Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     665138
Filing Accepted:  12/30/2022
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SMOYER   First Name   ANNAMARIE
Street Address * 6220 RIVER SHORE CT.,
City, State Zip * NORTH FORT MYERS, FL 33917
Email Address * DAVID@CLAIMCLOSERS.NET
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SMOYER   First Name   ANNAMARIE
Policy # * EDH5353669-01 Claim #* EDI951646
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12482
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* DESK AND FIELD ADJUSTER
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : 627.70131
* 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)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Addtl Violations: Florida Admin Code: 69B-220.201(3)(b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 69B-220.201(3)(b)2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. 69B-220.201(3)(c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. 69B-220.201(3)(e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. 69B-220.201(3)(j) An adjuster shall not knowingly fail to advise a claimant of the claimant's claim options in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. 69B-220.201(3)(k) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster's current expertise 69J-166.031 Selectively and detrimentally choosing which alternative dispute resolution to utilize. Relevant Policy Language: Governed by the cited authorities, the subject policy provides coverage for sudden and accidental losses and damages arising from Hurricane Ian. The loss payment provision and governing law provides that the insurer has a fiduciary duty to in good faith promptly investigate, adjust, and issue payment of the undisputed amount of the loss and damages. Furthermore, the policy provides coverage for, inter alia, assessments in relation to remediation, as well as the amount necessary to perform remediation. A. Coverage A – Dwelling and Coverage B – Other Structures. We insure against direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. We do not insure, however, for loss: 1. Excluded under Section I – Exclusions; 2. Involving collapse, including any of the following conditions of property or any part of the property, whether above or below the ground: a. An abrupt falling down or caving in; b. Loss of structural integrity, including separation of parts of the property or property in danger of falling down or caving in; or c. Any spalling, crumbling, cracking, shifting bulging, racking, sagging, bowing, bending, leaning, settling, shrinkage or expansion, or any other age or maintenance related issues, as such condition relates to (1) or (2) above. except as provided in E.8. Collapse under Section I – Property Coverages; or 3. Caused by: a. Freezing of a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or of a household appliance, or by discharge, leakage or overflow from within the system or appliance caused by freezing. This provision does not apply if you have used reasonable care to: (1) Maintain heat in the building; or (2) Shut off the water supply and drain all systems and appliances of water. However, if the building is protected by an automatic fire protective sprinkler system, you must use reasonable care to continue the water supply and maintain heat in the building for coverage to apply. For purposes of this provision, a plumbing system or household appliance does not include a sump, sump pump or related equipment or a roof drain, gutter, downspout or similar fixtures or equipment; b. Freezing, thawing, pressure or weight of water or ice, whether driven by wind or not, to a: (1) Fence, pavement, patio or swimming pool; (2) Footing, foundation, bulkhead, wall, or any other structure or device that supports all or part of a building, or other structure; (3) Retaining wall or bulkhead that does not support all or part of a building or other structure; or (4) Pier, wharf or dock; c. Theft in or to a dwelling under construction, or of materials and supplies for use in the construction until the dwelling is finished and occupied; d. Vandalism and malicious mischief, and any ensuing loss caused by any intentional and wrongful act committed in the course of the vandalism or malicious mischief, if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant; e. Accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam; unless loss to property covered under Coverage A or B results from an accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance on the "residence premises." Loss to property covered under Coverage A or B that results from an accidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance on the “residence premises” includes the cost to tear out and repair only that part or portion of the building, or other structure covered under Coverage A or B, on the "residence premises," necessary to access the system or appliance. The cost that we will pay for the tear out and repair of the part or portion of the building or other structure covered under Coverage A or B as specified above is limited to only that part or portion of the covered building or other structure which is necessary to provide access to the part or portion of the system or appliance that caused the covered loss, whether the system or appliance or any part or portion of the system or appliance, is repairable or not. In no event will we pay for the repair or the replacement of the system or appliance that caused the covered loss. We do not cover loss: (1) To the system or appliance from which this water or steam escaped; (2) On the “residence premises” caused by accidental discharge or overflow which occurs off the “residence premises”; (3) Caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor, over a period of weeks, months or years, unless such seepage or leakage of water or the presence or condensation of humidity, moisture or vapor and the resulting damage is unknown to all "insureds" and is hidden within the walls or ceilings or beneath the floors or above the ceilings of a structure; (4) To a plumbing system, whether above or below the ground, caused by: (a) Age, collapse, obsolescence, wear, tear; (b) Fading, oxidization, weathering; (c) Deterioration, decay, marring, delamination, crumbling, settling, cracking; (d) Shifting, bulging, racking, sagging, bowing, bending, leaning; (e) Shrinkage, expansion, contraction, bellying, corrosion; (f) The unavailability or discontinuation of a part or component of the system; or (g) Any other age or maintenance related issue; (5) To a plumbing system, whether above or below the ground, caused by the impairment, state or condition of the system, which prohibits repair or replacement including access, necessary to connect the adjoining parts of appliances, pipes or system; or (6) Loss otherwise excluded or limited elsewhere in the policy. For purposes of this provision, a plumbing system or household appliance does not include a sump, sump pump, irrigation system or related equipment or a roof drain, gutter, down spout or similar fixtures or equipment. f. Any of the following: (1) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration, decay; (2) Mechanical breakdown, latent defect, inherent vice or any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself; (3) Smog, rust or other corrosion; (4) Smoke from agricultural smudging or industrial operations; (5) Discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants unless the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by a Peril Insured Against named under Coverage C. Pollutants means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed; (6) Settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resultant cracking, of bulkheads, pavements, patios, footings, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings; (7) Birds, rodents or insects; (8) Nesting or infestation, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions, by any animals; or (9) Animals owned or kept by an "insured". If any of these cause water damage not otherwise excluded or limited elsewhere in the Policy, from a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system or household appliance, we cover loss caused by the water including the cost to tear out and repair only that part or portion of the building or other structure covered under Coverage A or B, on the “residence premises” necessary to access the system or appliance. The cost that we will pay for the tear out and repair of the part or portion of the building or other structure covered under Coverage A or B as specified above is limited to only that part or portion of the covered building or other structure which is necessary to provide access to the part or portion of the system or appliance that caused the covered loss, whether the system or appliance, or any part or portion of the system or appliance, is repairable or not. In no event will we pay for the repair or the replacement of the system or appliance that caused the covered loss. We do not cover loss to the system or appliance from which this water or steam escaped. For purposes of this provision, a plumbing system or household appliance does not include a sump, sump pump, irrigation system or related equipment or a roof drain, gutter, downspout or similar fixtures or equipment. Section I – Exclusion A.3. Water, Paragraphs a. and c. that apply to surface water and water below the surface of the ground do not apply to loss by water covered under 3.e. and f. above. Under 2. and 3. above, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not excluded or otherwise precluded by any other provision in this Policy is covered.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Complainant and insured, Annamarie Smoyer (collectively referred to as “Complainant”), maintained a homeowner’s policy of insurance (“Policy”) with Edison Insurance Company (“INSURER”) which provided coverage for their sudden and accidental damages and losses resulting from Hurricane Ian (“Loss”). The Loss caused substantial, direct and consequential damages, and INSURER’s general business practice of willful, wanton, immoral, deceptive and bad faith claim handling policies, procedures, guidelines, protocol, adjusting, investigating, drawing valuations and issuing payment for the claims has caused the Complainant to suffer further harm and extra-contractual damages which have accrued, and will continue to accrue. The stated misconduct is collectively referred to as “Bad Faith,” and the specific factual and/or legal considerations in relation thereto are further outlined below for their consideration in accordance with Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155 and the cited legal authorities associated therewith. 