Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     685305
Filing Accepted:  3/28/2023
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
IRANI   First Name   LOUAY AND EDUGIVES
Street Address * 5244 WATERVISTA DIRVE
City, State Zip * ORLANDO, FL 32821
Email Address * LOUAYAJAMI@YAHOO.COM; EBELEN09@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   IRANI   First Name   LOUAY AND EDUGIVES
Policy # * 76593-29-90 Claim #* 7005672211-1
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* OLADIPO First Name * A.ABIDEMI Initial
Street Address* 15257 AMBERLY DRIVE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33647
Email Address * AOLADIPO@MSO.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
NAIC Company Code 21709
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, AARON KRANNAWITTER, ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THE INSURER IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Non-renewal
Other : Failure to Properly Investigate Claim and with Due Regard to Insureds’ Interest. Failure to Acknowle
* 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)(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.

The Insured is not in possession of a complete copy of their insurance policy from FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY (“FARMERS”) as underwritten by TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE (“TIE”), therefore, this section is completed, the best it can be, without a complete copy of the policy. AGREEMENT You agree: 1. to pay premiums when due; and 2. to comply with all applicable terms of this policy. In return, we will insure you for the coverages and limits as shown in this policy. This policy includes the Declarations and any endorsements. SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A- Dwelling 1. Under Coverage A - "dwelling" we cover: a. The "dwelling" on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations by address, including structures attached to the "dwelling"; and b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the "dwelling" or other structures on the "residence premises". 2. We do not cover land, including land or fill on which the "dwelling" is located. C. Coverage C - Personal Property 1. Covered Property We cover personal property owned or used by an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world. After a loss and at your request, we will cover personal property owned by: a. Others while the property is on the part of the "residence premises" occupied by an "insured"; or b. A guest or a "residence employee", while the property is in any residence occupied by an "insured". * * * D. Coverage D - Loss of Use The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use below. 1. Additional Living Expense If a loss covered under Section I makes that part of the "residence premises" where you reside not fit to live in, we cover any necessary increase in living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the damage or, if you permanently relocate, the shortest time required for your household to settle elsewhere, but in no event for more than 12 months. We will pay no more than one-third (1 / 3) of the Coverage D limit per any 30 day period. * * * E. Additional Coverages We insure you for the Additional Coverages as described below except as otherwise shown in the Declarations. Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following Additional Coverages are subject to all the policy terms, exclusions, deductibles, and conditions. 1. Debris Removal a. We will pay your reasonable expense for the removal of: (1) Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property Causes the loss; or (2) Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to any covered property. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual covered damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit is available for such expense. * * * Section I - Perils Insured Against A. Coverage A- Dwelling and Coverage B - Other Structures 1. We insure against accidental direct physical loss or damage to the property described in Coverages A and B, unless the loss is excluded in Section - I Exclusions. * * * B. Coverage C - Personal Property We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the personal property described in Coverage C caused by any of the following perils, unless the loss is excluded in Section I - Exclusions: 1. Fire or Lightning 2. Windstorm or Hail This peril includes loss to watercraft of all types and their trailers, furnishings, equipment, and outboard engines or motors, only while inside a fully enclosed building. This peril does not include loss to the property contained in a building caused by rain, snow, sleet, hail, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, hail, sand or dust enters through this opening. * * * D. Loss Settlement In this Condition D., the terms "cost to repair or replace" and "replacement cost" do not include the increased costs incurred to comply with the enforcement of any ordinance or law, except to the extent that coverage for these increased costs is provided in E.10. Ordinance or Law under Section E. Additional Coverages. * * *
