Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     696866
Filing Accepted:  5/26/2023
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
AHMADI/MUJTABA   First Name   ANISSA/MUSTAFA
Street Address * 16331 SHENANDOAH CIRCLE
City, State Zip * FT. MYERS, FL 33908
Email Address * ANISSA_AHMADI@YAHOO.COM ; MMUJTABA@FGCU.EDU
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   AHMADI/MUJTABA   First Name   ANISSA/MUSTAFA
Policy # * OL30124005-09 Claim #* 22FLHOV0004315
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SHERIF First Name * MOHAMMAD Initial
Street Address* 15257 AMBERLY DRIVE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33647
Email Address * MSHERIF@MSO.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY, DION JONES, MICHELE PENNELL, MELISSA BENDOLPH, DELLA OAKLEY, OLIVIA SMALLS, ROBERT BALCOM, TREVOR PAYNE ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THE INSURER IN THE CLAI
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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 Insureds are not in possession of a certified complete copy of their insurance policy from OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY (“OLYMPUS”), therefore, this section is completed, the best it can be, without a complete copy of the policy. AGREEMENT We will provide the insurance described in this policy in return for the premium and compliance with all applicable provisions of this policy. ***** SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, 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 on which the dwelling is located. B. Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We cover other structures on the "residence premises" set apart from the dwelling by clear space. This includes structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection. ***** 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. 2. Fair Rental Value If a loss covered under Section I makes that part of the "residence premises" rented to others or held for rental by you not fit to live in, we cover the fair rental value of such premises less any expenses that do not continue while it is not fit to live in. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace such premises. 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use If a civil authority prohibits you from use of the "residence premises" as a result of direct damage to neighboring premises by a Peril Insured Against, we cover the loss as provided in 1. Additional Living Expense and 2. Fair Rental Value above for no more than two weeks. ***** SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. ***** B. Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the 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, 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, sand or dust enters through this opening. ***** C. Loss Settlement In this Condition C., 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.11. Ordinance Or Law under Section I – Property Coverages. Covered property losses are settled as follows: 1. Property of the following types: a. Personal property; b. Awnings, carpeting, household appliances, outdoor antennas and outdoor equipment, whether or not attached to buildings; c. Structures that are not buildings; and d. Grave markers, including mausoleums; at actual cash value at the time of loss but not more than the amount required to repair or replace. 2. Buildings covered under Coverage A or B at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, subject to the following: a. If, at the time of loss, the amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building is 80% or more of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of any deductible and without deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts: (1) The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building; (2) The replacement cost of that part of the building damaged with material of like kind and quality and for like use; or (3) The necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building. ***** I. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you. We will pay you unless some other person is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. Loss will be payable 60 days after we receive your proof of loss and: 1. Reach an agreement with you; 2. There is an entry of a final judgment; or 3. There is a filing of an appraisal award with us. *****
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Olympus Insurance Company (“Olympus”) issued policy number 76802-47-59 (“Policy”) to Anissa Ahmadi and Mustafa Mujtaba (the “Insureds”) for their home located at 16331 Shenandoah Circle, Ft. Myers, FL 33908 (the “Insured Property”). The policy had effective dates of May 31, 2022, to May 31, 2023. The Policy includes Coverage A – Dwelling limits of $1,410,084.00; Coverage B – Other Structures limits of $28,202.00; Coverage C-Personal Property - $705,041.00 and Coverage D – Loss of Use limits of $141,009.00. The policy includes a 2% hurricane deductible totaling $28,201.00 and a $2,500.00 deductible applies to all other losses. On September 28, 2022, the Insured Property suffered direct physical damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. Specifically, the high winds of the deadly category 4 hurricane with sustained winds in excess of 145 mph, damaged the roofing system and structure of the Insured Property, allowing rain to enter the interior of the property resulting in severe damage to the interior of the property, contents and appliances. The Policy provides coverage for damage to the Insured Property caused by a windstorm/hurricane. The Insureds provided their insurance company, Olympus prompt notice of the loss. On September 30, 2022, the Insureds retained the service of RestoreDry to complete dry out and water mitigation services. Moreover, the Insureds provided Olympus and its agents unfettered access to inspect the Insured Property. On October 3, 2022, Trevor Payne of Mid-America Catastrophe Service, Field Adjuster for Olympus inspected the Insured Property and prepared an estimate totaling $11,160,81. Mr. Payne’s estimate did not include the roof. As a result of Olympus’s failure to properly investigate and address all of the Insureds’ damages, the Insureds were required to adjust their own loss and retain their own estimate from contractors and vendors to restore their Insured Property to its pre-loss condition as well as retain counsel to assist them in presenting their claim to Olympus. On October 7, 2022, the Insureds’ counsel sent their letter of representation to Olympus and requested a copy of the insurance policy pursuant to Section 627.4137(1)(e), Florida Statutes, documents relating to the claim