Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786258
Filing Accepted:  10/9/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GREEN   First Name   JOHN
Street Address * 217 GRANDVILLE AVE SW STE 401
City, State Zip * GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503
Email Address * JOHN@GREENFV.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GREEN   First Name   JOHN
Policy # * H03 1043481 Claim #* 3997130
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* BERARDI First Name * MARK Initial
Street Address* 9160 CORPORATE PARKWAY SUITE 350
City, State Zip* FORT MYERS , FL 33905
Email Address * MARK@BERARDI.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10677
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* NA
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Failure to Investigate
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
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.
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)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Section I Property Coverages of the applicable policy provides coverage for the claim. The Insured have complied with all policy conditions, and there are no exclusions that apply except that the Insurer is improperly attempting to use Conditions D. Section I.2.g(3) to avoid paying. John W Green and Deanna L Green (hereinafter the “Insured”) believe the Policy language relevant to the violations includes all applicable policy coverages, loss payment provisions, loss settlement provisions, valuation provisions and other terms and conditions of Policy No. H03 1043481. In particular, the Insured refer to the following policy language: Coverage A – Dwelling, Coverage B - Other Structures, Coverage C - Personal Property, Coverage D - Loss of Use, Additional Coverages Law and Ordinance Coverage, Additional Endorsements and Forms. The Cincinnati Insurance Company has failed to issue insurance benefits to its Insured pursuant to the Loss Settlement, Loss Payment, and other Provisions in the applicable policy.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

In this claim, the Insurer The Cincinnati Insurance Company (hereinafter the “Insurer”) exhibited a blatant, unacceptable failure to properly investigate a claim, in violation of Florida law, and committed clear bad faith in refusing to properly pay the catastrophic Wind claim of John W Green and Deanna L Green (hereinafter the “Insured”) and neglecting and delaying the claim as long as possible in order to increase their profits to the detriment of their Insured. On or about September 28, 2022, while the policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s property located at 16950 CAPTIVA DR CAPTIVA, FL 33924-0000 (hereinafter the “Property”), sustained a devastating covered loss due to the insured peril, Hurricane, including but not limited to, storm-driven rain and storm-driven debris caused by Hurricane Ian. The Insured timely reported the claim to the Insurer immediately after the loss occurred, and Insurer assigned it claim number 3997130. The Insured and their representative also provided Insurer with all pertinent claim-related documentation, including a repair estimate to return the property to its pre-loss condition and photographic evidence of damages supporting the damages accounted for in the estimate to the Insurer. Insurer however hired a results-oriented field adjuster who inspected the property but who significantly underestimated the cost for restoring the damages caused by Hurricane Ian to the property to its pre-loss condition. Insurer ended up providing coverage for this claim, but Insurer significantly underestimated the true cost to fix the damages associated with this catastrophic Hurricane Ian claim that caused significant damages to the Insured’s property. Through their actions, Insurer is continuing to improperly delay the claim and participate in unfair claim settlement practices in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i), Florida Statutes. Insurer failed to comply with the terms set forth in its policy to pay for damages caused by this covered loss. Rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its Insured, Insurer failed to properly investigate, ignored obvious damages to the property, attempted overall to lowball the cost to restore the Insured’s property to the condition it was in prior to Hurricane Ian, deliberately underpaid the claim in an attempt to increase Insurer’s financial profits, and continued to drag its feet to resolve this claim. Insurer eventually provided coverage for minor repairs to the property, but significantly underestimated all damages associated with the claim. Insurer unreasonably withheld proper payment for the extensive damages which exist at the property to this day. TIMELINE - In order to understand the bad faith committed by Insurer, it is necessary to understand a timeline of the events in this claim. The claim was immediately reported to the Insurer after Hurricane Ian. Insurer’s field adjuster then inspected the subject property and generated an estimate of damage that included only minor damage while omitting obvious serious damage. Insured’s attorney submitted its letter of representation to Insurer and notified them of the additional damages the Insurer failed to account for at the insured’s home. On or about July 30, 2023, the Insureds submitted an accurate and reasonable estimate for the damage cause by Hurricane Ian including Coverage A (dwelling), Coverage B (other structures), Coverage C (contents), Coverage D (loss of use) under the policy totaling $1,558,384.94. The Insureds’ estimate was supported by a Proof of Loss (POL) and documentation including photographs and engineering report recommending the replacement of all windows and doors. The Insureds continued to update the Insurer, made the Property available for inspection, and proved revised POLs, contractor estimates, photographs, and engineering reports to the Insurer through the repair process. 1. Failure to Properly Investigate the Claim Insurer failed to properly investigate the Greens’ Hurricane Ian claim, despite clear and repeated notice of significant property damage. Following the loss on September 28, 2022, John and Deanna Green Insureds promptly reported the damage to the Insurer and complied with all post-loss obligations, including making the property available for inspection. The Insurer conducted an initial inspection on October 26, 2022, by sending Taylor Jones of Young and Associates and Van Fischer of Envista Forensics to inspect the property. However, the inspection was incomplete and inadequate. Mr. Fischer’s report falsely concluded that there was no wind-related damage to the windows and sliding glass doors, even though the property sustained substantial wind-driven rain damage. The Insureds subsequently retained Engineering Systems Inc. (ESi), which confirmed that the windows and doors were compromised, with significant embedded debris, chips, and scratches from the storm, and required full replacement. ESi's report demonstrated