Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 784360

Filing Accepted: 9/24/2024

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

HICKORY HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

First Name

Street Address *

226 3RD ST

City, State Zip *

BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134

Email Address *

SCODOCKETING@FREIDINBROWN.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		HICKORY HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.		First Name
Policy # *		HCP007195		Claim #*		H100824

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	ODESS First Name * SUSAN Initial
Street Address*		2 S. BISCAYNE BLVD., SUITE 3100
City, State Zip*		MIAMI , FL 33131
Email Address *		SCODOCKETING@FREIDINBROWN.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 14407

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, MICHAEL STEIFEL, BRENDAN GUINTHER, PASI ADJUSTING
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Denial
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Claim Delay
	Other : misrepresentation of material information
	Other : breach of contract
	Other : violation of Florida Statutes
	Other : failure to provide florida license number to policyholder

* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.

	624.155(1)(b)(1)		Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
	624.155(1)(b)(3)		Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
	626.9541(1)(i)(2)		A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)		Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)		Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
	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.

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 1. Covered Property Covered Property, as used in this Coverage Part, means the type of property described in this section, A.1., and limited in A.2., Property Not Covered, if a Limit of Insurance is shown in the Declarations for that type of property. a. Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations, including: (1) Completed additions; (2) Fixtures, outside of individual units, including outdoor fixtures; (3) Permanently installed: (a) Machinery; and (b) Equipment; (4) Personal property owned by you that is used to maintain or service the building or structure or its premises, including: (a) Fire-extinguishing equipment; (b) Outdoor furniture; (c) Floor coverings; and (d) Appliances used for refrigerating, ventilating, cooking, dishwashing or laundering that are not contained within individual units; (5) If not covered by other insurance: (a) Additions under construction, alterations and repairs to the building or structure; (b) Materials, equipment, supplies, and temporary structures, on or within 100 feet of the described premises, used for making additions, alterations or repairs to the building or structure; and (6) Any of the following types of property contained within a unit, regardless of ownership, if your Condominium Association Agreement requires you to insure it: (a) Fixtures, improvements and alterations that are a part of the building or structure; and (b) Appliances, such as those used for refrigerating, ventilating, cooking, dishwashing, laundering, security or housekeeping.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The below facts and circumstances are reproduced exactly as they appear in Filing Number 748865, accepted March 27, 2024. Filing Number 748865 was filed against “Heritage Indemnity Company,” but was intended to be filed against Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company. Although Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company ultimately responded to Filing Number 748865 on May 23, 2024, this new filing is made in an abundance of caution and expressly against Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company. This filing is solely made to have a clear record with the appropriate insurance company. Additionally, a copy of Filing Number 748865 is attached hereto for ease of reference. On or about September 28, 2022, the Insured, Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc., (“Insured”), suffered a covered property damage loss at its property located at 226 3rd Street Bonita Springs, FL 34134. The Insured promptly reported their claim to Heritage, who assigned adjuster Keith Marino (Florida License #: W433369) to inspect the property on Sunday, October 2, 2022. Mr. Marino was provided unfettered access to the entire property. Mr. Marino completed inspections of 48 of 50 units, extensively documenting the severe loss and damage. Mr. Marino, took so many pictures his camera ran out of battery. Subsequently, Mr. Marino confirmed that he provided his observation report and photos to Heritage. Heritage has never provided Mr. Marino’s reports or photos to the Insured, while continuing to claim that Heritage did not observe damage to the Insured’s property. Despite follow-up by the Insured following Mr. Marino’s inspection, Heritage subsequently ignored the Insured for eight days, completely disregarding the severity of the loss and damage. Strangely, on October 10, 2022, almost two weeks after the date of loss, and ten days after the notice of loss, Heritage sends an email acknowledging receipt of the claim. Heritages email explains that a field adjuster will be assigned, and they would contact the Insured within 4 days. The email directs the Insured to call their agent should they have any questions about coverage, rather than calling Heritage. Upon receipt of Mr. Marino’s observation report and photos, Heritage abruptly replaced him. The Insured subsequently, received a letter dated 01/01/2022, from Mr. Brendon Guinther - Adjuster, Professional Adjusting Services Inc., (“PASI”), acknowledging receipt of the claim, confirming his assignment from Heritage, and providing Heritage assigned claim number H100824, and PASI file number P35985FLCAT. Confused and concerned about Heritage’s disregard for their claim, the Insured felt compelled to retain representation. On October 13, 2022, the Insured engaged GlobalPro to represent their interests, and assist them with recovering