including correspondence, estimates, reports, and a loss runs statement pursuant to Section 627.444(2)(a). On December 7, 2022, Michel Pennell, CAT Desk Adjuster for Olympus sent an email to the Insureds’ counsel attaching a letter to the Insureds dated October 23, 2022, along with a copy of Mr. Payne’s estimate. The October 23, 2022, letter was sent directly to the Insureds, circumventing the Insured counsel even though Olympus was advised on October 7, 2022, that the Insureds were represented by counsel. Olympus findings based on their investigation were that Olympus confirmed wind damage to the Insureds’ roof as a result of Hurricane Ian and Olympus has selected the option to repair or replace the Insureds’ roof with material of like kind or quality and a separate letter would be sent with the details of the program. Importantly, the Right to Repair invocation was intentionally effectuated in circumvention of the insured’s legal counsel and backdated to reflect timely invocation of the provision pursuant to the terms of the Policy. This sort of chicanery and gamesmanship runs afoul of the requirements prescribed in Section 626.9541(1)(I)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Olympus also stated that they were unable to pay for flood damage to ground floor rooms and personal property items which were damaged by flood as the Insureds policy excludes coverage for water damage from flood and surface water. Nonsensically, Olympus’s investigation did not account for the copious amount of water intrusion from the second-floor window and other wind-driven rain through opening in the Insured Property resulting from wind damage. Accordingly, there is pervasive evidence of concurrent causation of damages resulting from both wind and flood as evidenced by water intrusion discovered during mitigation behind the walls between the first and second floor, which is clearly indicative of rainwater that traveled down and not flood water that traveled up. Despite Insureds counsel specifically identifying the deficiency in Olympus’ investigation, Ms. Pennell remained wholly unresponsive to any and all evidence of concurrent causation damages to the Insured Property. Olympus further advised the Insureds that either Olympus or the Insureds may demand mediation in accordance with the rules established by the Florida Department of Financial Services and requested a detailed estimate of the damages the Insureds are claiming. Olympus neglected to attach the DFS mediation brochure in its correspondence and direct violation of the requirements prescribed in Section 627.7015, Florida Statutes. Further, Olympus, having failed to provide the Insureds with any estimate of the scope of the repairs that its captive contractor would conduct at the Insureds’ home, without identifying a specific contractor, without providing any credentials for said contractor, without providing any licensing information for said contractor, without acknowledging the full extent of damages to the Insured Property, without disclosing any agreements between Olympus and any contractor that participates in Olympus’ Elite Repair Program, without disclosing any incentives and/or conflicts of interest that may arise between a contractor participating in Olympus’ Elite Repair program and without providing any timeline for repairs to be commenced and/or completed to the Insured Property, requested that the Insureds “promptly pay” the hurricane deductible to Olympus. These unconscionable actions by Olympus that the Insureds, already in great financial peril due to Hurricane Ian, further compromise their financial health without any acknowledgment that Olympus would rightfully pay what it owes under the Policy. On November 2, 2022, Melissa Bendolph, Claims Adjuster for Olympus sent a letter directly to the Insureds, again circumventing the Insureds counsel advising of Olympus right to repair through the Olympus Elite Repair Program. Ms. Bendolph again advised the Insureds that either Olympus or the Insureds may demand mediation in accordance with the rules established by the Florida Department of Financial Services and requested a detailed estimate of the damages the Insured is claiming. Again, Olympus neglected to attach the DFS mediation brochure in its correspondence. On December 14, 2022, Insureds’ legal counsel provided a comprehensive eight-page letter that outlined several discrepancies/deficiencies in Olympus’s investigation including, but not limited to, the concurrent causation of damages as well video evidence of the water traveling behind traveling behind the walls between the first and second floor, Olympus’s constant and repeated failure to communicate directly with the Insureds’ legal counsel, notice to Olympus that it failed to timely invoke the right to repair based on its mischievous efforts to circumvent legal counsel. Perhaps most importantly, the December 14, 2022, correspondence affirmed the Insureds’ acknowledgment of the general provision in the Policy Olympus’ Option to Repair. Specifically, the letter states “Additionally, please allow this correspondence to serve as a response to Olympus Insurance Company’s invocation of its right to repair the Insured Property in lieu of paying the Insureds for their loss. The Insureds acknowledge that generally a provision in a property insurance policy giving the insurer the right (in the event of a loss) to repair damaged property is permissible and may be enforceable. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. v. Andian Corp., 164 So. 187 (Fla. 1935). Likewise, the Insureds understand that when such a provision is enforceable and an insurer makes its election to repair property pursuant to the policy, that election is binding upon the insured and creates a new contract. Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So. 2d 832 (4th DCA 2006); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Parkman, 300 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Arch Roberts & Co. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 305 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2007).Under such a contract, however, the insurer is bound to restore the property within a reasonable time, and to substantially the same condition as to function, appearance and value as existed before the loss. Travelers Indemnity Co., 300 So. 2d at 285; Arch Roberts & Co., 305 So. 2d at 883-884. As such, the Insureds hold Olympus liable for any and all costs associated with the repair process, including but not limited to, testing by any experts, engineers, etc., to verify the strength, integrity, durability, etc. of the repairs made to the insureds’ home. If it is determined during the course of the repairs or after the repairs are complete that such repairs are deficient in any manner (e.g., the repairs do not match in quality, color, hue, tint, strength, etc. to the original materials), or that the Insureds are not completely satisfied with the quality, appearance, etc. of the repairs, the Insureds will seek intervention from a court of competent jurisdiction and request appropriate relief, which may include having all repair work removed and re-done at Olympus’s sole cost and expense. An insurer’s obligation to repair in this situation is not fulfilled until the insurer has paid the cost of repair (less any deduction provided in the policy) or has placed the insured in possession of the repaired property. Travelers Indemnity Co., 300 So. 2d at 285. It is important to note that where an insurer makes an election to repair the insured’s property and then breaches that contract for repair, it becomes liable for the damages proximately caused by this breach. Drew, 920 So. 2d at 835. The recoverable damages for such breach can go beyond the scope of the policy, even if the insurer has not acted in bad faith. Id. In any event, the insurer can be liable for the value of the property immediately prior to the loss, and potentially for loss of use of the property. Arch Roberts & Co., 305 So. 2d at 883; Travelers Indemnity Co., 300 So. 2d at 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Due to the inherent risks (liability, damages, conflicts of interest, potentially inadequate repairs, etc.) associated with Olympus’s election to repair, the Insureds are justifiably concerned about this particular method of resolution to the widespread damages from the cataclysmic impact of Hurricane Ian. Now, it is believed that Olympus has asserted its election to repair the Insureds’ property for financial reasons only (which raises the question, is Olympus looking after the best interests of its insureds, or simply trying to help its bottom line at the expense of the insureds). Put another way, management at Olympus likely believe that it will cost less for Olympus to have one of its chosen contractors repair the loss than it will be to pay the Insureds for the loss. In perhaps more transparent terms, the contractor Olympus will hire to undertake the subject repairs will likely charge less than the prevailing cost for such repairs in the local marketplace. The age-old saying “you get what you pay for” becomes relevant in this situation. In reality, however, such financial incentives present risks, which again, cause great concerns for the Insureds, who should be provided the full value of the insurance coverage they purchased from, and paid to, Olympus.” Based on the case law referenced, the Insureds requested compliance with several basic requests including, but not limited to, list of materials used, individuals that will enter the Insured Property, proof of licensure and insurance and workers compensation, etc. but Olympus did not acknowledge nor respond to this correspondence in any capacity. On February 13, 2023, February 24, 2023, March 7, 2023, and April 17, 2023, the Insureds’ counsel sent correspondence to Olympus all which have gone unanswered by Olympus. The December 14, 2022, correspondence from the Insureds’ counsel sent Ms. Pennell attached the Insureds’ lease agreement as the entire family is displaced from the Insured Property, proof of loan payment for ALE consideration, mitigation contract with Restore Dry along with photos and videos to evidence water intrusion from the second floor traveling behind the walls to the first floor, as well as request for guidance on the contents damages. Quite importantly, despite legal counsel repeatedly requesting to speak to the assigned adjusters on the phone (Ms. Pennell, Ms. Bendolph and currently assigned adjuster Olivia Small) the first and only time legal counsel was able to make telephonic contact with Olympus’s assigned desk adjuster was on Mach 14, 2023, when the claim was temporarily assigned to Della Oakley, who proclaimed she was taking over handling of the file. During the March 14, 2023, telephone conversation with Ms. Oakley, she readily admitted there was several points of inappropriate contact with the Insureds after Olympus received the letter of representation and Ms. Oakley not only understood the concerns with the circumvention of legal counsel, but also confirmed she would further look into timeliness of the invocation with her management team given the shenanigans to circumvent legal counsel. Additionally, legal counsel informed Ms. Oakley of the outstanding need for ALE based on the Insureds’ displacement from the Insured Property and, again, addressed the concurrent causation of damages and the need for a re-inspection, while also confirming the Insureds did not necessarily dispute Olympus’s roof assessment or its generally right to conduct the repairs, which were limited to the roof. However, given the payment of the policy limits on the flood policy, there was still clear dispute regarding the interior damages to the second floor that were not accounted for in Olympus’s estimate, nor the damages resulting from concurrent causation of loss to the first floor. Based on Ms. Oakley’s understanding of these substantial issues, she assured legal counsel she would attempt a reinspection shortly, but perhaps with an engineer, based on the concurrence of causation. Ms. Oakley was to confirm this matter with management and report back for additional guidance on the reinspection. Instead, what happened next left the Insureds further flabbergasted and exasperated with Olympus’s impetuous efforts to continue its underhanded and maladroit claims adjustment. On April 3, 2023, Olivia Small, Catastrophe Claims Adjuster for Olympus sent a letter to the Insureds’ counsel requesting Neumann Construction the right to inspection the Insured Property on behalf of Olympus, requesting an estimate and sworn statement in proof of loss. Importantly, Ms. Smalls’ correspondence made no reference to the March 17, 2023, phone conversation with Ms. Oakley nor did it provide any guidance or acknowledgment of any of the substantive issues discussed regarding the claim. Instead, the email attaches a copy of the prior invocation letter that was sent directly to the Insureds and in circumvention of legal counsel, and, quite nefariously, the letter implies an accusatory tone of the Insureds failing to comply with conditions of the Policy. Understandably perplexed, Insureds’ legal counsel sent the following via email on April 17, 2023: “Good Afternoon Ms. Smalls, While I look forward to working with you on this matter, I admit I am perplexed by your email given my last conversation with Della Oakley on March 13th. After chasing a