that Mr. Fischer’s findings were incorrect, and the damage could not be resolved by cleaning alone. Nevertheless, the Insurer refused to acknowledge these findings and continued to rely on the flawed conclusions from its initial inspection. Despite receiving detailed reports from ESi, photographs, and a repair estimate of $1,039,854.66 in July 2023 for Coverage A (dwelling), which included the full replacement of the windows, the Insurer failed to properly reinspect the Property. On September 21, 2023, the Insurer requested a reinspection of the windows, but when the Insureds agreed to the reinspection and scheduled it for October 19, 2023, the Insurer conditioned the reinspection on the presence of a representative from the window manufacturer, a requirement not mandated by the policy. The Insureds had no control over the manufacturer, but they took additional steps to cooperate by providing contact information for their window supplier, Rice Windows and Doors. Despite this, the Insurer did not conduct the reinspection, thereby further delaying the resolution of the claim. The Insureds repeatedly made the property available for inspection, notified the Insurer of ongoing repairs, and fully cooperated with all investigative requests. However, the Insurer’s investigation was unreasonably delayed, inadequate, and designed to avoid addressing the full scope of the damage, particularly to the windows and doors. The Insurer's refusal to inspect the damage in a timely and thorough manner constitutes a clear failure to investigate the claim properly, in violation of Florida Statutes, including Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), which requires insurers to adopt and implement standards for proper investigation of claims. The failure to conduct a reasonable investigation ultimately contributed to the delay and underpayment of the claim, to the severe detriment of the Insureds. In addition to failing to reinspect the windows despite clear evidence of damage, the Insurer abused the document request process in an apparent effort to fabricate a pretextual defense to avoid paying the full value of the claim. Specifically, the Insurer demanded documents and communications between the Insureds and their insurance agent, focusing on irrelevant issues such as whether the Insureds misrepresented their intention to use the property for vacation rentals. This line of inquiry was entirely baseless, as the Insureds had been truthful and forthcoming about their intentions, which had no bearing on the property damage caused by Hurricane Ian. After the Insurer’s theory about misrepresentation proved unfounded, it shifted its attention to the condition of the windows and sliding doors, but only after the Insureds had replaced them out of necessity to mitigate further damage and make the Property rentable to avoid further LOU. Despite receiving timely notice of the Insureds' intent to replace the windows, the Insurer delayed reinspecting the property and demanded that a representative from the window manufacturer be present for the reinspection, a condition not required by the policy. This delay exacerbated the Insureds’ financial and property damage and was part of the Insurer’s continued effort to delay the settlement of the claim. By focusing on irrelevant document requests and shifting its investigative focus after significant repairs had been completed, the Insurer caused significant delays in settling the claim. This conduct constitutes not only a failure to investigate the claim properly, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), but also a violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), which prohibits insurers from failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. These delays deprived the Insureds of a timely and fair settlement, compounding their financial hardship and exacerbating the damage to their property. In addition, the Insurer’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)—failing to promptly notify the Insureds of the necessary information required to process the claim—played a critical role in setting up the pretextual defense of alleged prejudice, which the Insurer later used to deny coverage for the windows and doors. As outlined, the Insureds timely reported the damage to the property by submitting a POL on July 28, 2023 supported by a detailed estimate that include the full replacement of the windows and, by September 29, 2023, clearly communicated to the Insurer that the windows and sliding doors were scheduled for replacement. Despite this, the Insurer delayed taking meaningful action and failed to clearly outline what, if any, additional steps or information were required before the replacement work commenced. It was only on October 10, 2023, long after the Insureds had provided notice that the windows required replacement, that the Insurer suddenly imposed the new requirement that an "authorized manufacturer representative" be present at the reinspection. This condition was not mentioned during the Insurer's initial reinspection request on September 21, 2023, and the policy did not mandate the presence of a manufacturer’s representative. This delay in communicating the need for a manufacturer’s representative, combined with the Insurer’s failure to promptly conduct the reinspection before the windows were replaced, constitutes a clear violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), which requires insurers to notify insureds promptly of any additional information necessary to process claims. The Insurer’s failure to promptly and clearly notify the Insureds of its requirements, coupled with its unreasonable delay in responding to the Insureds’ good-faith efforts to schedule the reinspection, set the stage for the Insurer to later claim that it was “prejudiced” by its inability to inspect the windows and doors before they were replaced. This claim of prejudice was entirely pretextual, as the Insurer had ample opportunity to conduct the reinspection and had been provided with detailed reports from Engineering Systems Inc. (ESi) confirming the necessity of the replacements that was provided to the Insurer more than six months prior to Insureds’ replacement of the windows. The Insurer’s delay in communicating the specific conditions for the reinspection, especially after being notified of the replacement schedule, was a deliberate tactic to create a false narrative of non-cooperation on the part of the Insureds. By failing to notify the Insureds in a timely manner of its alleged need for a manufacturer’s representative, the Insurer engineered a situation in which it could later claim that the Insureds had deprived it of the opportunity to properly inspect the windows and doors. This argument of prejudice is directly attributable to the Insurer’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g). Had the Insurer complied with its statutory obligation to promptly notify the Insureds of any additional information needed to process the claim, it could have scheduled and conducted the reinspection well before the repairs