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Farmers Insurance Company (“Farmers”) issued policy number 76593-29-90 (“Policy”) to Louay and Edugives Irani (the “Insureds”) for their home located at 5244 Watervista Drive, Orlando, FL 32821 (the “Insured Property”). The policy is underwritten by Truck Insurance Exchange. The Policy had effective dates of June 29, 2022, to June 29, 2023. The Policy includes Coverage A – Dwelling limits of $384,000.00; Coverage B – Separate Structures limits of $19,200.00; Coverage C – Personal Property limits of $96,000.00; and Coverage D – Loss of Use limits of $38,400.00. The policy includes a 2% hurricane deductible totaling $7,680.00 and a $2,500.00 deductible applies to all other losses. On September 28, 2022, Hurricane Ian, a catastrophic Category 4 hurricane struck southwest Florida with winds in excess of 150 mph. Hurricane Ian was regarded as the fifth strongest hurricane to strike the United States as measured by windspeed. The historic hurricane then moved into central Florida with its hurricane-force winds and torrential rainfall causing severe damage to central Florida, including to Orlando. On that same day, then Florida Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier issued Emergency Order No. 300997-22-EO (“Emergency Order”) which provided for the suspension of certain rules and statutes based on the state of emergency stemming from the natural disaster that was Hurricane Ian. The Emergency Order provided an extension of grace periods, limitations on cancellations and non-renewals, and other provisions. Specifically, the Emergency Order provided “[i]n addition to the provisions of paragraph (A) of this Emergency Order, pursuant to Section 627.4133(2)(d)1., Florida Statutes, an insurer may not cancel or non-renew a personal residential or commercial residential property insurance policy covering property damaged as a result of Hurricane Ian located in any Florida county, for a period of 90 days after the dwelling has been repaired, except as provided in Section 627.4133(2)(d)(2)., Florida Statutes.” On or about September 28, 2022, the Insured Property suffered direct physical damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. Specifically, the high winds damaged the roofing system and structure of the Insured Property, allowing rain to enter the interior of the property resulting in damage to the interior of the property. Further, the Insured Property sustained damage to the garage, dining/kitchen, and to the Insureds’ personal property. The Policy provides coverage for damage to the Insured Property caused by a windstorm/hurricane. The Insureds provided their insurance company, Farmers prompt notice of the loss. Moreover, the Insureds provided Farmers and its agents unfettered access to inspect the Insured Property. On February 9, 2023, The Insureds retained the services of Public Adjuster, Danyer Rodriguez of Claims Advocate Resolution Experts, LLC (“C.A.R.E”) to assist them with the claims process and in presenting their claim to Farmers. On February 14, 2023, C.A.R.E sent Farmers their letter of representation and a request for a certified copy of the policy within 10 business days and attaching C.A.R.E.’s W-9 and requesting information regarding the assigned adjuster so that an inspection could be scheduled. On that same date, Farmers sent a letter to the Insureds confirming receipt of the Insureds’ claim. On February 15, 2023, having been aware of the Emergency Order and of the Insureds’ Hurricane Ian claim, Farmers sent the Insureds a Notice of Non-Renewal. The Non-Renewal Notice advised that the basis for the non-renewal was Farmers had reviewed the home policy and determined certain factors do not meet Farmer’s eligibility rules. The reason cited for the non-renewal was “exposure management.” As a result of this unlawful action by Farmers, the Insureds’ Policy is set to non-renew on June 29, 2023 at 12:01 a.m., leaving the Insureds with an inability to seek other coverage to protect and insure their home during the middle of hurricane season. Farmers’ actions are unconscionable and quintessential bad faith conduct. It is believed that Farmers took this action to punish the Insureds for daring to file a claim and seeking the indemnity they bargained for and were due under the Policy. It is also believed that Farmers wrongfully non-renewed the homeowners insurance policies of other Floridians despite the Emergency Order which clearly and unequivocally prevents Farmers from non-renewing the insurance policies of Floridians in any county if their home sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Ian for 90 days after the dwelling has been repaired. On February 16, 2023, Aaron Krannawitter, a catastrophe Special Claims Representative, for Truck Insurance Exchange, sent a letter to C.A.R.E., on behalf of Farmers, acknowledging receipt of C.A.R.E.’s letter of representation and advising that a certified copy of the policy will be provided once received. Unfortunately despite that promise to the Insureds’ representative, as of the filing date of this Civil Remedy Notice, Farmers has failed to provide a copy of the certified policy, again failing to meet Farmers’ obligations under Florida law regulating the conduct of insurance carriers operating within the state. On February 20, 2023, Mr. Krannawitter inspected the Insured Property on behalf of Farmers to assess all of the damages to the Insured Property resulting from Hurricane Ian and to estimate the total repair costs for covered damage to the Insured Property caused by the hurricane. Mr. Krannawitter prepared an estimate totaling $3,786.57 for dwelling damages. Mr. Krannawitter confirmed damage to the garage, landing, living room, and windows of the Insured Property caused by Hurricane Ian. Unfortunately, Mr. Krannawitter either negligently failed to identify all of the damage to the Insured Property, was unqualified to investigate all of the damage and determine the cause of the damage to the Insured Property, and/or willfully ignored damage to the Insured Property and/or willfully failed to estimate for covered damage to reduce the amount of the Insureds’ claim and payment for covered damages. Also on February 20, 2023, Mr. Krannawitter sent a letter to C.A.R.E. advising C.A.R.E. that Farmers was declining coverage for part of the Insureds’ claim and that Farmer determined that no payment was due for the remaining part of the claim as the estimate for repairs did not exceed the amount of the Insureds’ hurricane deductible. Enclosed with the letter was a copy of Mr. Krannawitter’s repair estimate. Mr. Krannawitter further stated that he determined that there was no wind damage to the roof. Mr. Krannawitter opined that the observed