response to our previous correspondence from Melissa Bendolph, who remained completely unresponsive to all communication from my office over several weeks and months, I finally spoke with Ms. Oakley on the phone and discussed several significant items Olympus neglected to address in its initial estimate for damages and that remain the insurer's responsibility after the flood damages were paid at policy limits ($250,000). She and I agreed to schedule a reinspection to address, at a minimum, the concurrent causation and the other proof of wind-driven water intrusion that was previously provided to Olympus. Perhaps most importantly, after providing Ms. Oakley with a substantive update on the repairs and the insurer's shenanigans to circumvent legal counsel in efforts to timely and retroactively invoke the right to repair, Ms. Oakley was following up with her management team and the Insureds were awaiting her response regarding the issues with the untimely invocation. Notwithstanding, legal counsel assured Ms. Oakley the Insureds did not dispute the insurer's right to make repairs if timely invoked, especially since Mr. Oakley confirmed the right to repair was for the roof repairs only. However, there is substantial interior damage and water intrusion from the second flood (captured on video) and water remediation efforts revealed substantial category III water behind the drywall in between the first and second floor (photos previously provided). Ms. Oakley took responsibility for the insurer's failure to respond to our prior correspondence and assured me that she would assist the insureds in moving this matter forward. Yet, it appears this matter has been reassigned once more at the risk of whatever movement was generated with Ms. Oakley, who was the only previous adjuster that responded to correspondence and/or phone calls. The insureds provided the comprehensive repair estimate and a lease agreement while displaced from the Insured Property, from which they will rely upon for the submission of the Proof of Loss. In the meantime, I would like to schedule a time to speak with you on this matter this week. Kindly confirm your availability for a conference call tomorrow afternoon, Wednesday morning or Thursday afternoon to address the items above and to confirm whether Olympus intends to coordinate the aforementioned reinspection.Again, I look forward to working with you on this matter. I understand you assumed this file and I trust a conversation will help facilitate a more expeditious resolution as the insureds remain intent to complete repairs and restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition without delay.” Ms. Small did not respond to the April 17, 2023, correspondence from Insureds’ legal counsel, but instead continued to communicate directly with the Insureds in further efforts to circumvent legal counsel. On May 2, 2023, Olivia Small, Catastrophe Claims Adjuster for Olympus sent a letter to the Insureds’ counsel requesting Neumann Construction the right to inspection the Insured Property on behalf of Olympus, requesting an estimate and sworn statement in proof of loss. Again, the letter was not responsive to the April 17, 2023, conversation with Della Oakley or the December correspondence from legal counsel. On May 22, 2023, the Insureds’ sent an executed Sworn Statement In Proof of Loss for Coverage A- Dwelling damages for $529,273.96, Coverage C- Contents damages for $163,678.83, Coverage D- ALE for $131,696.01, less the applicable of $28,201.00 for the whole amount claimed totaling $796,447.80 along with supporting estimates and documents. Since Olympus exercised its option to use its preferred contractor to replace the roof, the Insureds pleas for information on when their roof will be replaced go unanswered and this has delayed the Insureds from proceeding with the interior repairs and replacement of the cabinets, appliances and contents and has forced the Insureds to move out of the Insured Property and suffer additional living expenses which are continuing. Moreover, given the displacement from the Insured Property form concurrent causes of loss, the flood policy does not include ALE coverage and, therefore, Olympus’ malaise to address the Additional Living Expenses continue to accrue as a direct and proximate cause of Olympus’ breach of the Policy. Despite this communication, Olympus’ failed to explain or provide guidance to the homeowners for obtaining payments under other coverages for their damaged property and/or the basis for Olympus to continue to withhold such payments. Olympus simply ignored its obligation to pay or deny coverage for damage that falls under the other coverages applicable in the Policy. Significantly, Olympus failed to send the statutorily required notice of DFS mediation, pursuant to section 627.7015, Florida Statutes. Olympus’ failure to timely notify the insured of the right to participate in DFS mediation will result in the insurer's referral to the Office of Insurance Regulation for administrative action as outlined in Fla. Admin. Code R. 69J-166.031(4)(a)4 and section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Moreover, Olympus waived its right to appraisal by its failure to notify the Insureds of their right to mediate. See Kennedy v. First Protective Ins. Co., 271 So. 3d 106 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019). As of the date of this Civil Remedy Notice, continuing its egregious actions in neglecting its duties and responsibilities to the Insureds, Olympus has failed to furnish the Insureds or their counsel documentation requested, including the policy. Olympus advised the Insureds that “Olympus’ decision to proceed with its Option to repair is limited to the scope of specific designated repairs for which it has exercised the Option to repair under the insurance policy”, yet Olympus has failed to identify what that “limited scope” or what the “specific designated repairs” are for the Insureds’ claim. Undeniably, in this claim, and as a general business practice, Olympus hires adjusters, appraiser, engineers, and other experts, for the specific purpose of obtaining opinions that will decrease coverage to the detriment of its insureds so that Olympus can increase profits. Further, in this claim, and as a general business practice, Olympus underestimates, or “low-ball’s,” the value of the Insureds’ claim. As a result of Olympus’ outrageous malaise to delay, the claim, which is tantamount to a denial of coverage, the Insureds were left with no recourse but to retain legal counsel regarding this matter. Subsequently, the Insureds’ legal counsel provided Olympus with substantive correspondence on May 22, 2023, outlining significant concerns with Olympus’s