commenced, avoiding any purported prejudice. Instead, the Insurer used its own delay and failure to communicate as the basis for denying payment for the windows and doors, falsely claiming that the Insureds’ replacement of the windows without its reinspection had prevented it from properly evaluating the damage. This pretextual claim of prejudice not only served as a justification for denying significant portions of the claim but also contributed to the Insurer’s bad-faith closure of the claim, despite unresolved damages. In summary, the Insurer’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) directly contributed to its ability to later raise a baseless claim of prejudice. The Insurer’s failure to promptly notify the Insureds of any additional requirements for the reinspection, combined with its delayed responses and shifting demands, allowed it to manipulate the situation to its advantage, resulting in the denial of coverage for the windows and doors under a false pretense of prejudice. This conduct demonstrates a clear pattern of bad faith and a failure to handle the Insureds’ claim with fairness, honesty, and due regard for their interests, further violating the Insurer’s obligations under Florida law. 2. Failure to Pay the Claim in Full Insurer has engaged in bad faith conduct by failing to pay the Greens’ claim in full, despite clear evidence of significant damage to their property caused by Hurricane Ian. From the outset, the Greens promptly reported the loss, provided all requested documentation, and fully complied with their obligations under the policy. Despite these efforts, the Insurer has consistently underpaid the claim and refused to issue full payment for the covered damages, leaving the Greens to cover significant expenses themselves. On July 31, 2023, the Greens submitted a detailed building Coverage A repair estimate totaling $1,039,854.66, supported by Engineering Systems Inc. (ESi) reports and over 300 pages of photographs and backup documentation. This estimate included the cost to replace all windows and sliding doors, as well as necessary interior and exterior repairs caused by water and wind damage. Despite the comprehensive evidence, the Insurer failed to pay the full amount necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Following the receipt of additional contractor estimates with updated pricing, the Greens submitted an updated Proof of Loss (POL) on January 10, 2024 for $1,823,666.89. This updated POL also included a claim for additional Loss of Use damages, as the property remained unrentable for a longer period than initially anticipated due to delays in completing repairs. By August 19, 2024, the Greens submitted a further revised POL totaling $2,024,403.79. This increase was due to revised contractor estimates, adding a generator that Insureds discovered was damaged by the storm, adding additional LOU, and to address certain objections Insurer raised to prior POLs. Despite these updated and justified submissions, the Insurer failed to issue the full payment necessary to return the property to its pre-loss condition. While the Insurer acknowledged some of the damages and issued partial payments, those amounts were grossly insufficient. The Insurer’s reliance on an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of the damages, combined with its failure to promptly issue payments for the full repair costs, left the Greens to bear the financial burden. Moreover, the Insurer delayed issuing payments related to the Loss of Use (Coverage D) portion of the claim, despite the extensive damage making the property unrentable for an extended period. The Insurer’s failure to promptly address this aspect of the claim resulted in a significant loss of rental income, further exacerbating the financial strain on the Greens. Through its actions, the Insurer violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) by failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing for the partial denial of the claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement. This violation delayed the Greens’ ability to repair the property and restore it to a livable condition, causing further financial harm. Additionally, the Insurer violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(4) by failing to provide the undisputed portion of the claim within a reasonable timeframe. Florida law requires prompt payment of undisputed benefits within 60 days after notice of the claim and determination of the amounts owed. The Insurer’s unreasonable delays in paying both the initial and updated amounts, as well as its failure to account for the Loss of Use damages, significantly prolonged the claim’s resolution and worsened the Greens’ financial hardship. 3. Intentional Misrepresentations Insurer intentionally misrepresented key facts and policy provisions throughout the handling of the Greens' claim. These misrepresentations were aimed at avoiding full payment of the claim and delaying the resolution of the Insureds' significant loss from Hurricane Ian. One of the most egregious misrepresentations was the Insurer’s incorrect assertion that the Insureds’ claim was untimely because it was allegedly submitted more than two years after the date of loss. In fact, the applicable statute of limitations under the policy and Florida law allowed the Insureds three years to submit a supplemental claim, as provided by Section 627.70132. The Insurer's assertion that the claim was time-barred under a two-year statute was not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to mislead the Insureds into believing their claim could be denied on this basis. This misrepresentation delayed the processing of the claim and caused the Insureds unnecessary stress and confusion, as they were forced to prove that their claim was timely and valid under the correct statute. In addition to this misrepresentation, the Insurer shifted its investigative focus to the condition of the windows and sliding doors, but only after the Insureds had already replaced them. The Insurer had ample notice from the Insureds that the windows and doors were severely damaged and required replacement. Despite receiving reports from the Insureds’ experts, including Engineering Systems Inc. (ESi), which detailed the extent of the damage and the need for replacement, the Insurer deliberately delayed reinspecting the property until after the windows had been replaced. Once the replacements were completed, the Insurer claimed it could no longer assess the damages accurately, blaming the Insureds for failing to cooperate with the investigation. This tactic allowed the Insurer to avoid fully compensating the Insureds for the cost of replacing the windows and doors, despite having been informed of the damage long before the repairs were made. The Insurer also engaged in a tactic of demanding that a representative from the window manufacturer be present during a reinspection of the property, a requirement not mandated by the policy. This unnecessary condition was another clear misrepresentation of the Insureds' obligations