damage to the Insured Property that resulted in damage was caused solely by wear and tear, and not the high sustained winds of Hurricane Ian. Mr. Krannawitter did not provide the Insureds with an explanation as to why their roof did not leak prior to being impacted by the high winds of Hurricane Ian. Despite acknowledging damage to the Insured Property and applying the hurricane deductible, Farmers still unlawfully maintained its non-renewal of the Policy. On February 22, 2023, the Insureds retained Nutravil Inc, certified roofing contractor, to replace the Insured Property roof structure. On March 6, 2023, C.A.R.E. prepared an estimate of the Insured Property dwelling damages for $105,026.47 and contents damages for $295.22 total damages $105,321.69. The Insureds’ representative sent emails on March 8, 2023 providing Farmers with a sworn statement in proof of loss in the amount of $97,641.69 and the detailed C.A.R.E. repair estimate. Farmers has failed to respond to the SPOL within the time proscribed by Florida law. Undeniably, in this claim, and as a general business practice, Farmers hires independent adjusters, appraiser, engineers, and other experts, for the specific purpose of obtaining opinions that will deny and or decrease coverage to the detriment of its insureds so that Farmers can increase profits. Further, in this claim, and as a general business practice, Farmers underestimates, or “low-ball’s,” the value of the insureds’ claim. Based on the damages to the dwelling and the underestimation of damages by Farmers, the Insureds were required to adjust their own loss. On March 7, 2023, the Insureds’ counsel sent a letter of representation to Farmers and requested all claim documents as well as a copy of the policy and loss runs statement. Regrettably, even with the involvement of legal counsel, Farmers repeatedly failed to acknowledge or act promptly with regards to communications from its Insureds and their counsel in direct violation of section 627.70131(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 69O-166.024(3) of the Florida Administrative Code. As a general business practice, Farmers repeatedly violates section 627.70131(1)(a), by its constant failure to review and acknowledge a communication within fourteen (14) calendar days. As of the date of this Civil Remedy Notice, continuing its egregious actions in neglecting its duties and responsibilities to the Insureds, Farmers has failed to furnish the Insureds or their legal counsel documentation requested, including a copy of the Policy as requested. Section 624.02, Florida Statutes, 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. Farmers has grossly breached this duty. The Insureds were, and still are, forced to expend out-of-pocket monies to submit their insurance claim, e.g., retaining legal counsel and other experts to force Farmers to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing them. Farmers has refused and/or failed to tender the insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insureds. Farmers’ failure and refusal to address the contractual damages in this claim has resulted in significant financial hardship and extra-contractual/consequential damages. Thus, when an insurer breaches an insurance contract, the insured “is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy” in consequential damages, provided the damages “were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the contract.” Life Inv’rs Ins. Co. of Am. v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In T.D.S. Inc. v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit noted that Florida courts “allow recovery of [consequential] damages if they were in the contemplation of the parties at the time of the creation of the insurance contract.” 760 F.2d 1520, 1532 n.11 (11th Cir. 1985). Similarly, in Rondolino v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., the court held that “[i]f a party can prove loss of profits [from breach of an insurance contract] with reasonable certainty, then damages will be awarded.” 788 F. Supp. 553, 555 (M.D. Fla. 1992). While T.D.S. and Rondolino are federal cases, courts have found them to be well-reasoned and to be consistent with the opinion in Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wells, which held that in a claim for breach of an insurance contract, “[c]onsequential or resulting collateral damage may . . . be recovered if it can be sufficiently proved.” 633 So. 2d 457, 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Farmers’ 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 its insureds is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the Insureds contend that Farmers’ adjusters and/or agents and/or appraisers and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. As a direct and proximate cause of Farmers’ egregious failure to tender the full amount of insurance proceeds, the Insureds are unable to complete the required repairs. Farmers continued failure to address the full cost of repairs illustrates Farmers efforts to obfuscate its contractual obligation creates an unnecessarily insufferable financial burden on the Insureds. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Farmers has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of the Insureds’ claim of loss. Farmers 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. Farmers has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim for damages. Farmers has failed to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insureds’ pleas otherwise, Farmers has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Further, Farmers has failed to make a coverage determination as to any aspect of the claim, including for damage to the interior of the property that it inspected months ago and that were caused by the direct impact of Hurricane Ian. Moreover, Farmers has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insureds’ claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insureds and with due regard for their interests. Farmers has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, Farmers is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insureds. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). Farmers was timely put on notice of the Insureds’ loss and claim for damages. The Insureds have complied with all of Farmers’ requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the Insureds, who continue to be held hostage unless/until Farmers engages in good faith claims handling. Even though well more than 90 days have passed since the date the claim was reported, Farmers has still refused to fully pay the amount owed under the policy. It is clear that Farmers is not treating the Insureds with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insureds; and ignoring the Insureds’ pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims its adjusters and placing the Farmers’ interests before the Insureds interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that Farmers has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. Farmers’ actions are in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. All of the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior by Farmers that demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Farmers must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) Farmers must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these type of claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) Farmers must tender payment to the Insureds in the amount of $287,887.75 for damages to the Insured Property per C.A.R.E.’s estimate totaling $105,321.69, less the applicable deductible, plus all other contractual obligations owed, fees, costs and interest pursuant to section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes; and (4) Farmers must act fairly and honestly towards its Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insureds’ claim. (5) Farmers must immediately rescind its non-renewal of policy issued on February 15, 2023 and must not non-renew the Policy until 90 days after repairs are completed to the Insured Property as required by the Emergency Order.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ccooper@chartwelllaw.com 05-01-2023 ANNE MARIE GIRI, ESQUIRE AGIRI@CHARTWELLLAW.COM Reply To: Orlando Office 833 Highland Avenue, Suite 202 Orlando, FL 32803 Direct: (689) 210-6913 Facsimile: (407) 203-3603 May 1, 2023 VIA DFS FILING AND E-MAIL: aoladipo@mso.law A. Abidemi Oladipo, Esq. Mubarak, Sherif & Oladipo, PLLC 15257 Amberly Drive Tampa, FL 33647-7669 Re: Complainants: Louay Irani and Edugives Irani Insureds: Louay Irani and Edugives Irani Insurer: Truck Insurance Exchange DFS Filing Number: 685305 Filing Accepted Date: March 28, 2023 Policy Number: 76593-29-90 Claim Number: 7005672211-1 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 To Whom It May Concern: This firm represents Truck Insurance Exchange (hereinafter “Truck”) in connection with a claim submitted by Louay Irani and Edugives Irani (hereinafter the “Complainants”) following a purported loss occurring on or about September 28, 2022, allegedly as a result of Hurricane Ian. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response by Truck to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”), filing number 685305, recently submitted on behalf of the Complainants and associated with Policy number 76593-29-90, and a date of loss of September 28, 2022. Truck denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this mater. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by Truck, which clearly reveal Truck acted properly in responding to the claim and establishes that Truck is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. Truck would further state the Complainants’ CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the sixty (60) day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Complainants’ CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading, as well as insufficient to establish a violation of any statute or policy provision. The referenced statutes and code sections; however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statutes’ relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain specific facts addressing and supporting each alleged statutory violation against Truck, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, Truck hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. Truck hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of a fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS Policy Number 76593-29-90 underwritten by Truck Insurance Exchange, with effective dates June 29, 2022, through June 29, 2023, was issued to the Insureds, Louay Irani and Edugives Irani, for the property located at 5244 Watervista Dr, Orlando, FL 32821-5540. The subject policy contains the following coverages: Coverage A- Dwelling $384,000.00; Coverage B- Separate Structures $19,200.00; Coverage C - Personal Property $96,000.00; Coverage D - Loss of Use $38,400.00; Building Ordinance or Law Coverage 10%; Hurricane Deductible (2% of Cov. A Limit) - $7,680.00. On February 14, 2023, the Insured, Louay Irani (“Insured”), reported damage to the roof of the subject property as a result of a hurricane occurring September 28, 2022 – 139 days late. Truck immediately assigned an adjuster and issued to the Insured its Claim Acknowledgment Letter, enclosing, the Homeowner Claims Bill of Rights. On February 14, 2023, the Insured’s public adjuster, Claims Advocate Resolution Experts, LLC (“CARE” or “PA”), sent via email, its letter of representation to Truck. On February 16, 2023, Truck’s representative sent to CARE a letter, via email, formally acknowledging its representation of the Insureds and noting that any action taken by Truck Insurance Exchange in adjusting or handling this claim has been and will continue to be without waiving and specifically reserving all policy and legal defenses available to Truck Insurance Exchange under applicable law, regardless of whether they are specifically referenced in our correspondence. On February 20, 2023, Truck’s representative performed the inspection of the Subject Property with the PA and an Insured present and took photographs of the Subject Property On February 20, 2023, Truck issued its Claim Outcome Letter to the PA, enclosing a copy of Truck’s estimate. The letter stated, “[n]o wind damage was noted to the roof. There was wear and tear to the roof. Unfortunately, there is no coverage for this portion of your claim based on the facts known to us at the present time. Please refer to the policy language below. . . “Section I – Perils Insured Against, A. Coverage A – Dwelling and Coverage B – Other Structures. . . 