stubborn refusal to release undisputed payments and/or pay or deny the claim, including concerns regarding pervasive exposure to Category III water as defined by the IICRC and Olympus’ confounding refusal to address the full measure of contents damages at the Insured Property. Yet Olympus ignored any efforts to communicate with the Insureds, in willful violation of the provisions prescribed in Section 627.70131, Florida Statutes, and Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Further Olympus ignored all its contractual obligations to the Insureds in their repeated efforts to obtain the requisite proceeds to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. Therefore, as a direct and proximate cause of Olympus’s delay to timely and thoroughly investigate the Insureds’ damages, the Insureds’ efforts to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition are substantially delayed without any timely resolution in sight. For example, as of the date of this Notice, Olympus has not addressed the Insureds’ concerns regarding the unilateral selection of a contractor to enter the Insured Property during repairs. To be clear, the Insureds do not dispute Olympus’s invocation of its right to repair the Insured Property in lieu of paying the Insureds for their loss. The Insureds acknowledge that generally a provision in a property insurance policy giving the insurer the right (in the event of a loss) to repair damaged property is permissible and may be enforceable. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. v. Andian Corp., 164 So. 187 (Fla. 1935). Likewise, the Insureds understand that when such a provision is enforceable and an insurer makes its election to repair property pursuant to the policy, that election is binding upon the insured and creates a new contract. Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So. 2d 832 (4th DCA 2006); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Parkman, 300 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Arch Roberts & Co. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 305 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2007). Under such a contract, however, the insurer is bound to restore the property within a reasonable time, and to substantially the same condition as to function, appearance and value as existed before the loss. Travelers Indemnity Co., 300 So. 2d at 285; Arch Roberts & Co., 305 So. 2d at 883-884. As such, the Insureds hold Olympus liable for any and all costs associated with the repair process, including but not limited to, testing by any experts, engineers, etc., to verify the strength, integrity, durability, etc. of the repairs made to the insureds’ home. If it is determined during the course of the repairs or after the repairs are complete that such repairs are deficient in any manner (e.g., the repairs do not match in quality, color, hue, tint, strength, etc. to the original materials), or that the Insureds are not completely satisfied with the quality, appearance, etc. of the repairs, the Insureds will seek intervention from a court of competent jurisdiction and request appropriate relief, which may include having all repair work removed and re-done at Olympus’s sole cost and expense. An insurer’s obligation to repair in this situation is not fulfilled until the insurer has paid the cost of repair (less any deduction provided in the policy) or has placed the insured in possession of the repaired property. Travelers Indemnity Co., 300 So. 2d at 285. It is important to note that where an insurer makes an election to repair the insured’s property and then breaches that contract for repair, it becomes liable for the damages proximately caused by this breach. Drew, 920 So. 2d at 835. The recoverable damages for such breach can go beyond the scope of the policy, even if the insurer has not acted in bad faith. Id. In any event, the insurer can be liable for the value of the property immediately prior to the loss, and potentially for loss of use of the property. Arch Roberts & Co., 305 So. 2d at 883; Travelers Indemnity Co., 300 So. 2d at 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Olympus has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of the Insureds’ claim of loss. Olympus 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. Olympus has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim for damages. Olympus has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insureds’ pleas otherwise, Olympus has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Further, Olympus has failed to make a full coverage determination as to 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, Olympus 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 Insured and with due regard for their interests. Olympus has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, Olympus 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…”). Olympus was timely put on notice of the Insureds’ loss and claim for damages. The Insureds has complied with all of Olympus’s 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 Olympus engages in good faith claims handling. Even though well more than 90 days have passed since the date the claim was reported, Olympus has still refused to fully pay the amount owed under the policy. It is clear that Olympus 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 Insured’s pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims its adjusters and placing the Olympus’s interests before the Insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that Olympus has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insureds, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. Olympus’s 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)(b), 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 Olympus 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, Olympus 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) Olympus 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) Olympus must tender payment to the Insureds per the Insureds’ executed Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss totaling $796,447.80 for damages to the Insured Property, plus all other contractual obligations owed, fees, costs and interest pursuant to section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes; and (4) Olympus must act fairly and honestly towards its Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insureds’ claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