from their extensive loss and damage. Following Heritages email instructions to the Insured, on October 13, 2022, GlobalPro immediately sent our Letter of Representation (LOR), contract, and W9, directly to Heritage and to Mr. Steifel. Heritage proceeded to ignore our emails and calls for the next week, despite persistent follow up, in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). GlobalPro followed up twice on 10/17 after receiving no response. That same day, the Insured notified us that Mr. Gunther had conducted an inspection at the property, excluding GlobalPro, in direct violation of FL statute 626.854(14)(a). We immediately again reforwarded our emails and attachments, including Mr. Gunther on the email now. Heritage is well aware that Florida statute expressly states that Heritage may not exclude the Insured’s public adjuster, GlobalPro from its in-person meetings with the Insured and Heritage must meet and communicate with GlobalPro in an effort to reach agreement as to the scope of the covered loss under the policy. Despite the persistent follow up, Heritage continued ignoring our emails. GlobalPro followed up again on 10/19, and three more times on 10/20. Finally, on 10/20, Mr. Gunther acknowledged receipt of our emails, reforwarding them to Heritage, and Mr. Stiefel. Mr. Gunther directed us to communicate with Mr. Stiefel, further stating that he would be turning in his report to Heritage and would await their instructions. Mr. Gunther also stated that Heritage instructed him not to write an estimate at that time. Although we sent seven emails directly to Mr. Stiefel and Heritage, Mr. Stiefel only replied to this email claiming that his office never received anything from GlobalPro. It seems more likely that Heritage was attempting to cover up their exclusion of GlobalPro from its in-person meetings with the Insured, in direct violation of FL statute 626.854(14)(a). Nevertheless, we acquiesced to Mr. Stiefel’s request that we again reforward our LOR, contract, and W9 directly to Mr. Stiefel, who, incredibly, received it immediately. Our LOR and email correspondence includes a request for an inspection of the property, which was repeatedly ignored by Heritage. After receiving the email again, Heritage continued ignoring our inspection request in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.854(14)(a). Delaying the claim almost another week, we finally received acknowledgement of our LOR on 10/25 from Heritage. Heritage’s letter ignored our request for a reinspection, ignored our request for a copy of the underwriting file, and Heritage refused to send us all claim correspondence by claiming none was available. Immediately following up with Mr. Gunther, we sent another request for a reinspection. Regrettably, continuing Heritage’s dilatory tactics Mr. Gunther refused to reinspect, stating that he had already inspected the property and was waiting to receive further instruction from Heritage, in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.854(14)(a). Failing to put the insured’s interests first, Heritage again purposefully delaying the for three more days. Finally, on 10/28/2022, Heritage approves a reinspection of the property, and Mr. Gunther suggests scheduling a joint inspection with Heritage’s engineer. Instead of promptly coordinating and scheduling the reinspection with its engineer, Heritage directed us to coordinate it. Due to weeks of delays by Heritage, it was extremely difficult to expeditiously schedule a reinspection with their engineer, Intertek. We were notified by Intertek that they were already scheduling a month out at that point. Finally, thirty-one days later, on November 28, 2022, in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Heritage conducted its reinspection of the property with GlobalPro. To add further perspective to the ongoing delay perpetuated by Heritage, the inspection was sixty-one days after the date of loss, fifty-seven days after the Heritage’s initial inspection, and forty two days after Heritage excluded GlobalPro from its inspection at the property. Upon completing the reinspection with Heritage’s engineer, neither the insured nor GlobalPro received any communication from Heritage for almost a month. GlobalPro followed up on December 23, 2022, asking for an update. Mr. Gunther stated that he had not been supplied with the engineer’s report. Subsequently, Heritage failed to comply with its statutory obligation to provide a coverage determination within ninety days after a loss. Receiving no communication from Heritage after another two weeks, GlobalPro again followed up requesting another update on January 5, 2023. Predictably Heritage continued to ignore claims correspondence, in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). On January 17, we sent another email requesting an update on the claim. Finally, Heritage replied after twenty-five days of repeated follow ups by GlobalPro. Heritage replied stating they had still not received their engineers report. Another week went by, and on January 23, we followed up again requesting an update on the claim, which went ignored. Fifteen days later on February 7, in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Heritage replied stating they had received the engineers report, and that it was in line to be reviewed. Mr. Stiefel promised he would follow up as soon as he had a chance to review the report. Eight days later, on February 15, we received no communication from Heritage, and we subsequently emailed Heritage requesting an update, which was ignored in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3) (c). Nineteen days later, on March 6, we still had received no communication from Heritage, and we sent another follow up email requesting an update. Our email included supporting claim documentation for several necessary incurred mitigation and clean up expenses totaling $138,950.33, along with GlobalPro’s estimate totaling $3,045,606. Our email and submission was ignored by Heritage in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Nine days later, on March 15, GlobalPro followed up on prior emails, again