Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 786866

Filing Accepted: 10/15/2024

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

STOKES

First Name

GEORGE

Street Address *

1825 SOUTHEAST DRANSON CIRCLE

City, State Zip *

PORT SAINT LUCIE, FL 34952

Email Address *

GGSS412@YAHOO.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		STOKES		First Name		GEORGE
Policy # *		HCPC-HO3-363193-12		Claim #*		940670

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W.
Street Address*		2790 SUNSET POINT ROAD
City, State Zip*		CLEARWATER , FLORIDA 33579
Email Address *		ASSIST@KRAPFLEGAL.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 12944

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* BASIL RILEY, CHIP WINBORNE, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, , HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Unfair Trade Practice
	Claim Denial
	Claim Delay
	Other : Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy
	Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
	Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
	Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
	Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured’s loss
	Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
	Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,
	Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
	Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
	Other : Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
	Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims

* 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.
	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)(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.

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

Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. “It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention.” Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff’d, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).

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

Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (the “Insurer”) has committed the following in handling the Insured’s claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; 9) failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes; 10) 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; and 11) failing to pay for overhead and profit. On or about February 14, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s property was severely damaged by water. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the kitchen, dining room, living room, entry/foyer, hallway, and laundry room. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for hurricane damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 940670 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on February 26, 2024. Then in a letter dated March 4, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending partial coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $3,463.13 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer’s lowball estimate is that of a classic under scope and under value of the claim. The claims determination letter failed to comply with Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) as it did not include a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts, for the denial. The letter simply copies several policy exclusions with no explanation. Given the partial denial, the Insured’s disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from water, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $51,524.16 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspection of the insured property, the Insurer’s adjuster failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the adjuster intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and wrongfully denied coverage for the damage sustained to the Insured’s property. According to the woefully deficient claims determination letter, the Insurer’s field adjuster observed damage to the insured property but attributed the cause of some unknown and unarticulated damage to causes excluded under the policy. However, the Insurer never retained a professional engineer to determine the cause of this damage. Instead, the Insurer relied upon the causation opinions of a lay witness who will likely testify during his deposition that the Insurer never retained him to provide any causation opinions. Rather, the Insurer defaulted to deny coverage. Also, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. The Insurer intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interests of the Insurer over those of the Insured and to delay and frustrate the Insured’s ability to have his claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring his property. The Insurer failed to allocate and pay for overhead and profit, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7011(3)(a). Where the Insureds are reasonably likely to need a general contractor for the repairs, Florida Statute 626.7011(3) does not permit an Insurer to withhold overhead and profit pending the actual repair, unless absent a showing by the Insureds that it was likely to need a general contractor for the repairs. Trinidad v. Fla. Peninsula ins. Co., 121 So. 3d 433, 435 (Fla. 2013). The Insurer has implemented policies and procedures that are designed to wrongfully withhold costs associated with restoring the insured property to its pre-loss condition. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the Insured.? There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer’s claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured’s interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy as well as undervaluing the cost of repairs. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer’s actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the Insured's interests 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes 10. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 11. Conducting inadequate investigations 12. Making material misrepresentations 13. Failing to pay overhead and profit 14. 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 Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured’s loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via E-mail: Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. P.O. Box 22967 Tampa, FL 33622 claims@hcpci.com

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
Legal@hcpci.com		12-13-2024		This is Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“HCPCI”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of George Stokes (“Insured”). HCPCI reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. Regarding an aspect of the claim, HCPCI issued payment for it on the information available to HCPCI and the circumstances at the time of such payment. Ultimately, HCPCI handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. HCPCI denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, HCPCI acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Furthermore, the CRN fails to adequately describe the alleged violations and fails to provide sufficient information to have created an opportunity for the alleged violations to be corrected (although no violations exist). Instead of complying with Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, the Insured’s attorney in the CRN contained an inaccurate recitation of the facts, failed to reference specific, relevant insurance policy language; cited irrelevant statutes; failed to offer a valid cure, and relied on inaccurate and conclusory statements. The Insured’s laundry list of inapplicable statutes is insufficient. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). The CRN cannot serve as the basis of a bad-faith action against HCPCI. Finally, upon request by the Department of Financial Services, HCPCI will provide to the Department of Financial Services detailed correspondence HCPCI provided to the Insured regarding HCPCI’s obligations for the claim under the insurance contract and the facts of the claim.

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