LVick@bressler.com 07-24-2023 Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (“Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice No. 696866, filed on behalf of Anissa Ahmadi and Mustafa Mutjaba, and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on May 26, 2023. The Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) alleges that Olympus Insurance Company violated the following Statutes and Administrative Code Sections: 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) Unfair claim settlement practices. Please accept this as Olympus’ Response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) filed with the Department of Financial Services filed on behalf of Anissa Ahmadi and Mustafa Mutjaba (“Insureds”). More specifically, this is Olympus’ response to the CRN bearing filing number 696866 with a “filing accepted” date of May 26, 2023. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegations of claim denial, claim delay, unfair trade practice, unfair claim settlement practices, failing to adopt or implement proper standards for investigation, misrepresentation of facts or policy provision, failing to notify the insured of additional information needed, and failure to act promptly on communications, and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Insureds’ claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Olympus denies any act or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Olympus. Beyond Olympus’ adamant belief that it acted with the utmost good faith, the CRN is deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The requirements set forth in § 624.155, must be stated with specificity. The CRN lacks the specificity required by § 624.155, therefore, the CRN fails to comply with the form requirements and is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Additionally, the CRN fails to identify specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations and is therefore deficient. The CRN cites to entire sections of the policy however the relevance of the selected sections to the violations is not clear. The Civil Remedy Notice cites to the Policy provisions outlining the Policy’s coverages for the dwelling, personal property, loss of use and provisions covering payment and while it is clear the Insureds have made a claim related to each of these sections what is not clear is how these sections are related to violations asserted or how Olympus has allegedly violated these policy provision. The instant CRN fails to provide a complete and accurate picture of the violations claimed. This catch-all attempt amounts to throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick and completely defeats the purpose of the requirement to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation. The Complainant attempts to excuse this deficiency by claiming that they are not in possession of a complete copy of the policy. Although Fla. Stat. § 624.155 provides that a third-party may not be required to reference the specific policy language under certain circumstances, there is no such relief under the statute for the Insured. It is the Insureds’ burden to provide sufficient notice to Olympus of the policy provisions they are alleged to have breached in support of the violations claimed. The Claimant’s failure to include complete policy provisions results in the language being so vague that it is insufficient to provide adequate notice of the alleged breach. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. The CRN also fails to provide sufficient specificity to identify the acts, facts, or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 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 the violation. The CRN makes only vague, unsupported, and misleading allegations. The subject CRN simply fails to include some of the most relevant facts and policy language applicable to the dispute between the parties. The Insureds have suffered a loss resulting from Hurricane Ian due to flood and wind driven rain. The CRN presents an argument that Olympus has failed to pay the claim and failed to pay for mitigation services performed by RestoreDry. However, the CRN conveniently fails to mention that the mitigation services rendered by RestoreDry were at least in part and arguably primarily necessary related to the flood damages and the subject policy issued by Olympus does not provide coverage for flood related damages. Olympus explained this partial denial of coverage in Olympus’ claim determination, which was rendered October 23, 2022, less than a month after Hurricane Ian. The coverage letter explains “[w]e are unable to pay for flood damage to ground floor rooms and personal property items which were damaged by flood as your policy excludes coverage for water damage from flood and surface water” the coverage decision goes on to provide the relevant exclusion from the Policy which reads: SECTION I- EXCLUSIONS A. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area. *** 3. Water Damage Water Damage means: a. Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind; This language is crucial to another argument set forth by the Complainant which is that there is “pervasive evidence of concurrent causation of damages resulting from both wind and flood”; while it may be the case that some of the flood damages were contributed to by wind driven rains, the subject policy makes clear that such damages are excluded “regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss” and “whether or not driven by wind.” In other words, if any part of the damages claimed resulted from flood waters, those damages are specifically excluded by the subject policy, even if the flood water is driven by rain or the damages were also caused in part by wind driven rain. The CRN also asserts that “Olympus’s investigation did not account for the copious amount of water intrusion from the second-floor window and other wind-driven rain through openings in the Insured Property resulting from wind damage”. This is also untrue; Olympus investigated the subject loss with an independent field adjuster on October 3, 2022, the field adjuster observed damages resulting from wind drive rain to the guest bedroom, bathroom, office, and family room. He also observed wind related damages such as an outdoor ceiling fan that was knocked down by wind. The independent field adjuster prepared an estimate for the covered damages, however, these repairs did not threshold the Insureds applicable $28,201.00 Hurricane Deductible. The October 23, 2022, claim determination letter explained this coverage stating “[e]enclosed is our estimate for ensuing water damage resulting from wind driven rain related to the above referenced claim. As you will note, the estimated cost of the repairs does not exceed the policy deductible, and we are unable to offer any payment at this time.” In addition to the above referenced misrepresentations, the CRN fails to mention the most