asking for an update, which Heritage continued to ignore. March 17, GlobalPro sent another follow up email, which was ignored. March 20, GlobalPro sent another email, which was ignored. In direct violation of Florida statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Heritage continued to ignore our repeated follow ups. FORTY-FIVE days later on March 4, 2023, GlobalPro followed up again. We cc’d the (insured) Associations BOD to show them how poorly Heritage was treating their severe damage from hurricane Ian. Additionally, we attached email read receipts, proving that Heritage was receiving and opening all correspondence, and blatantly ignoring them: Following up yet again. It is now almost 50 days since we’ve received any sign of life at Heritage. Attached are read receipts, proving that Heritage is reading my emails and blatantly refusing to reply. I’ve cc’d the Associations BOD to show them how poorly Heritage is treating them. Heritage has completely failed to comply with any of its obligations of the policy, and FL Statute 626.9541: 1. Heritage has ZERO standards for the proper investigation of claims. 2. Heritage has failed to acknowledge any correspondence and production of estimates and incurred expenses with respect to this claim for 45 days, 3. has failed to deny or affirm full or partial coverage within 90 days of notice of loss, 4. and has failed to promptly notify the Insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of the claim. If we do not receive any acknowledgement of this email, an acknowledgement of the production sent 18 days ago, and a status update on this claim, Heritage will compel the Association to take further steps. Thank you, Matt Removing the Associations BOD from the email, Heritage finally responds explaining that the dropbox link provided on March 6 had expired, which means they never bothered to access the dropbox, which contained supporting claim documentation for several necessary incurred mitigation and clean up expenses totaling $138,950.33, along with GlobalPro’s estimate totaling $3,045,606, effectively, the insureds claim. Void of any sense of urgency, nor care for the tremendous loss and damage suffered by its Insured, Heritage’s reply confirms that it blatantly ignored all previous correspondence, grossly disregarding FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). From: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 2:58 PM To: Matthew Sengsourinh <mms@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 The link to your estimate has expired. Please send me a new link or forward your documents to me as a pdf. Thank you Close to six months had passed since the Insured suffered tremendous loss and damage caused by Hurricane Ian. Despite the insured’s repeated and consistent follow-up and complying with all of its obligations under the policy, the Insured’s claim was completely ignored by Heritage. GlobalPro promptly resent the dropbox link. Heritage acknowledged receipt, however, in continuation of its general business practices and gross disregard for the severity of the loss and damage suffered by its Insured, Heritage delayed the claim for another week. Over six months had passed since Hurricane Ian had ripped through the Insureds property, causing incredible damage. Heritage had not produced a single report, nor an estimate, and failed to provide a coverage determination. Heritage refused to make a single payment to the Insured and had raised no defenses to coverage. Heritage disregarded all of its obligations under the policy. Another week went by, when finally on March 30, Heritage finally agreed to discuss the claim. It was extremely alarming to hear that Heritage couldn’t care any less about the gross mishandling of this claim, and the material breach of contract and failures detailed throughout several months of ignored emails. Even worse, Heritage stated on the call that it had received an estimate, which had gone through several revisions, and further, that it would be provided. Egregiously, Heritage also stated that it was precluded from its obligation to pay or deny the Insureds claim within 90 days of notice of loss, and confidently promised to follow up with the specific portion of the statute referenced on our call. Much like the rest of the claim, five more days passed, and GlobalPro sent another follow-up email, continuing to outline Heritage’s repeated failures to comply with its post loss statutory and contractual obligations. Mr. Stiefel, As has been the general business practice of Heritage throughout this claim, Heritage has failed to acknowledge yet another email. Failing to have any standards for the proper investigation of claims, Heritage continues failing to acknowledge any of the Insured’s correspondence, nor its production of estimates and incurred expenses with respect to this claim for 56 days, while also failing to promptly notify the Insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of the claim for 188 days. Additionally, Heritage has failed to deny or affirm full or partial coverage within 90 days of the notice of loss and failed 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 for almost 100 days. On our call, you very clearly stated that Heritages general business practices and standard for the adjustment of claims is solely responsible for all the delays described herein. Additionally, you stated that Heritage is precluded from its obligation to pay or deny the Insureds claim within 90 days of notice of loss, and confidently promised to follow up our call with the specific portion of the statute you were referencing. However, much like the entire adjustment of this claim, we have received nothing contradicting this material misrepresentation of Heritage’s statutory and contractual obligation. Even worse, although Heritage completed its inspections over 4 months ago, and received its engineers report 51 days ago, Heritage withheld all this information while creating and revising multiple estimates, which Heritage failed to provide, as promised on last week’s call. Again, the fact pattern of this claim sounds exactly the same as Heritages