1.) INSURER insures thousands of homes throughout Florida wherein the Complainant’s residence is located. That said, and even though INSURER knows that it has a fiduciary duty to its insureds whose residences are located in a high-risk zone for hurricane damages, it failed to institute the necessary policies, procedures, guidelines, protocol, personnel and contingencies in relation to fully, promptly and equitably indemnifying its insureds who were affected in mass by the devastating and widespread impact of Hurricane Ian. Consequently, insureds such as the Complainant were forced to: fend for themselves to mitigate damages arising from INSURER’s Bad Faith; incur out of pocket expenses that INSURER was required to afford pursuant to the Policy; absorb the burden, expense, inconvenience and delay associated with an insurer who was not equipped (because they didn’t want to incur the expense associated therewith) to meet their contractual obligations; risk health hazards associated with the presence of moisture, toxic conditions and/or mold due to INSURER’s failure to perform pursuant to the Policy; be placed in situation where they have to incur the costs associating with hiring experts/professionals/counsel to force INSURER to abide by their fiduciary duty and avoid the consequential damages associated with INSURER’s failure to perform pursuant to its fiduciary duty; etc. 2.) INSURER knew that hurricane damages are of a nature that a thorough, nuanced and specialized investigation/adjustment of the claim needs to be promptly performed by qualified and prepared personnel to protect their insureds, satisfy their fiduciary duties and otherwise not engage in the Bad Faith claim handling practices at issue. That said, to the detriment of its insureds and to maximize their financial interests, INSURER disregarded the obvious and known obligations by way of the following: (a.) Not developing, maintaining and/or instituting policies, procedures, protocol or guidelines to determine whether adjusters/personnel/vendors utilized to protect their insureds were qualified to duly assess the scope and/or value of the loss or damages. (b.) INSURER knew that it would have to promptly hire a significant volume of licensed roofers, contractors, uniquely qualified adjusters, and/or engineers, to fully, equitably and honestly assess the scope and/or value of the loss or damages suffered by their insureds. Although INSURER will hire such experts to establish a lack of coverage as it relates to a specific claim in which they determine coverage may be in dispute, they choose to avoid such expense for self-gain when they know that a hurricane claim is undoubtedly covered under a policy. (c.) INSURER knew that it would be in their insureds’ interests and their obligation under the insurance policy to utilize personnel/vendors to perform moisture assessments, thermal imaging, and mold assessment, throughout the insured property to honestly assess the full extent of damages and losses suffered by their insureds and ensure the insured is not living in a toxic condition. Such practice is a basic, inexpensive, efficient and industry wide accepted means of protecting their insureds, however, INSURER knows that it does not serve their financial interest since it will increase their financial obligations to insureds such as the Complainant. (d.) INSURER knew that it would be in their insureds’ interests and their obligation under the insurance policy to carefully evaluate on a claim by claim basis whether any amounts appropriated for “depreciation” are based on sufficient facts and data, reliable principles and methods, and/or the application of reliable principles and methods. In reality, INSURER knows that it is arbitrarily, capriciously, deceptively, willfully and wantonly appropriating depreciation without any claim/item specific consideration to justify same. In the aggregate, and unbeknownst to its insureds, this sham practice allows INSURER to unjustly avoid millions of dollars in benefits owed to its insureds who are consequently placed in a position wherein they are financially coerced into choosing whether to leave their home in state of disrepair, or alternatively, searching for handyman and non-licensed vendors to perform makeshift repairs which create secondary risks and potential damages that INSURER will deny coverage for when they arise. (e.) INSURER knew that it would be in their insureds’ interests and their obligation under the insurance policy to carefully evaluate on a claim by claim basis, and only after equitably and fully investigating/adjusting claim, the amounts owed to the insured for: overhead and profit associated with the insured’s reasonable need to utilize a general contractor; taxes associated with the repairs; permit costs associated with the repair; costs associated with various licensed trades that will be needed to effectuate the repairs; whether benefits are owed to the insured for loss of use and/or additional living expenses; personal property that may have been affected by toxic/mold/moisture conditions that developed in the home; costs associated with maintaining the continuity of the finish/appearance for pairs or sets such as cabinets, flooring, roof covering/tile/shingles, walls, ceilings, etc. (f.) INSURER knew that it had an obligation to ensure that software programs, data bases and adjusting practices utilized to estimate the scope and value of the loss were being utilized in form that: honestly and fully delineated the line item repairs or costs that needed to be performed; pricing corresponded with licensed professionals - as opposed to handyman or non-licensed professionals; accounted for consideration of actual expenditures incurred by the insureds or otherwise compensable expenses on a repair cost basis; etc. Ultimately, INSURER knows that the adjusting practices are guided to unlawfully depriving their insureds of benefits owed under the insurance policy, which in the aggregate, serves to maximize their profits to the detriment of their insureds. (g.) INSURER knew that it had an obligation to honestly, promptly, in continuity, reliably and fairly communicate with its insured in relation to their rights and obligations under the policy, basis for payment and/or nonpayment, policy conditions and/or exclusions which are