relevant policy provisions related to the dispute at the heart of this matter which is Olympus’ option to repair the property in lieu of issuing a claim payment. In this claim, Olympus also advised the Insured in its October 23, 2022, coverage letter that its “investigation confirmed wind damage to your roof as a result of Hurricane Ian. Olympus is invoking it’s option under the policy to repair or replace your roof with material of like kind or quality.” The subject Policy states: SECTION I – CONDITIONS *** H. Our Option 1. At our option, in lieu of issuing any loss payment, if we choose to exercise our option: a. For losses settled on an actual cash value basis as outlined in SECTION I – CONDITIONS, C. Loss Settlement, we may repair or replace any part of the damaged property with material or property of like kind and quality. b. For losses insured for replacement costs as outlined in SECTION I – CONDITIONS, C. Loss Settlement, we may elect to repair or replace any or all of the damaged property with material of like kind and quality without deduction for depreciation, 2. If we choose to exercise our option, we will provide written notice to you no later than 30 days after our inspection of the loss. We may invoke our option to repair within the stated time frame after either a “supplemental claim” or “reopened claim” regardless of whether we invoked our option during the adjustment of the initial claim or a prior “supplemental claim”. 3. If we choose to exercise our option, you must cooperate with and grant us, or any person authorized to act on our behalf, reasonable access to the property in order for repairs to be made. 4. You are responsible for payment of the deductible stated in your Declarations Page. 5. You must comply with the duties described in SECTION I – CONDITIONS, B. Duties After a Loss, paragraph 6. 6. As often as is reasonably necessary to effectuate repairs, you must: a. Provide access to the property; b. Execute any necessary city, county, or municipal permits for repairs to be undertaken; c. Execute any work authorizations to allow contractors and related parties entry to the property; d. Otherwise cooperate with the repairs to the property. Our right to exercise our option to repair or replace, and our decision to do so, is a material part of this contract and under no circumstances relieves you or us of our mutual duties and obligations under this contract. Any contract entered into between you and any repair person(s), any “assignee(s)”, contractor, other person or company to perform repairs or services except reasonable emergency measures for any loss attributed to a covered peril shall not interfere with this right. However, regardless of this right within the Policy, and the fact that this letter is dated within twenty days of the inspection performed by Olympus the Complainant asserts that Olympus did not invoke its option to repair timely. The CRN asserts that this letter and a subsequent letter dated November 2, 2022, which provided additional details regarding Olympus’ option to repair program were submitted directly to the Insured rather than to the Insureds’ counsel. It is important to note that the CRN does not in fact allege that the communications were not timely received by the Insured. In fact, claimant’s attorney has submitted an email correspondence showing that the Insured received the November 2, 2022, correspondence and forwarded it to her counsel that same day. Counsels’ attempts to classify Olympus’ actions as an attempt to “back date” the invocation of its Option to Repair is nothing more than false. Olympus timely invoked it Option to Repair te covered damages which is a right bargained for at the formation of the subject contract. The Insureds have received the benefits from a contract which provides Olympus with the right to select an option to repair the property in lieu of payment and the essence of the dispute between the parties is that the Insureds are now failing to fulfil their obligations under that contract, namely the obligation to cooperate with the repair process. At the time Olympus invoked its option to repair it also requested payment of the deductible, and cooperation with attempts to schedule an inspection to determine the scope of repairs and cooperation with execution of any necessary paperwork for completion of the repairs, pursuant to the policy terms. Also, Olympus sent follow up correspondence seeking this inspection, a sworn proof of loss and repair estimates for temporary emergency repairs performed on April 3, 2023, and May 2, 2023 and advised the Insureds that their failure to cooperate could constitute a breach of the subject policy. The Insureds to date have failed to submit their deductible payment, failed to provide the requested documents until May 22, 2023, and failed to provide access for inspection of the property until on or about June 8, 2023 significantly delaying the handling of the subject claim and prejudicing Olympus ability to conclude its investigation. The CRN also repeatedly asserts that Olympus has been attempting to circumvent legal counsel through communications sent directly to the Insured while the Insured was represented by counsel. While, it is undisputed that Olympus submitted routine claim correspondence to the Insured directly after receipt of the letter or representation and independent contractors acting on Olympus’ behalf attempted to communicate directly with the Insured in an attempt to gain access to the property for inspections there is no basis to infer that there was any malintent in connection with the attempted communications. The CRN asserts that this “[t]his sort of chicanery and gamesmanship runs afoul of the requirements prescribed in Section 626.9541(1)(l)(3)(b), Florida Statues.” This allegation lacks clarity and specifics and cites to what appears to be an incorrect sub-section of the statute. The text of the cited statutory provision has not been provided, and the statutory section 626.9541(1)(l) has no further subsections, but states “Twisting. – knowingly making misleading representations or incomplete or fraudulent comparisons or fraudulent material omissions of or with respect to any insurance policies or insurers for the purpose of inducing, or tending to induce, any person to lapse, forfeit, surrender, terminate, retain, pledge, assign, borrow on, or convert any insurance policy of insurance in another insurer.” Not only is this statutory sub-section irrelevant to the allegations, is moreover, unclear how Olympus’ transmission of routine claim communications and scheduling communications to the Insured amounts to any attempt to be misleading or fraudulent. The communications were not pertaining to settlement