fraudulent claims handling practices described in the recent Washington Post article, which I’ve attached again for reference. Heritage has not provided any information contradicting or refuting any of the unfair claims handling practices and bad faith contained herein and throughout the emails below. The Insured has property damage and outstanding expenses for clean-up, mitigation, and temporary repairs, among other things, that need to be paid. Hurricane Ian ripped through the Insureds property 188 days ago. The Insured assumes there are no coverage issues for their damages, and they expect an undisputed payment immediately. Thank you, Matt Another day went by, when suddenly Heritage replied with a denial letter, accompanied by an estimate. Heritage denied the claim stating the insured’s loss was below deductible. Heritage did not meet and communicate with the Insureds public adjuster in an effort to reach agreement as to the scope of the covered loss, in direct violation of Florida statute 626.854. Egregiously, Heritage erroneously denied the claim based on a material misrepresentation of the loss and damage, characterizing it flood damage: Your policy of insurance provides coverage for sudden and accidental direct physical damage to your property from wind/hurricane. However, it specifically excludes damage from flood, including resulting interior damage from flood or surface water. Our investigation revealed that the observed condition of your property and there is claimed damage which is the result of flood. Therefore, based upon the policy terms, Heritage is unable to extend coverage for the damages resulting from flood waters. The Insured did not claim any damages relating to flood, under this policy and the property is raised with residential units starting on the second floor of the structure. Even worse, in a shallow attempt to defend their erroneous belief that Heritage is precluded from its obligation to provide a coverage determination within ninety days of the loss, Heritage materially misrepresents FL statute 627 by copying and pasting an amendment to the statute that occurred six months after Hurricane Ian ripped through the insureds property. Heritage provides no explanation, they simply copy and pasted the statute with complete conviction of its applicability, and complete disregard for Florida law. In an attempt to move the claim forward, the Insured reconciled its claim expenses, and repair estimate, and subsequently resubmitted the claim file, along with signed proof of loss, (SPOL) on April 19, 2023. Predictably, Heritage failed to acknowledge receipt of the production and SPOL. On May 1, GlobalPro sent a follow up email requesting confirmation of receipt of the prior email and SPOL, which Heritage predictably ignored. Two days later on May 3, GlobalPro again followed up. Fourteen days after submitting the SPOL, in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Heritage finally acknowledged receipt, stating we would receive a response shortly. *From: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10:42 AM To: Farra Beltran <fbeltran@globalpro.com>; Heritage Claims <claims@heritagepci.com> Cc: PASI Adjusting <adjusting@pasi.biz>; Brendon Guinther <Brendon@pasi.biz>; Matthew Sengsourinh <mms@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 I am confirming receipt of the proof of loss. You will receive Heritage’s response shortly. *From: Farra Beltran <fbeltran@globalpro.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10:38 AM To: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com>; Heritage Claims <claims@heritagepci.com> Cc: PASI Adjusting <adjusting@pasi.biz>; Brendon Guinther <Brendon@pasi.biz>; Matthew Sengsourinh <mms@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 Good morning Mr. Stiefel, Following up again. Please confirm receipt of the proof of loss and estimate submitted on 4/19/2023. Thank you, *From: Farra Beltran Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 5:22 PM To: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com>; Heritage Claims <claims@heritagepci.com> Cc: PASI Adjusting <adjusting@pasi.biz>; Brendon Guinther <Brendon@pasi.biz>; Matthew Sengsourinh <mms@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 Good afternoon Mr. Stiefel, Please confirm receipt of the proof of loss and estimate submitted on 4/19/2023. *From: Farra Beltran Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 2:15 PM To: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com>; Heritage Claims <claims@heritagepci.com> Cc: PASI Adjusting <adjusting@pasi.biz>; Brendon Guinther <Brendon@pasi.biz>; Matthew Sengsourinh <mms@globalpro.com> Subject: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 Good afternoon Mr. Steifel, Attached, please find the executed proof of loss and incurred expenses for the above-mentioned insured. Please click on the link below to access the supporting documentation. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tv9eqb5jk6jy0qs/AADCdXiLAwbEpu54GyR3LqDBa?dl=0 *Please click on the Dropbox link above to download the documents onto your computer. The link will expire in 7 days. Please let us know if you need technical assistance retrieving the documents through the link provided. Another two weeks of zero communication from Heritage, and GlobalPro followed up again on May 17. Which Heritage predictably ignored in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Sixty days later, on July 17, receiving no response to the resubmission of the SPOL and claim documentation, GlobalPro sent another follow up email. Which Heritage predictably ignored in direct violation of FL statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). Mr. Stiefel: Following up on Farra’s email below from over 60 days ago. Heritage continues its general business process of disregarding its statutory and contractual post-loss obligations. We have not received any communication from Heritage since May 5, 2023, over 75 days ago. From the beginning, Heritage refused to acknowledge the Insured's representative, GlobalPro, even excluding them from Heritage’s inspection. Additionally, Heritage failed to provide the Insured with a coverage determination within 90 days after the notice of the loss and within 30 days after the completion and submission of the Insured’s sworn proofs of loss (“SPOL”), which remains unresolved to this day. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, Heritage failed to acknowledge GlobalPro’s representation of the Insured, despite providing our LOR, contract, W9, and sending 7 follow up emails between 10/13/22 and 10/20/22. Heritage excluded the Insureds representative from the inspection of their property on 10/17/22. After several requests for reinspection, Heritage's engineer, Intertek, and its Independent Adjuster, Mr. Brendan Guinther, finally reinspected the property on November 29, 2022. A significant delay, the reinspection was 62 days after the date of loss. Continuing its disregard for its statutory obligations, Heritage subsequently refused to pay or deny the Insured’s claim within the required 90 days. Heritage failed to provide a written explanation and nor did Heritage request any other information necessary to process the claim. After months of seeking acknowledgement and an explanation for the lack of a 90-day coverage determination, Heritage finally replied on April 5, 2023, a delay of 100 days after the coverage determination was due. In its explanation, Heritage intentionally misrepresents Florida statute 627, falsely claiming an amendment that went into effect on March 1, 2023, FIVE MONTHS after Hurricane Ian destroyed the Insured’s property somehow obviates their compliance with the law at the time of loss. In further context, this amendment was effective 64 days after the 90-day coverage determination was due from Heritage. On April 19, 2023, the Insured submitted their SPOLs and supporting documentation. Despite several follow-up emails and calls, Heritage predictably failed to acknowledge receipt of the production within the required 14 days. On May 3, 2023, Heritage finally acknowledged receipt, stating that a reply would be sent shortly. Failing again to acknowledge and reply to claims communications within 14 days, we sent an email requesting an update on the claim on May 17, 2023. Unsurprisingly, Heritage again failed to communicate. Today, 90 days later after completing and submitting their SPOLs, the Insured has still yet to receive a response. Heritage has failed to pay or deny the claim within 30 days of the submission of the Insureds SPOLs and supporting documentation. The Insured has suffered tremendous property damage, resulting in outstanding expenses for clean-up, mitigation, and temporary repairs. Hurricane Ian occurred 293 days ago, and the Insured has paid their premium and fulfilled all policy obligations and post-loss duties. They have relied on Heritage to provide coverage and payment for obvious and clear loss and damage. Heritage has not provided any information contradicting or refuting the unfair claims handling practices and examples of bad faith contained herein and throughout prior correspondence. Due to Heritage’s lack of communication and failure to provide a denial of the Insured’s production and proofs of loss on April 19, 2023, the Insured can only assume there are no coverage issues for their damages and expects an undisputed payment immediately. The Insured would like to promptly resolve this matter, please let us know when the Insured can expect payment. Failure to provide a satisfactory response will leave us with no alternative but to pursue appropriate actions to protect the Insured's rights and interests. Your urgent attention to this matter is imperative. Thank you, Matt On September 20, 2023, over five months or one hundred and fifty-four days after resubmitting its entire claim file, accompanied by an SPOL, Heritage finally replied. This is a direct violation of FL Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). Despite GlobalPro’s consistent follow up and persistent attempts to adjust the claim with Heritage, the insureds SPOL was rejected by Heritage, who states that the loss includes items outside of the scope of coverage. Heritage fails to provide those items, and coverages it is referring to. Additionally, despite repeatedly claiming in correspondence that Heritage fails to request any information necessary to process the Insureds claim, Heritage follows up on an RFI from eleven months prior. For almost a year, Heritage never once followed up on this RFI, never once notified the insured of any other necessary information needed to process their claim. Heritage’s claim denial letter on April 4, 2023, states nothing about the RFI, nor does it ask for any additional information. Its subsequent actions to erroneously deny the claim based on the policies flood exclusion also support this understanding. Importantly, by not refuting our repeated claims, and refusing to communicate for eleven months, Heritage expressly confirmed that no additional information was necessary. Now suddenly, Heritage explains that IF the Insured is seeking additional payments, Heritage is conditioning the receipt of this information on processing the insureds claim any further. This is in direct violation of Florida Statute Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g). Much like it ignored the insureds claim, Heritage disregarded its RFI for almost a year. Moreover, Heritage was able to underwrite the policy and bind coverage without the requested information, suddenly, only after a loss did, they need this extensive and overly burdensome compilation of information. Heritage is clearly attempting to post loss underwrite the policy, a year after Hurricane Ian destroyed the insureds property. Additionally, pursuant to the policy, the burden of investigating the claim is Heritages, and the policy clearly defines how information is to be collected: 3. Duties In The Event Of Loss Or Damage a. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property: (6) As often as may be reasonably required, permit us to inspect the property proving the loss or damage and examine your books and records. Also permit us to take samples of damaged and undamaged property for inspection, testing and analysis, and permit us to make copies from your books and records. Although the policy clearly defines the process Heritage is to collect the information necessary to process the insureds claim, predictably, Heritage has made no effort to collect it, just like they never bothered to follow up on their RFI for almost a year. Despite this, the insured continued to comply with its post loss obligations and proceeded to tediously compile the information responsive to the ignored RFI. It took the insured months to compile all of the information, and finally, on March 6, 2024, the insured was able to finally produce the information it could find, and in its control and possession, responsive to the fourteen-month-old RFI. From: Matthew Sengsourinh Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 4:24 PM To: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com>; Heritage Claims <claims@heritagepci.com> Cc: Farra Beltran <fbeltran@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 Mr. Stiefel, Following up on this claim, please find see attached correspondence. Supporting claim documentation, in the Insureds control and possession, responsive to your RFI can be downloaded at the included dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/owdyahinj9ret0pdj4vho/h?rlkey=7ts6bcs3oa3qis2iw24yyvhc8&dl=0 *Please note, for security purposes, this link expires in 7 days* I greatly appreciate your immediate and urgent attention to this claim. We urge Heritage to change its position and make the Insured whole so they can recover from their substantial loss and damage caused by Hurricane Ian. The claimed amount in total is $3,197,053.33. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and attached correspondence. Should you have any issues with the provided dropbox link, please let me know asap. Thank you, Matt Predictably, Heritage ignored the email, and failed to acknowledge receipt, nor did it download the information, it claimed it needed to process the claim. A week later, after receiving no reply, GlobalPro followed up again. From: Matthew Sengsourinh Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 9:44 AM To: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com>; Heritage Claims <claims@heritagepci.com> Cc: Farra Beltran <fbeltran@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 Following up on my email below. Predictably, another week has gone by with no reply. Please confirm receipt of my email below, the attached letter, and documents at the dropbox. Without our consistent follow-up its doubtful that Heritage would have ever acknowledged receipt of the email and production. However, eight days after the initial email, and a subsequent follow up email, in a direct violation of FL Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Heritage replied: From: Michael Stiefel <mstiefel@heritagepci.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:09 AM To: Matthew Sengsourinh <mms@globalpro.com> Cc: Farra Beltran <fbeltran@globalpro.com> Subject: RE: H100824 Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. HCP007195 Following up on my last email. Please send a valid drop box link so I can access the files you sent over. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Stiefel Claims Examiner Heritage Insurance Claims P. O. Box 20947 Tampa, FL 33622-0947 www.heritagepci.com E-mail is best for a faster reply! mstiefel@heritgagepci.com 1-727-342-0043 – Telephone Importantly, this email is one of the first times, throughout correspondence over the last five hundred and forty six days, or over the last eighteen months, that the examiner, Mr. Stiefel, included a signature in his email. Mr. Stiefel, has never provided his Florida adjusting license in any correspondence that we have, in direct violation of Fl statute 627.70131(3)(b) and 627.70131(3)(c). In summary, Heritage failed to implement any standard for the investigation of claims, failed to acknowledge claims correspondence, failed to deny or affirm coverage within ninety days of notice of loss, and failed to promptly notify the Insured of any additional information necessary for processing its claim. These unfair claims settlement practices are clearly Heritage’s general business practices, due to the frequency and continuation throughout the claim. Heritage has erroneously denied this claim, and woefully underpaid the insured, when they could have and should have paid for the extensive damages at the property. We urge Heritage to change its position and make the Insured whole so they can recover from their substantial loss and damage caused by Hurricane Ian. The claimed amount in total is $3,197,053.33. In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurer’s adjuster(s) violated the following ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201: (3) Code of Ethics . . . An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 1. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. DFS-10-363 Rev. 11/2007 (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurer breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations and Florida statutes. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurer must: A. Immediately acknowledge coverage for the loss and damages being claimed; B. Immediately and in good faith communicate with GlobalPro in an attempt to settle and resolve the claim; C. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests; D. Tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured under the Insured’s insurance policy with the Insurer that would reasonably place the Insured back to a pre-loss condition; and E. Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of damages, resulting damages, and loss claims, and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these claims to ensure that the Insurer’s handling procedures are adequate to stop the claimants from being treated unfairly. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully, /s/ Susan Odess Susan Odess, Esq. Enclosures cc: Troy Williams Commercial Claims Examiner Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company Email: trwilliams@heritagepci.com