under the policy and further delayed the investigation and resolution of the claim. The policy merely required the Insureds to exhibit the damaged property, which they did by making the property available for multiple inspections. The demand for a manufacturer’s representative to be present was a bad faith effort by the Insurer to complicate and delay the claim process, knowing that the Insureds had no control over the manufacturer’s schedule. These intentional misrepresentations by the Insurer, including falsely asserting that the claim was untimely and shifting the focus to previously replaced property components, demonstrate a clear violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), which prohibits material misrepresentations made for the purpose of settling claims on less favorable terms than those provided in the policy. The Insurer’s actions were not only deceptive but were clearly intended to underpay or deny portions of the claim that should have been fully covered under the policy. In addition to the misrepresentations concerning the timeliness of the claim and the condition of the windows, Insurer also misrepresented the Insureds’ obligations under the policy with respect to the Examination Under Oath (EUO) process. These misrepresentations further delayed the claim and contributed to the Insurer’s bad faith handling of the loss. The Insurer repeatedly insisted that the Greens appear for an in-person EUO in Fort Myers, Florida, despite the fact that the Insureds reside in Michigan and were willing to fully cooperate by appearing via Zoom or another remote audiovisual platform. The demand for an in-person EUO was not only burdensome and inconvenient for the Insureds but was also not required under the policy. The policy simply required the Insureds to submit to an EUO, without specifying that it must be conducted in person, especially when modern technology allows for remote participation. The Insureds offered to appear via Zoom, which would have fulfilled their obligations under the policy and allowed the Insurer to gather the necessary information for the investigation. By insisting on an in-person appearance and refusing to conduct the EUO remotely, the Insurer misrepresented the Insureds' obligations under the policy, intentionally delaying the investigation and settlement of the claim. The Insurer’s refusal to accommodate a remote EUO forced the Insureds to expend additional time and resources to negotiate the terms of the examination, which should have been conducted remotely without issue. This tactic was clearly designed to harass and intimidate the Insureds, rather than to further the investigation of the claim in good faith. The delay caused by the Insurer’s misrepresentation regarding the EUO requirement significantly impacted the resolution of the claim. While the Insurer stalled by insisting on an in-person examination, critical repairs to the Insureds' property were further delayed, and the Insureds were left without the funds necessary to restore their home. The delay in conducting the EUO meant that the Insurer could avoid making timely payments for the substantial damages covered under the policy, prolonging the financial and emotional strain on the Insureds. This conduct by the Insurer constitutes a violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), which prohibits insurers from failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. By misrepresenting the necessity of an in-person EUO and delaying the process without just cause, the Insurer failed to act in a timely and reasonable manner in its investigation. Additionally, the Insurer’s conduct violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), which prohibits material misrepresentations made for the purpose of settling claims on less favorable terms than those provided in the policy. The Insurer's actions in this instance were clearly intended to delay the claim and create unnecessary barriers for the Insureds, further contributing to its bad faith handling of the claim. 4. Unilaterally Closing the Claim Cincinnati Insurance Company ("Insurer") further demonstrated bad faith by attempting to unilaterally close the Greens' claim without resolving all outstanding issues and damages. Despite the Insureds' ongoing cooperation and submission of additional documentation, the Insurer prematurely declared the claim closed, even though significant portions of the damage had not been addressed. In a letter dated July 15, 2024, the Insurer unilaterally closed the claim, refusing to consider the additional damages that the Greens had submitted in their revised POLs. The Greens submitted an updated POL on January 10, 2024, for $1,823,666.89, reflecting newly uncovered damages and additional Loss of Use (LOU) damages as the property remained unrentable due to the delays. Finally, on August 19, 2024, the Greens submitted another revised POL totaling $2,024,403.79 due to increased costs to repair as documents by new contractor estimates. Despite these timely and supported submissions, the Insurer failed to properly account for these updated amounts and chose to close the claim instead. The Insurer summarily rejected the POLs as “unsolicited” without justification for such rejection in the Policy. The Insurer also ignored additional updates provided by the Greens regarding newly discovered damage to an elevated generator and ongoing Loss of Use damages, as the property continued to be uninhabitable and unrentable during the extended repair process. The unilateral closure violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), which prohibits insurers from failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims. By closing the claim without addressing the updated estimates and proofs of loss, the Insurer effectively denied coverage for a substantial portion of the claim without providing a reasonable explanation or completing its investigation. On August 19, 2024, the Insureds submitted a revised proof of loss, which included damage to an elevated generator caused by wind-driven water during Hurricane Ian. This submission was supported by documentation and estimates showing that the generator had sustained damage as a direct result of the storm. Despite providing the Insurer with this additional documentation, the Insurer failed to investigate or even acknowledge the claim for the generator. The Insurer summarily rejected the generator claim without conducting a proper investigation or engaging any experts to assess the damages. This failure to investigate is a clear violation of the Insurer’s obligation under Florida Statutes §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), which requires the Insurer to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The rejection of this valid claim without investigation also constitutes a violation of §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), as it reflects a misrepresentation of the pertinent facts regarding coverage. Furthermore, by failing to even acknowledge the generator claim or communicate a reasonable explanation for its