being considered in relation to payment and/or non-payment; etc. Not only has INSURER disregarded said duty, they know that it serves their financial interest by ultimately deterring a large volume of insureds from lawfully obtaining benefits. (h.) INSURER knew that it had an obligation to treat all insureds equally and honestly. However, and for their own financial interest, they will only start to fully consider their obligations as stated herein if the insured retains legal representation and pursues a legal action which exposes them to liabilities and costs. (i.) INSURER knows that it has duty to duly assess whether benefits are owed to the insured in relation to the costs associated with removing, storing, cleaning, and resetting personal property in relation to repairs and/or remediation work that needs to be performed. This duty is ignored by INSURER to maximize their own financial interests. Further, they have a duty to assess whether the personal property has been contaminated by way of toxic moisture conditions that developed due to the loss and consequential damages. (j.) Although from the onset of the Loss INSURER will have no good faith basis to deny coverage in part and/or in whole for a loss/damage, they will delay notifying the insured that coverage has been accepted, and/or otherwise delay performing, in order to: maximize their financial interests; unlawfully and deceptively withhold monies for their own use; utilize policy conditions as a shield in litigation; utilize policy conditions at later date to further delay payment when the insured demands performance under the policy; and/or so as to otherwise implement a deceptive and immoral scheme to deprive insureds of benefits owed under the policy. (k.) INSURER’S Bad Faith conduct as described places the insured in a position that it has too unnecessarily incur expert fees to secure judicial relief by way of a legal action. Moreover, and as part of the Bad Faith practice, INSURER will await the insured’s post-suit retention of an expert to retain a designated/pre-disposed (due to financial biases) experts to further delay their obligations to their insured and the consequential liabilities that the legislature has imposed to deter INSURER from engaging in the Bad Faith practice. To cure the above stated immoral, deceptive, unlawful and collectively defined general business practice of Bad Faith claims handling practices that are knowingly, willfully, wantonly and/or with a reckless disregard for the insured’s interests being implemented, INSURER must issue payment in the amount of $189,481.62, minus prior payments and the applicable deductible within 60 days.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jbosch@qpwblaw.com 02-27-2023 VIA DFS WEBSITE Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: Annamarie Smoyer Claim No: EDI951646 (“subject claim”) Policy No: EDH5353669-01 (“policy”) Loss Location: 6220 River Shore Ct, North Fort Myers, Fl 33917(“property”) CRN Filing No: 665138 CRN Acceptance Date: 12/30/2022 RE: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE - DFS FILING NUMBER 665138 Dear Sir or Madam: The undersigned counsel represents Edison Insurance Company (“Edison”) in regard to the alleged dispute as to the subject claim number listed above involving an alleged windstorm with a date of loss of on or about September 29, 2022, made under the Policy of insurance Edison issued to the Insureds 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 Annamarie Smoyer (referenced herein as “Insured” or “Complainant”) regarding the claim listed above. Edison believes that 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 Complainant’s 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 issued multiple payments accordingly. 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. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s 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 issued multiple payments accordingly. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s 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 Complainant’s 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)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison consistently and promptly communicated with the Insured and their representatives via phone, email and formal correspondence. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison conducted a thorough, complete, comprehensive investigation and issued multiple payments in good faith. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison issued multiple payments and consistently sent detailed correspondence as outlined below. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison issued multiple payments and consistently sent detailed correspondence as outlined below. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison issued multiple payments and consistently sent detailed correspondence as outlined below including notifying of additional information needed. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s allegation that it has violated the above referenced statute. The CRN does not include any facts to support this allegation. Edison issued multiple payments and consistently sent detailed correspondence as outlined below. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Unfair claim settlement practices Edison specifically denies the Complainant’s 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 issued multiple payments accordingly. 