the allegations are without merit, and Edison denies each and every one. Some of the relevant facts that Insured’s counsel failed to include in the notice have been set out above. The Notice repeatedly makes baseless statements without including facts to support same. For instance, the Notice states that Edison committed the following: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of insurer before that of the Policy Holder and Claimant; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise “stone wall” claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) looking for ways to delay benefit payments; and 7) conducting inadequate investigations. However, this Notice does not have one fact to support any of the above. It alleges misrepresentation but doesn’t state what was misrepresented. It refers to the concurring clause doctrine which is simply not applicable here. The comprehensive investigation with two inspections revealed that the loss was simply under the deductible. As clearly set forth above and contrary to the allegations set forth in the Notice, Edison’s investigation and adjusting of its Insureds’ claim was prompt, thorough, and complete. Furthermore, the Insured has included absolutely no facts or evidence to support any claims in the Notice. All of these baseless claims support Edison’s position that the claim was properly adjusted, and the Insured does not actually have any concrete facts to support a bad faith allegation. Mere disagreement as to the amount of coverage does not equate to bad faith. The Civil Remedy Notice does not show how Edison has failed to comply with the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. Evidently, this Civil Remedy Notice was filed in bad faith, as it is being used as an improper mechanism designed solely for the purpose of intimidating Edison into over paying the Insureds. For the aforementioned reasons, Edison categorically denies that it has acted with bad faith in connection with this claim. CONCLUSION The purpose of a CRN is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, the CRN here does not serve this purpose because it does not provide any means as to how Edison can “cure” the alleged defects except to pay for damage that is not covered under the policy. This failure to provide a proper opportunity to cure renders the CRN improper. Longpoint Condominium Associations v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 2005 WL 131580 (N. D. Fla. June 2, 2005). Moreover, the method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624. 155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. . . . Section 624. 155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624. 155(2)(d). . . . To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F. Supp. 773, 777-778 (M. D. Fla. 1996). Here, Edison properly adjusted the subject claim as it investigated the loss within the statutory time frame. Edison denies all of the allegations contained in the subject CRN, which is defective and improper, as Edison has not violated any of the subject statutes. Edison further states that the accusations made against it in the subject CRN are patently false. In closing, Edison first believes that the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Due to the lack of any factual and circumstantial basis to support the allegations therein, Edison respectfully requests, through this response, that the DFS return and reject the CRN for lack of specificity pursuant to Florida Statutes. Regardless of the rejection, Edison denies all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice and submits there are no violations. While Edison’s response herein is meant to address the allegations in the Insured’s Notice, it is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information presented to date. If the Insureds feel that Edison is not in possession of all the facts, please inform the undersigned immediately. Please note that Edison’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude Edison or anyone on Edison’s behalf from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the Civil Remedy Notice. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Edison or any agent or representative of Edison should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law, as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. On behalf of Edison, we trust that this response addresses the allegations in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very Truly Yours, QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
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