denial, the Insurer violated §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), which mandates prompt communication regarding claims. The Insurer’s actions demonstrate a failure to act in good faith and a deliberate attempt to avoid properly compensating the Insureds for the generator damage. Furthermore, the Insurer's refusal to consider these supplemental claims violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), which prohibits insurers from denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based on available information. Despite receiving expert reports, photographs, estimates, and multiple communications from the Greens detailing the ongoing damages and need for additional repairs, the Insurer closed the claim without addressing the full scope of the loss. This conduct evidences bad faith and forced the Greens to pursue legal action to keep the claim active. The Greens objected to the Insurer's improper closure and provided supplemental information to support the remaining damages. However, as of this date, the Insurer has refused to reopen the claim or engage in meaningful discussions to resolve the outstanding issues. The unilateral closure and refusal to consider further damages have left the Greens in financial distress, forced to manage escalating repair costs without proper compensation under the policy. Insurer improperly used examination under oath as a harassment and delay tactic by demanding that Insureds attend an examination in-person when Insurer was aware that the Insureds lived out of state. Even after Insureds offered to submit to a remote examination via reasonable audiovisual means, the Insured reiterated its demand for an in-person examination. The policy does not require an in-person interview or exam and, instead, simply states that the Insureds have a duty to: “[s]ubmit to examination under oath, while not in the presence of another "insured", and sign the same.” Furthermore, the Policy provides that Insureds’ failure to comply with the cooperation conditions, such as examination under oath, only precludes coverage in the event that Insurer suffers prejudice. The Insureds’ offer to submit to an examination via audiovisual means satisfies their duties under the Policy and Insurer would suffer no prejudice. By refusing to accept the Insureds offer to submit to a remote examination and by demanding that Insureds perform a duty not required under the Policy (appearance in person), the Insurer has violated: 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)(d) denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; 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)(2) 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. Insurer lowballed the cost to restore the Insured’s property to the condition it was in prior to Hurricane Ian and deliberately underpaid the claim. Insurer violated Florida Statutes Section 627.70131 and also violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) in its handling of this claim based upon the above facts. Based on the above facts, to date, Insurer has committed violations of: (1) Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) by failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, (2) Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, and (3) Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) by participating in unfair claim settlement practices. This is unconscionable and a gross violation of ethical standards by Insurer and clear evidence of bad faith of Insurer who should have evaluated and fairly provided coverage for the true cost of the damages associated with HURRICANE IAN damages at the property. Insurer attempted to lowball payment by providing minimal coverage for the extensive damages caused to its Insured’s home from Hurricane Ian but not providing proper coverage in an attempt to take advantage of its Insured for its own benefit. Insurer also ignored and dismissed the Insured’s representative’s communications in violation of Florida Statutes Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes. Insurer’s agents – including adjusters and management – have ALL continued to delay this claim and harmed the Insured by 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. Upon information and belief, Insurer also violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) by failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims because management of Insurer rejected this claim and ignored the investigation findings and evidence of hurricane damage in an attempt to underpay the claim. At this point in time, Insurer has still refused to pay the proper covered damages under the Insured’s claim, leaving the Insured stuck with a damaged property, unable to make repairs or do anything with the property. Despite clear evidence of extensive damages to the property, it appears that the Insurer is ignoring obvious damages without any contradictory evidence to unreasonably delay the claim and avoid paying for the full cost of the damages to repair the Insured property. Because of Insurer’s delay in this claim, the Insured has been irreparably damaged. Furthermore, at this time, labor and materials costs to complete the work necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition have skyrocketed since Hurricane Ian, and the Insured has been harmed significantly by Insurer’s delaying and improperly paying the Insured’s Hurricane Ian claim. Moreover, the Insurer failed to comply with its loss settlement provision. Rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its Insured, the Insurer ignored the Insured’s request for funds to properly restore the property to its pre-loss condition and continued to drag its feet. Upon information and belief, Insurer performs the subject actions as a general business practice in order to increase financial profits, Insurer has unfair claim settlement practices, and Insurer has failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violations of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. It is believed that future bad faith discovery would reveal an extensive history of delay of claims similar to that of the Insured and other Insured across the state of Florida, as this conduct may be a business practice of the Insurer. It is believed that future bad faith discovery may reveal an extensive history of underpayments of claims similar to that of the Insured and other Insured across the state of Florida, as this conduct may be a business practice of the Insurer. Insurer in this claim also misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue because Insurer ignored obvious damages to the property from Hurricane Ian, which is a covered loss, by not providing coverage for what the policy covers and claiming some of the damages are excluded – which it has no evidence of – which is in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The Insurer could very quickly see the damage caused by this MAJOR HURRICANE in the area which was evidenced by the photographs of the property and could have easily researched the effects of the