negotiations or any attempt to forfeit any rights or coverages under the policy. Due to the lack of specificity regarding the alleged violation, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 624.155. Additionally, it is important to note that while Olympus made no attempt to negotiate a settlement of this claim directly with the insured, Florida rule 69B-220.201(3)(i) does not even restrict a licensed adjuster from negotiating directly with it’s insured if they are represented by an attorney. Furthermore, Florida rule 69B-220.201(4)(d) & (j) regulating public adjusters states that they “shall not prevent or attempt to dissuade or prevent, a claimant from speaking privately with the insurer, company or independent adjuster… and that a public adjuster shall not restrict or prevent an insurer, company adjuster independent adjuster… from having reasonable access at reasonable times to an insured or to the insured property.” Clearly the actions of Olympus do not run afoul of these ethical rules. Overall, the allegations of the civil remedy notice fail to demonstrate that Olympus acted in bad faith and provide only misleading allegations. The Civil Remedy Notice fails to provide specificity demonstrating Olympus wrongdoing and fail to put Olympus on notice as to the behavior which should be corrected, if any. The CRN also sets forth an insufficient and vague cure demand. In order to cure the alleged violations according to the Complainant Olympus must “(1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these types of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent his from occurring in the future; (2) Olympus must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of 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) Olympus must tender payment to the Insured per the Insureds’ executed Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss totaling $796,447.80 for damages to the Insureds Property, plus all other contractual obligations owed, fees, costs and interest pursuant to section 627.70131(5)(a), Florida Statutes; and (4) Olympus must act fairly and honestly towards its Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insureds’ claim.” First and foremost, the amount demanded $796,447.80 and the estimate and documents received to date from the Insured, in support of the cure demand encompasses all repairs to the property, regardless of the cause and origin of those damages. The estimate makes no attempt to separate the amounts claimed to be damaged by wind driven rain from those damaged by flood waters which as discussed above are excluded by the Policy. From the outset of the claim the Insureds identified that the first floor of their home was flooded during Hurricane Ian, they also advised Olympus that they had a separate Insurance policy for flood damages issued by another carrier. Olympus was also advised that this carrier paid the limit of the flood policy in connection with the loss. Yet, the cure demand sets forth the full amount of the Insureds damages without apparent omission of the flood related damages, or a deduction for the amount the Insureds have already been indemnified. Therefore, this demand goes above and beyond the functional equivalent of “pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010), it seeks to be paid twice for the flood related damages. “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). Surely, Olympus should not be expected to pay for damages which are excluded by the Policy and for which the Insureds have already received compensation in order to cure the alleged violations. Additionally, the cure seeks payment of “all other contractual obligations owed, fees, costs and interest” without providing any details regarding those obligations or the amount claimed for attorney’s fees. Due to the lack of specificity and failure to account for amount received, Olympus must speculate as to what amounts are required to cure the allegations. As such, Olympus was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts . . . .’”). It is important to note that there is varying case law regarding whether and what type of cure is required. In Hunt v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 112 So. 3d 547, 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in ruling that the CRN in that case under § 624.155, Fla. Stat. (2006), was invalid for failure to include a definite cure amount. The appellate court noted that Section 624.155(3)(b) did not require a CRN to allege a specific cure amount. That being said, if it is absolutely impossible for the carrier to ascertain a demand, an argument can be made that the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. This is particularly true where the CRN demands payment of unspecified sums, as is demanded in the subject CRN, and there is no meaningful way for Olympus to determine the amounts involved. Additionally, the monetary cure demand is not the total amount of the cure. The rest of the cure’s non-monetary conditions are entirely illusory and unascertainable due to the lack of specificity contained in the CRN. The CRN demands that Olympus “Create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation and evaluation as to claims handling” and “Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims” and “for the training and supervision of employees”. However, the CRN does not state which guidelines were inadequate and needed to be changed, nor does it specify what guidelines should be implemented. Lastly, the cure demand is unascertainable because it also seeks that Olympus act “fairly and honestly towards its Insureds”, however, the CRN does not specify what behavior was unfair or dishonest. Nor does it specify what actions could be taken to be fairer and more honest which could feasibly be accounted for so as to indicate that the CRN was cured. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus has diligently investigated the loss, timely invoked its option to repair the covered damages and has asked the Insured to cooperate with the contractor assigned to carry out those repairs and fulfil their obligations under the policy. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Insured in connection with the instant claims. Olympus has consistently and promptly communicated with the Insured and/or his public adjuster and/or other agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Olympus from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Olympus believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith regarding its investigation of the subject claim, and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, s/ Lisa G. Vick Lisa G. Vick, Esq.
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