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com		11-13-2024		VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 RE: Complainant: Hickory Harbour Condominium Association, Inc. Policy No. HCP007195 Claim No. H100824 Filing No. 784360 Filing Accepted: 09/24/24 To Whom It May Concern: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage’s”) response to Complainant, Hickory Harbour Condominium Association Inc.’s, Civil Remedy Notice (filing number 784360 with a filing acceptance date of 09/24/2024). While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice filed in relation to this claim, Heritage believes that the Civil Remedy Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Furthermore, Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2), requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation”, to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the statute, the Notice filed by Complainant contains allegations that are not only overbroad and vague but are also inaccurate. Moreover, Complainant’s allegations stem only from Complainant’s opinions regarding the adjustment of this claim. Additionally, the tenor and inferences of the allegations in the Notice are wholly without merit and Heritage denies each and every one. Below are some of the facts regarding the claim that were not included in the CRN. Subject to its terms, limitations, exclusions and conditions, Heritage insured the Complainant under a Commercial Property Condominium Association Policy of Insurance bearing Policy No. HCP007195. The Policy of Insurance applies to direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations of said Policy, caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss as described in said Policy. The Policy insures the properties located at 226 3rd Street, Bonita Springs, FL 34134. On or about September 30, 2022, Complainant filed its claim for damages allegedly caused by Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022. Heritage promptly assigned Claim No. H100824 to the reported loss and assigned a desk adjuster to the claim. Immediately upon receipt of the claim, Heritage attempted to contact Complainant and its representatives, providing the information of the desk adjuster. Heritage first contacted the board president on October 10, 2022, who advised Heritage to instead contact the treasurer ofthe board, Mark Slusarski. On October 11, 2022, contact was achieved with Mr. Slusarski, who advised Heritage of the available information about the claim and what was being claimed at the time, also providing the contact information for a “contractor”, Brian Moye. As time is of the essence, immediately upon receipt of the claim by Complainant, an independent adjuster was assigned. Heritage assigned Brendon Guinther from Professional Adjusting Services, Inc. to adjust the loss on October 1, 2022. Mr. Guinther immediately set out to and managed to schedule the inspection for October 17, 2022. On October 17, 2022, the inspection was conducted by Mr. Guinther in the presence of representatives of Complainant’s board of directors. At no point during the inspection was Mr. Guinther advised to cease the inspection or not to inspect the property without the presence of the Public Adjuster. Heritage had no intention to exclude Global Pro. Contrary to Complainant’s allegations, Heritage is not in direct violation of Fla. Stat. 624.854(14)(a). First and foremost, there is no section (14)(a) of Fla. Stat. 624.854. There is, however, Fla. Stat. 624.854(14)(a), which provides as follows: A company employee adjuster, independent adjuster, attorney, investigator, or other persons acting on behalf of an insurer that needs access to an insured or claimant or to the insured property that is the subject of a claim must provide at least 48 hours’ notice to the insured or claimant, public adjuster, or legal representative before scheduling a meeting with the claimant or an onsite inspection of the insured property. The insured or claimant may deny access to the property if the notice has not been provided. The insured or claimant may waive the 48-hour notice. Heritage clearly coordinated the inspection with Complainant and its representatives with more than 48-hours notice. Importantly, neither during the scheduling of the inspection, nor during the time leading to and including the inspection did the Complainant or its representatives advised Heritage that it required the presence of the Public Adjuster for his inspection. As noted above, Heritage’s inspection was not conducted alone but rather in the presence of representatives of the board. Moreover, Complainant was aware of the scheduled inspection and apparently did not advise its Public Adjuster of the same; nor, was Heritage made aware of the need to communicate with a Public Adjuster at this time. Additionally, Heritage did not refuse to reinspect the property as is alleged by Complainant. Upon receipt of the Public Adjuster’s Letter of Representation and correspondence requesting an inspection of the Property, Heritage advised the Public Adjuster that an inspection had already been conducted but that it would be scheduling a reinspection by an engineer. Due to the assignment of an engineer, Heritage did not request an estimate from Mr. Guinther pending the inspection and opinions of the engineer, who was better qualified to determine the cause and origin of the damages. Contrary to Complainant’s allegations, Keith Marino never inspected the Property in connection with this claim. In fact, Mr. Marino’s involvement was short-lived, as the claim was reassigned to Mr. Guinther prior to Mr. Marino having an opportunity to adjust. the claim before he ever did any work whatsoever on the claim. Instead, it was Brendon Guinther who inspected the property. Moreover, no inspection of the property was conducted on Heritage’s behalf until October 17, 2022, there is no record of an October 2, 2022 inspection.Mr. Guinther advised Complainant’s representative’s that there would be a reinspection of the Property by an engineer retained by Heritage to provide an opinion as to the cause and origin of the damages present at the Property. Specifically, Heritage retained Intertek to conduct the inspection. Intertek set out to schedule the inspection and finalized the scheduling for the inspection to take place over several days. As noted by Complainant, this is a complex claim; thus, requires several days for the inspection to be completed thoroughly, based on the foregoing, Intertek scheduled its inspection for November 29, and 30, and December 1, and 2, 2022. During the four-day inspection Intertek documented all of the damages that it opined were related to the reported cause of loss, as well as damages that were not related to the date of loss. Intertek found as follows: • The roof was replaced in 2008 and is generally in good condition. Areas of edge metal and walk pads on the roof sustained minimal damage and should be replaced. • The windows and doors are in generally good condition. Several windows and doors may have minimal damages that can be resolved with typical maintenance activities except for one window that requires replacement. • The first-floor storage units were removed prior to inspection but were heavily damaged by the flooding/storm surge. Based upon Intertek’s findings and conclusions, Heritage then instructed the Independent Adjuster to prepare and estimate in accordance with the scope provided by Intertek. Heritage issued its coverage determination on April 4, 2023. Heritage completed its coverage determination once all of the factors beyond its control were resolved. Heritage’s coverage determination included language excluding any damages resulting from flood. Although the Public Adjuster has repeatedly alleged that no flooding damages have been included, the property did sustain damages resulting from flood to its ground level fencing and storage units, and thus those damages would be excluded. Additionally, the estimate submitted in support of the Complainant’s claim included complete repainting of the entire building, including painting on the ground floor damaged by flooding. Heritage further issued a supplemental coverage determination on April 24, 2024, issuing a supplemental payment of $13,930.00 above the deductible. Specifically, the supplemental coverage was provided upon receipt of a fencing quote from Carter Fence, which Heritage acknowledged coverage for