hurricane in the area and the extremely high wind speeds associated with the hurricane at the Insured’s property, but yet the Insurer did not provide the appropriate coverage for this claim in bad faith. This Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. Sec. 624.155, including any and all bad faith/extra contractual damages, should Insurer fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. The Insured also intends to seek punitive damages against Insurer as it appears that Insurer’s violations occur with such frequency as to evidence a general business practice in order to increase financial profits and the violations were willful, wanton, and malicious and were in reckless disregard for the rights of the Insured. While no specific “cure amount” is required for this Civil Remedy Notice to be valid, Insurer can cure the violations contained herein by: (i) issuing a payment for all contractual damages owed under the policy for the claim based on the public adjuster’s estimate, less the applicable deductible and prior payments; (ii) make payment of interest owed under Florida law; and (iii) implement appropriate standards and procedures for claims investigations and resolution in regard to the outstanding amount of this Claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
blackburn@dghlegal.com 12-05-2024 December 5, 2024 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: civilremedy@myfloridacfo.com Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Re: Policyholder: John W. Green and Deanna L. Green Complainant: John Green Claim #: 3997130 Policy #: H03 1043481 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 CRN Filing No.: 786258 CRN Filing Date: October 9, 2024 To whom it may concern at The Department of Financial Services: Please consider this correspondence The Cincinnati Insurance Company’s (“Cincinnati”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by the Complainant, John Green (the “Complainant”), as it relates to claim number 3997130 (the “Claim”). The Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) accepted filing of the CRN on October 9, 2024 and assigned it filing number 786258. Complainant herein alleges violations of various statutory provisions in the CRN filing as its Claim. While the CRN filing notably omits any violation of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, and fails wholly to comply with its strict requirements, the Complainant does allege Cincinnati violated section 626.9541 (1)(i), Florida Statutes, as follows: 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 buy such contract or policy. 3. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: a. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; b. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; c. Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; d. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; 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; 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; g. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; h. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary; ***** 4. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5). Cincinnati, however, specifically denies the Complainant’s allegations of any violation of section 626.9541 (1)(i), Florida Statutes. Moreover, the Complainant fails to specifically identify any standard not implemented, any misrepresentation of any “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverage,” or any failure to act upon or acknowledge communications of its insured. Additionally, the insureds’ initial claim was thoroughly investigated, was not denied, and the insureds were provided an explanation for all of Cincinnati’s actions pertinent to the investigation and adjustment of their claim. Moreover, the Insureds received all undisputed amounts of benefits, but the Complainant has failed to further cooperate with Cincinnati in its investigation into the Insureds’ additional and supplemental claims for losses as is required by the Insureds’ Policy. In addition to the foregoing, Complainant also seems to be alleging generally that Cincinnati violated the entirety of the Policy in question, which Cincinnati specifically denies any violation thereto. Notably, and contrary to the requirements of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)(4), the Complainant fails to provide any specific facts giving rise to any violation, the name of any individual involved, or even the specific policy language allegedly violated. Essentially, the CRN is woefully lacking in any specificity relating to any violations and is merely a “boilerplate” regurgitation of statutory provisions allegedly violated. CRN IS PATENTLY NON-COMPLIANT The Civil Remedy Notice must be dismissed because the Complainant failed to allege any actual facts in support of the specific statutory allegations asserted. The Civil Remedy Statute §624.155 requires that a civil remedy notice state the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations with sufficient specificity to allow an insurer to “cure” the alleged violations within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) and Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). However, the CRN lacks even a scintilla of specificity as it fails to include any statement of facts, description of circumstances regarding this specific claim, the name of any individual involved, dates of any activities, or specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations, which are all required conditions precedent pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155. See, Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020). See also, Junior Julien v. United Property and Capital Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (finding that the failure to provide with specificity one of the five enumerated items in § 624.155(3)(b) results in an insured "not substantially comply[ing] with the specificity standard and was more than a mere technical defect"). Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 285 F.Supp.3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006)(holding that a CRN "must be specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing"); Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 580 F. Supp.2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Fenderson v. United Auto Ins. Co., 31 So.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Assuming arguendo, however, the real “cure” sought by the Complainant is payment of all insurance proceeds demanded, attorney’s fees, costs and interest without actually providing any basis for the demanded amount or cooperating with Cincinnati, and notwithstanding any statutory requirements, the subject Policy or even Cincinnati’s right to fully investigate and adjust the loss. The method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the Insureds and/or Complainant. Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever an insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. . . . Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation… [and] few insureds would restrict their demands to compensatory damages. There is no reason why insureds would not demand also the advance payment of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 624.155(2)(d). Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Remedy Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Cincinnati has, at all times, acted and continues to act in good faith during the investigation and adjustment of the Claim. Therefore, Cincinnati wishes to dispel even the inference of any violation and sets forth below the significant facts, which refute the vague and conclusory allegations of violation, and establish with clarity that Cincinnati has at all times acted in good faith with regard to the Claim at issue. As it relates to the factual timeline of events that directly refute the Complainant’s statements within the CRN, on or around October 4, 2022, Laura Matthews with BHS Insurance, reported that the Insured sustained damage to his home from Hurricane Ian, which appeared to be mostly exterior and first floor flood damage (which is covered under the Insureds’ flood policy with another insurer). After several attempts were made to contact the Complainant, Mary Kay McAndrews with Cincinnati spoke to the Complainant by telephone on October 6, 2022, wherein the Complainant reported to her that his builder (Brian Haag with Windward Construction) was able to gain access to the property and initially identified only isolated roof damage (150 sq. ft.) and significant flood damage (water level mark of 18”) to the 2021 built home situated on the West coast of Captiva Island. In response, Ms. McAndrews notified the Complainant that a storm adjuster, Andrew Agerton, Complex Property Specialist, was assigned to the claim and would be in contact with the Complainant. On October 10, 2022, Mr. Agerton spoke with the Complainant to obtain and impart information concerning the Complainant’s Claim and schedule an inspection of the property. During this telephone call, the Complainant again reiterated that access to Captiva Island was limited (by boat only) but his builder was able to gain access and do a preliminary inspection. The Complainant explained again that the builder identified isolated roof damage, significant flooding, which devastated his landscaping, but that he was unaware as to any interior or contents losses. Mr. Agerton confirmed with the Complainant that he had flood coverage with another carrier and advised the Complainant of the 2% or $269,000 Windstorm Deductible. The Complainant was unable to schedule Cincinnati’s inspection of the property at this time as the Complainant advised he was at his other home in Michigan. On October 18, 2022, however. Cincinnati received notification that Complainant retained an attorney (licensed in IL, MI, and FL) who would be further handling the claim on behalf of the Complainant. Mr. Agerton was advised that arrangements to inspect the property would have to go through the Complainant’s attorney. On October 26, 2022, Mr. Agerton, along with an engineer, Van Fisher with Envista Forensics, and a building consultant, Taylor Jones with Young & Associates, were scheduled to meet the Complainant’s appointed estimator/claims coordinator, Kelsey Stowell, on the Complainant’s property; however, no representative for the Complainant was present at the time of inspection. Instead, Messrs. Agerton, Fisher and Jones were provided access to the property by the water mitigation company (Aqua One, LLC) on sight performing flood mitigation. During Cincinnati’s inspection of the property, significant damage to the landscaping, boardwalk, ground lighting, fencing, and the first floor of the property (interior and exterior) due to storm surge flooding, were noted. As for the wind related damages to the property covered under the Cincinnati Policy, significant wind-related damage to the roofing membrane was observed, as well as water damage to the interior finishes from wind-driven rain through windward facing doors and windows (which were fully operable and not visibly damaged) on the upper levels, and damage to the exterior of the building. Following the initial inspection on October 28, 2024, Complainant’s attorney reached out to Mr. Agerton regarding whether the inspection had been scheduled and when he would receive a response to his request for advancement of payment of the Claim. In response, Mr. Agerton provided an update as to the initial inspection that already occurred, that Cincinnati was not yet in a position to advance payment in light of the large Windstorm Deductible, advised of the flood remediation occurring on the property, and advised that the engineer and building consultant were preparing their respective report and estimate. On November 11, 2022, Mr. Agerton reached out to the Complainant’s counsel requesting whether the Complainant’s estimator prepared any estimate for repairs and whether the estimator would be agreeable to meeting with Mr. Jones in order to discuss and agree upon the scope of the loss. No estimate was received at that time, however, Mr. Jones met with the Complainant’s attorney’s estimator on November 30, 2022 at the property to jointly inspect the scope of wind-related damages. Thereafter, and following receipt of Mr. Fisher’s engineer report, Mr. Jones prepared an estimate for repair to the property in the amount of $257,343.94 (without the benefit of the Complainant’s estimate), both of which were forwarded to Complainant’s attorney with the explanation that the covered damages did not exceed the Complainant’s Windstorm Deductible. However, Mr. Agerton advised that additional exploration into coverage for the Claim was continuing as the water mitigation invoice of $157,296.36, would conceivably include water mitigation for both uncovered flood damages and covered wind-driven rain damages through the upper level doors and windows. Several months later, on August 2, 2023, the Complainant’s attorney finally responded to Mr. Agerton providing an estimate dated June 1, 2023, an engineer’s report from ESI dated May 16, 2023 following ESI’s inspection dated January 27, 2023 (opining anew that all windows and doors on the property required replacement), and the Insured’s Proof of Loss claiming damages under all coverages as follows: Coverage A – Dwelling – $1,039,854.66; Coverage B – Other Structures - $68,013.29; Coverage C – Personal Property - $44,807.49; Coverage D – Loss of Use - $405,709.50. Mr. Agerton immediately acknowledged receipt of the Proof of Loss, requested additional information to support the extensive amplification of damages, specifically as it concerned the windows and doors and Coverage D, and advised the Complainant’s attorney that it would review the information with its building consultant and engineer as it pertained to Coverages A and B. On September 28, 2023, the Complainant’s attorney provided documentation for Complainant’s Coverage C – Personal Property claim and a general summary for the basis of the Complainant’s Coverage D – Loss of Use claim, but provided