Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     786934
Filing Accepted:  10/15/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HUY   First Name   SYDA AND PAO S.
Street Address * 4172 SW TUSCOL ST
City, State Zip * PORT ST. LUCIE, FL 34953
Email Address * SSHUY21@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HUY   First Name   SYDA AND PAO S.
Policy # * 12-1064323-03 Claim #* 12-3019273-23
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MCLESTER First Name * MINDY Initial
Street Address* 350 NORTH LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FLORIDA 32751
Email Address * MMCLESTER@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15885
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY ADJUSTER, MANAGER, OR INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED IN THE HANDLING OF THE SUBJECT CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE INSURANCE CARRIER.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(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)(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.

A certified copy of the policy is not in the possession of the Insureds, but has been requested from the insurance carrier. Based on information and belief, the following policy provisions are relevant to this civil remedy notice.: Section 1 – Coverage A – Perils Insured Against Section 1- Conditions – Loss Settlement Section 1 – Conditions - Loss Payment
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about April 26, 2023, the Insureds, Syda and Pao S. Huy, suffered significant damage to his home located at 4172 SW Tuscol St, Port St. Lucie, FL 34953-6190as a result of a severe hailstorm. Prior to the loss, Typtap Insurance Company (“Typtap”), had issued a policy of insurance (Policy No.: 12-1064323-03) for the Insured’s property. Said policy was in full force and effect on date of loss and afforded coverage for wind and hail damage. Typtap was notified of the loss by the Insured and assigned claim number 12-3019273-23. During the course of Typtap’s investigation, the Insured made the property available for inspection, provided facts and information surrounding the loss, and complied with Typtap’s adjustment of the claim. Despite fully cooperating with Typtap’s investigation, Typtap capriciously denied coverage for the Insured’s insurance claim even though there was clear evidence of wind and hail damage to the roof. Typtap came to its coverage determination by ignoring relevant facts and information provided by the Insured and his contractors that established the damages were unquestionably the result of wind and hail. Most concerning, Typtap and its representatives either underplayed or misrepresented the findings from its own inspections in order to avoid having to tender payment on a claim that it knows should be covered pursuant to the terms of the policy. It is clear that Typtap has not acted honestly or fairly towards its Insured. Typtap and its representatives have failed to conduct a proper investigation of the loss, misrepresented the scope and cause of damages at the residence, and misapplied exclusions in the policy in order to deny coverage for the Insured’s claim. It has become a general business practice of Typtap to not implement proper claims handling procedures, to hire consultants that routinely ignore or intentionally misidentify relevant evidence, and to not settle claims in good faith when under all circumstances it should have. As is the case here, it is a pattern and practice for Typtap to arbitrarily deny claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon information and evidence available to it. In order to cure this civil remedy notice, Typtap must immediately acknowledge in writing that the roof, interior, and exterior damages claimed by the Insureds were caused by wind and hail and immediately tender the full payment owed to the Insureds for damage to covered property in the amount of $149,122.31 less the applicable deductible. The written acknowledgement should be provided to the Insured’s counsel in writing at Mindy Mclester, Esq. at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
claims@typtap.com 12-13-2024 This is TypTap Insurance Company’s (“TypTap”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by Mindy Mclester, Esq. on behalf of Syda and Pao S. Huy (“Insured”). TypTap reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. Under the relevant facts and circumstances, the applicable insurance contract did not provide coverage for the claim. Ultimately, TypTap handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. TypTap denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, TypTap acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Otherwise, the CRN is deficient. Generally, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, CRNs must identify and set forth statutory provisions insurers allegedly violated in handling insureds’ insurance claims along with specific, relevant insurance contract language and facts and circumstances. The foregoing provides insurers with notice of alleged statutory violations AND the opportunity to cure such alleged violations. 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; 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 TypTap. Furthermore, the Insured’s attorney filed a lawsuit based on the claim prior to the filing of this CRN. Regardless of the fact there were no violations in this case, any action by TypTap to cure violations alleged in the CRN could have been used against TypTap in the lawsuit. The foregoing shows abuse by the Insured and the Insured’s attorney of the CRN and legal processes. Also and generally, the CRN constitutes an abuse of the CRN process, contravenes the purpose of CRNs, which is to promote resolution of issues in insurance claims. The CRN must be rejected, and it cannot serve as the basis of any action against TypTap. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence TypTap provided regarding the claim. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence TypTap provided regarding 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