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 Insured failed to include in the CRN. On October 1, 2022, the Insured reported the subject claim which took place on September 29, 2022, stating the river came up to the house, but not inside. She advised of damage to the pool cage and porch. She was unable to check the roof but did advise that the driveway was filled with river dirt and trees were down on the property. At the time the loss was reported, there was no electricity or water at the property. On the same day, October 1, 2022, Edison immediately sent correspondence acknowledging receipt of the claim. This correspondence included the Florida homeowner claim bill of rights as well as information on mediation and claims handling. On October 2, 2022, Edison sent correspondence providing the name and contact information for the adjuster assigned to the claim. On October 11, 2022, a field adjuster inspected the subject property on behalf of Edison and found damage related to the loss. On October 14, 2022, Edison received an email from the public adjuster providing their retainer, letter of representation and seeking a copy of the policy. Then, on October 29, 2022, Edison received an email from the public adjuster providing their estimate for $189,481.62. On November 4, 2022, Edison sent the subject property to the public adjuster as requested. On November 19, 2022, Edison issued its coverage determination letter stating, “The claim settlement amount is based on our estimate of damages less any applicable deductible. A check in the amount of $430.85 for Coverage A-Dwelling; A check in the amount of $13,086.16 for Coverage A-Dwelling/Screened Enclosure will be mailed to you.” The letter further states, “Under the terms of your policy loss to the screened enclosure screen material is not covered due to hurricane damage.” On December 20, 2022, Edison received an email from the public adjuster requesting the claim be reopened for a supplemental review. The subject Civil Remedy Notice was filed on December 30, 2022. On January 7, 2023, the supervising adjuster sent correspondence advising that a field adjuster would reinspect the loss as requested and also requesting additional information and material. On January 11, 2023, a field adjuster inspected the subject loss on behalf of Edison as requested by the public adjuster. A week later, on January 18, 2023, Edison sent a reservation of rights letter stating, “There is also a question whether coverage under your policy applies to this loss. Under the policy conditions we need to further investigate this matter to provide a timely response. The nature of the coverage question that exists is whether you have complied with your duties after a loss as noted in Section I – Conditions of your policy.” Also, on or about January 30, 2023, Edison’s supervising adjuster sent correspondence following up on the material previously requested on January 7, 2023, and sent another email seeking an ALE Worksheet to process the additional living expenses portion of the claim. The public adjuster responded with some of the information requested. On February 2, 2023, the supervising adjuster again asked for information about the ALE and interior damage which the public adjuster provided on February 13, 2023. On February 13, 2023, Edison issued a second coverage determination letter along with a check in the amount of $2,843.81 for Coverage A – Dwelling, and $16,913.84 for Coverage A - Screened Enclosure. The letter also provides detailed explanations as to why portions of the public adjuster estimate is not covered. As you can see, Edison conducted a comprehensive, prompt investigation in good faith, issued payment, reopened same when requested, and issued additional payment. 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 Insured’s 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 and payment based on a thorough investigation. When the public adjuster asked for a supplemental investigation, Edison inspected the loss and issued additional payments upon the receipt of additional information. 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 conducted a comprehensive, prompt investigation in good faith. Also, regarding specific policy language alleged to have been violated. The notice refers to a large portion of the subject policy. Edison consistently acted in accordance with the terms and condition outlined in the policy. Also, in this section of the CRN seeking relevant policy language, the Insured includes sections of the Florida Admin Code which are inapplicable and irrelevant to the subject claim. Edison categorically denies that it has violated the listed provisions or any provision of the Florida Admin Code. 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. The CRN actually does not include any facts specific to the subject claim. It is entirely made up of multiple copied and pasted, general, blanket statements. The statements are in reference to general insurance claims and not the subject claim at hand. It refers to a, “general business practice of willful, wanton, immoral, deceptive and bad faith claim handling policies, procedures, guidelines, protocol, adjusting, investigating, drawing valuations and issuing payment for the claims has caused the Complainant to suffer further harm and extra-contractual damages which have accrued, and will continue to accrue.” However, there is not even one fact to support these baseless allegations. 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. As clearly set forth above and contrary to the allegations set forth in the Notice, Edison’s investigation and adjusting of its Insured’s 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 potentially overpaying the Insured. 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. 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 Insureds’ 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