2. a. – c.” The language for the cited portion of the policy was included in the letter. The portion of the damages that were covered were found to be below the amount of the applicable deductible. As such, no payment was issued. On March 8, 2023, CARE sent an email to Truck with a link to their estimate; however, Truck never received a copy of this estimate. The Civil Remedy Notice (hereinafter “CRN”) was filed on March 28, 2023 (Filing Number – 685305) and named Louay and Edugives Irani as the Complainants and Insureds. As demonstrated by the narrative above, Truck has been engaging in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As such, Truck acted diligently in the handling of the underlying claim at all times. Truck asserts that it thoroughly investigated the claim, acted diligently and in good faith in the evaluation and handling of the underlying claim, and complied at all times with the provisions of the Policy and applicable Florida Statutes. ALLEGED REASON FOR NOTICE: The Complainants alleges six (6) reasons for notice in the CRN. However, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct. Notwithstanding, Truck denies each and every allegation individually as follows: Claim Denial: Truck denies any allegation of improper claim denial. As is evident from the facts outlined above, Truck promptly initiated an investigation of the loss, requested relevant information from the insured and advised the insured of pertinent policy language. The facts of this claim set forth herein evidence the proper administration of this claim in strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Truck. Claim Delay: Truck denies any delay in the claims handling and process of the loss as evident from the facts outlined above. Truck promptly acknowledged the Complainants’ claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Moreover, Truck routinely communicated with the Complainants, advising of its efforts to evaluate the claim, providing notice of all actions necessary to evaluate the loss and promptly noticing the Complainants of its coverage determination. As such, Truck acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainants submit no facts or circumstances to support its allegation, It is clear from the facts outlined herein that the handling and administration of the claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Truck. At no time did Truck, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Truck acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Truck made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Furthermore, the underlying claim was accepted based on the inspection and evaluation of the underlying loss As outlined above, the facts of this claim show that at no time did Truck, its agents, or its employees partake in any unfair claim settlement practices and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Truck. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, and it is entirely without merit, thus it is denied. The Complainants submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. It is clear from the facts outlined herein the handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Truck. At no time did Truck, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Truck acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim and with the Complainants and their representative. Truck made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Specifically, information necessary and relevant to the proceeding of this claim was communicated to the Complainants in an appropriate and sufficient manner. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Truck. Non-renewal: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. Failure to Properly Investigate Claim and with Due Regard to Insureds’ Interest. Failure to Acknowledge: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainants submit no facts or circumstances to support its allegation. It is clear from the facts outlined herein that that Truck, its agents, or its employees act properly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that Truck acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. Truck made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. Furthermore, the underlying claim was accepted based on the inspection and evaluation of the underlying loss As outlined above, the facts of this claim show that at no time did Truck, its agents, or its employees partake in any unfair claim settlement practices and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon Truck. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Complainants further allege ten (10) statutory violations in the CRN. Again, the CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct that is not specifically alleged or described. Furthermore, they are misleading and unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding, Truck denies each and every allegation of statutory violation individually as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. Truck has not failed to attempt to settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainants. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Truck following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Truck timely inspected the loss and informed the Complainants of the coverage determination. Moreover, the Complainants have submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Truck asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. Truck has not failed to attempt to promptly settle this claim in good faith and has always acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainants. As shown in the above factual summary, the conduct of Truck following its receipt of the first notice of the loss has complied with all aspects of Florida law. Truck timely inspected the loss and informed the Complainants of the coverage determination. Moreover, the Complainants have submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Truck asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainants have submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Truck has always adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Truck employed proper and customary claims practices in the investigation and adjustment of this claim, and in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. This allegation is without basis. As demonstrated above, Truck promptly acknowledged the claim upon receiving first notice of the reported loss and promptly initiated its investigation and scheduled an inspection of the premises. Upon completing its investigation, Truck promptly notified the Complainants of its coverage determination. At all times throughout the handling and adjustment of this claim, Truck acted in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. As clearly set forth in the detailed factual summary above, Truck conducted a thorough investigation based upon all available information prior issuing its coverage determination. The Complainants did not provide Truck with any information warranting a departure from its prior coverage determination. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Truck asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. This allegation is without basis. The Complainants have submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. The aforementioned facts demonstrate that Truck timely provided its Claim Outcome Letter along with a copy of its estimate itemizing and the dollar amount or extent of coverage, and Truck asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. As clearly demonstrated above, upon determining that the reported damages were partially covered under the Policy, Truck immediately advised the Complainants of the basis for the coverage determination, in writing, properly referencing the relevant Policy provisions pertaining to same. The Complainants do not submit any facts or circumstances in support of this alleged violation. Moreover, Truck asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance Policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. This allegation is entirely without merit. As demonstrated above, Truck regularly advised the Complainants of the information/documentation necessary for processing of the Complainants’ claim. The Complainants’ assertions to the contrary are wholly without merit. At all times throughout the handling, adjustment, and settlement of this claim, Truck acted in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. This allegation is entirely without merit. As demonstrated above, Truck regularly advised the Complainants of the nature and reasons of the requested information necessary for processing of the Complainants’ claim. The Complainants’ assertions to the contrary are wholly without merit. At all times throughout the handling, adjustment, and settlement of this claim, Truck acted in strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i): Denied. Truck asserts that this statutory provision applies to personal injury protection insurance claims. Notwithstanding, Truck timely inspected the loss and informed the Complainants of the coverage determination. Moreover, the Complainants have submitted no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation. Truck asserts its full and strict compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it and all duties and obligation set forth in the subject insurance policy. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY Truck denies violating any Policy provisions or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. Truck handled the Complainants’ claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated the Complainants with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by Truck were done in compliance with the Policy. TRUCK DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN Truck hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Complainants, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the Complainants’ claim with utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by Truck. As stated above, the CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice of insurer violation “state with specificity”, inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to any alleged violation(s). The Complainants wholly fails to provide any specific facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, boilerplate allegations against Truck as purported acts of bad faith. Moreover, there is not a single reference in the CRN to any specific policy language that the Complainants alleges as relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. Truck further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory sections by Truck. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by the Complainants, Truck neither waives nor abandons but expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, Truck has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, CHARTWELL LAW, LLP. By:_/s/ Anne Marie Giri Anne Marie Giri, Esquire Amanda M. Bartley, Esquire
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