no supporting documentation for the expenses allegedly incurred justifying $405,709.50. Notwithstanding the lack of information, on October 2, 2023, Mr. Agerton authorized payment to the Complainant as follows: Coverage A – Dwelling – $317,970.05 (after deduction of Windstorm Deductible), Coverage C – Personal Property $44,807.49, and Coverage D – Loss of Use - $122,386.20, along with a letter of explanation. Mr. Agerton further advised that after the property has been re-inspected, as agreed to by all parties, Mr. Agerton would be in a better position to address the newly claimed cost for full replacement of all windows and doors. On November 3, 3023, the Complainant’s wife and co-insured, Deana Green, advised Cincinnati’s experts that because the Insureds’ window representative, Brett Penske with Rice Windows, advised the Complainant to replace all windows and doors, the Insureds’ unilaterally opted to purchase and replace all of the windows and doors without providing Cincinnati an opportunity to re-inspect the property with Cincinnati’s designated engineer or with the Insureds’ window representative, Mr. Penske. Mr. Jones, Cincinnati’s Building Consultant, was able to revisit the property prior thereto and meet with the Complainant’s builder, and as a result Mr. Jones revised his estimate unrelated to the windows and doors. Based on the revised estimate, Mr. Agerton authorized an additional Coverage A/B payment to the insured in the amount of $143,607.68. On January 10, 2024, the Complainant’s attorney then provided a revised estimate and a second Proof of Loss signed by the Insureds altering all previous loss amounts claimed, as follows: Coverage A – Dwelling – $1,125,768.73; Coverage B – Other Structures - $294,863.26; Coverage C – Personal Property - $35,557.05; Coverage D – Loss of Use - $638,214.60. Once again, Mr. Agerton immediately responded on January 18, 2024 confirming receipt of the second Proof of Loss advising the Complainant’s attorney of the amounts paid on the Claim (Total $774,226.93) and again requesting documentation supporting the replacement of all windows and doors and the (again) increased Coverage D – Loss of Use claim. As no documentation or communication was forthcoming from the Complainant nor the Complainant’s attorney, to support the increased Proof of Loss claims of loss, Cincinnati made a formal request on February 5, 2024 to the Insureds (through their counsel) requesting the Insureds submit to an Examination Under Oath and provide documentation specific to their additional claims for benefits under all Coverages. As a result of this request for additional documentation and Examination Under Oath, which is a delineated duty of the Insureds’ contained within their Policy, the Complainant’s first CRN was filed 7 days later (CRN Filing Number 741973; Accepted 2/12/2024). On April 11, 2024, the Examinations Under Oath for the Complainants was finally permitted to occur by the Insureds’ counsel. The Complainants failed, however, to fully provide the documents specifically requested, despite several requests both prior to and following the scheduled Examinations. Instead, on July 15, 2024, the Insureds’ attorney provided a third Proof of Loss, again unsupported and again altering previous loss amounts claimed, as follows: Coverage A – Dwelling – $1,246,568.40; Coverage B – Other Structures - $294,863.26; Coverage C – Personal Property - $76,405.05; Coverage D – Loss of Use - $697,174.78. The Complainant’s counsel also provided invoices concerning repairs and services for uncovered, never claimed and duplicated damages, as well as an estimate for replacement of a generator dated June 26, 2024 (21 months after the DOL). This third Proof of Loss was acknowledged and rejected by counsel for Cincinnati. A month later, on August 19, 2024, Complainant’s counsel sent a fourth Proof of Loss, and a notice of supplemental damages from Hurricane Ian for the claimed damages to Insureds’ generator. Cincinnati, through counsel, requested an opportunity to inspect the newly claimed damages, and specific documentation to support the supplemental claim. Complainant’s attorney failed to timely respond to permit the inspection and according to the records provided, the generator was replaced (June 2024) before the supplemental claim was noticed to Cincinnati due to rust and corrosion. This cause of loss is specifically excluded in the Insureds’ Policy and as such, the Insureds’ supplemental claim was denied. This latest CRN, similar to the first, followed 8 days after Cincinnati’s communication to the Complainant’s counsel concerning the Insureds’ Hurricane Ian insurance claims. To sum up, this appears to not be a matter of Cincinnati’s alleged violation of Fla. Stat. §624.155 (or even section 626.9541, Florida Statutes) against its insured, but more appropriately described as an effort by the Complainant and/or Complainant’s attorney to make end runs around the Insureds’ clear and unambiguous duties following a loss under the Policy to cooperate with Cincinnati in its investigation of the claim including exhibiting the damaged property to Cincinnati, and providing records and documentation requested. As such, Cincinnati’s continued handling, investigation and payment of the Claim asserted by the Complainant does not indicate any bad faith as the Complainant now contends in this second CRN. Rather, the above history establishes with clarity that Cincinnati’s investigation into the Subject Claim and Supplemental Claim continued pursuant to the terms and conditions of the subject Policy. Further, Cincinnati has acted fairly and honestly and continued to act fairly and honestly in taking all reasonable steps to investigate the claim, communicate reasonably, and to provide the Complainant through Complainant’s attorney, a reasonable explanation for its actions. Lastly, it is important to note, that while an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. As stated herein, an insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. Neither the subject policy nor Florida law provide that a carrier must accept whatever demand for repairs it is provided by a contractor, its Insureds and/or the Complainant as the amount necessary to repair a loss. Therefore, Cincinnati submits that all allegations contained in the Civil Remedy Notice are without merit. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Cincinnati’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Civil Remedy Notice and the information it possesses, to date. Cincinnati’s response is not exhaustive and it explicitly reserves herein all other valid defenses to the validity and effect of the CRN. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Cincinnati or any agent or representative of Cincinnati should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses available to it by contract or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. 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, Linda G. Blackburn Linda G. Blackburn For the Firm LGB/cp
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