upon confirmation that it was not being claimed as a result of flood. Heritage further provided coverage for 4 weeks of commercial project manager supervision. Contrary to Complainant’s allegations, Heritage has never denied coverage for the subject claim. Instead, Heritage provided coverage for the damages that were caused by Hurricane Ian and simply included the flood exclusion language on the correspondence to address certain minor items being claimed in connection with potential flood damage. In fact, Heritage has to date provided two coverage determinations. Complainant makes the baseless allegation that Heritage is “post-loss underwriting” the policy by requesting documentation and information from the Insured. Heritage is entitled to request information anddocumentation in support of a claim submitted by an Insured, as clearly delineated in the Policy’s Duties In The Event of Loss or Damage Section. See Page 9 of 14 of CP 00 17 06 07. Furthermore, where there exists a substantial scope and pricing of a claim, Heritage is obligated to exercise the full extent of its investigative tools as listed in the policy to ensure their coverage determination is substantiated by sufficient evidence. Moreover, in requesting documentation in support of the claim, as was done in Heritage’s Request for Information and in Heritage’s response to the Complainant’s Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, Heritage is not violating Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f)-(g). The above statutes provide that Heritage must provide a reasonable explanation in writing as to the basis of denial or offer of settlement and must notify the insured of additional information necessary. As already explained, Heritage provided two coverage determinations, detailing the reasoning for its determination. Heritage has also advised the Insured of the requested documentation and why it is necessary to its adjustment, it is not conditioning payment on same but rather requiring that the Complainant comply with the Policy’s post-loss obligations. Contrary to Complainant’s allegations, Heritage has properly investigated the claim, assigned an independent adjuster, and experts to inspect the property on several occasions. The expert came to a conclusion regarding the cause and origin of the damages and the cost to bring the property back to its preloss condition. Furthermore, Heritage has provided an explanation for all of its coverage determinations, including four separate letters explaining the basis for its determinations and payments issued thus far. Complainant’s allegations set forth in its Civil Remedy Notice stem from its own opinion regarding Heritage’s handling of the Claim. Heritage always acted in good faith in its handling of this claim. Heritage has acted at all times in accordance with its rights and duties under the subject Policy of Insurance and under Florida Law. Finally, as stated above, Heritage always retained all of its rights and defenses available under the Policy of Insurance and under Florida Law. Under Florida Law, a Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, “pursuant to section 624.155, F.S., to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company violated the following statutory provisions: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for his or her interests. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. As indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant. Heritage promptly investigated and adjusted the Complainant’s Hurricane Ian claim, and issued and explained its coverage determination to the Complainant. 2. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. This is a baseless accusation and Complainant fails to include any facts in support of it.3. 624.9541(1)(i)(2): A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. This is a baseless accusation and Complainant fails to include any facts in support of it. Complainant fails to allege in any way what material misrepresentations were allegedly made by Heritage. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: The Complainant fails to describe any facts and/or circumstances regarding the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Heritage has completed a thorough investigation of the reported claim and issued a coverage determination and payment. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Response: The Complainant fails to describe any facts and/or circumstances regarding the misrepresentation of any facts or provisions in the policy. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 7. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Response: Heritage conducted a reasonable investigation, inspected the property on three separate occasions with different people, including its experts and independent adjusters. Furthermore, Heritage has not denied this claim, but instead has issued coverage under certain portions of the claim. 8. 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 made. Response: This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Heritage has completed a thorough investigation of the reported claim and issued a coverage determination and payment. Heritage further issued correspondence in response to Complainant’s proof of loss, rejecting the same and explaining its reasoning for the rejection.9. 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 compromised settlement. Response: This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Heritage has completed a thorough investigation of the reported claim and issued a coverage determination and payment, including reasoning for the determination and payment. 10. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Response: The Complainant fails to describe any facts and/or circumstances regarding the failure to notify the insured of additional information necessary. This is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. As detailed by the facts stated above, Heritage did not violate any of the aforementioned statute sections. Heritage has properly investigated the subject claim and provided a detailed explanation with regards to coverage for same. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer notice of the issue its insured has with the claim and what it is seeking to remedy that issue. However, it is important to note that Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad faith claim. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328, at *14-15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). The Florida Supreme Court has held that an insurer's appropriate response to a Civil Remedy Notice filed pursuant to Fla. Stat. 624.155 is “based upon the insurer's good-faith evaluation of what is owed on the insurance contract.” Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla 2000). The Court further stated, “What is owed on the contract is . . . governed by whether all conditions precedent for payment contained within the policy have been met.” Id. For its part, an insurer “must evaluate a claim based upon proof of loss required by the policy and its expertise in advance of a determination by a court or arbitration.” Id. at 1275- 76. Heritage has complied, in good-faith, with these obligations. In short, the Notice reflects a shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo. This approach is contrary to the purpose of the statute. The Notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform Heritage of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Under § 624.155, Heritage is entitled not only to a clear proposed solution, but also more and accurate details about how Heritage fell short of its obligations to provide coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainant has failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under § 624.155. In closing, Heritage first believes that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Moreover, regardless of the rejection, Heritage denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations.While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that Heritage’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the CRN. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Heritage or any agent or representative of Heritage or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, /s/ Andrew Bruce, Esq. Andrew Bruce, Esquire (727) 465-4711 AB/rr

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