Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     788667
Filing Accepted:  10/24/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
2900 GAINESVILLE HOLDINGS LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 7777 GLADES ROAD SUITE 215
City, State Zip * BOCA RATON, FL 33434
Email Address * TB@RISE8COMPANIES.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   2900 GAINESVILLE HOLDINGS LLC   First Name  
Policy # * VETPF04477230 Claim #* 4208768
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DAVICH First Name * DAVID Initial W
Street Address* 350 NORTH LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FL 32751
Email Address * WDAVICH@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 21199
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNKNOWN
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
* 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.
 
* 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 August 30, 2023, 2900 Gainesville Holdings LLC (“Insured”), suffered damage caused by Hurricane Idalia. Hurricane Idalia made landfall as a powerful category 3 hurricane and Insured’s property was in the storm’s path. Insured is a three building Hotel Complex located in Gainesville, Florida. The date of this filing marks more than 14 months since Hurricane Idalia which should have been ample time for the Market to simply pay what it owes. Prior to the loss, Arch Specialty Insurance Company, United Specialty Insurance Company, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London subscribing to Policy No.VETPF04477230 (the “Market”) issued a policy of insurance (policy no.: VETPF04477230) for the Insured’s property. Said policy, which was in full force and effect on the date of loss, afforded coverage for damage caused by a hurricane. After providing prompt notice of the loss, Insured fully cooperated with the Market’s investigation of the claim, including making its property available for inspections. The Market then engaged a law firm. The Market exercised its right under the policy to issue a request for Information (“RFI”) to the Insured. The Insured did not ignore or disregard the RFI but rather the Insured cooperated and produced thousands of pages of documents to the Market. The Market then requested a Sworn Proof of Loss. Once again the Insured complied with the request and submitted a Sworn Proof of Loss. Finally, apparently still not satisfied, the Market requested an Examination Under Oath and once again the Insured complied and provided sworn testimony for multiple hours. Despite the Insured complying with each and every request the Market has not rendered a coverage determination as of the date of this filing. While the Market had a right to investigate the claim the Market does not have a right to leave its Insured waiting in perpetuity for a coverage determination. It does not take an advanced degree or construction experience to take a cursory look at the photographs of Insured’s property and know that the damage to the property is the result of Hurricane Idalia. There is simply no reasonable explanation for this other than the Market is gambling that Insured will give up and abandon its claim. To put it bluntly, the Market is waiting its Insured out and as a result the Insured has had to retain the services of an attorney because the Insured can’t even get a coverage determination. It is the pattern and practice of the Market to refuse to render coverage determinations on large loss claims and it is the pattern and practice of the Market to engage in protracted delay tactics to intentionally prejudice and harass their insured under the guise that it is still investigating the claim when any other reasonably, rational, and prudent insurer acting in good faith would have acknowledged and covered the extensive damage sustained by Hurricane Idalia. It is evident that the Market has not acted honestly or fairly towards it’s Insured during its adjustment of its claim. It has become a general business practice of the Market 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 the Market to avoid payment on claims by simply refusing to even render a coverage determination. In order to cure this Civil Remedy Notice, the Market must immediately render a written coverage determination acknowledging that the damage sustained to the Insured’s property as a result of Hurricane Idalia is covered under the subject policy. The correspondence should be provided to the Insured’s counsel, David William Davich, Esq., at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751 or via electronic mail to wdavich@itsaboutjustice.law.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tbustamante@cozen.com 12-23-2024 Arch Specialty Insurance Company ("Arch") provides this response to Civil Remedy Notice ("CRN") No. 788667 filed by or on behalf of 2900 Gainesville Holdings LLC ("Complainant"). Arch explicitly responds solely on its own behalf and categorically denies any allegations of statutory violations or improper claims handling. At the outset, the CRN fails to comply with the specific statutory requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, rendering it legally deficient and void. The CRN ambiguously references “the Market,” which includes United Specialty Insurance Company and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. Section 624.155 requires clear identification of the specific insurer whose conduct is being challenged. This lack of clarity prevents Arch from being able to meaningfully respond to the CRN’s allegations. The CRN also fails to identify specific provisions of the insurance policy that Arch allegedly violated. Instead, it references “Coverage” in broad terms without citing any precise sections or conditions. A blanket reference to “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property” is insufficient and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 624.155(3)(b)4, which mandates specificity. Without identifying the particular policy language at issue, Arch cannot adequately address the allegations raised. Furthermore, the CRN lacks factual support for its sweeping allegations of bad faith conduct and delay. The CRN includes conclusory assertions, such as claims of “protracted delay” and a “pattern and practice” of bad faith, but fails to cite specific facts or evidence to substantiate these allegations. The Complainant even fails to identify any specific individual at Arch whose actions allegedly gave rise to the violations asserted. Allegations without supporting detail or evidence are insufficient to sustain a valid CRN. Moreover, the CRN fails to acknowledge the Complainant’s ongoing failure to comply with its post-loss obligations under the policy. During the Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) on October 15, 2024, Robert Beyer, the Complainant’s representative, testified that additional supporting documents exist but have not yet been provided. These outstanding materials include an updated Sworn Proof of Loss reflecting the newly claimed damages, which increased significantly from $2,376,200.00 to $9,057,525.16. In addition, Arch continues to await critical information requested in its correspondence to the Complainant, care of Will Davich, Esq., of Cohen Law Group, dated November 8, 2024, which is incorporated herein by reference: 1. The new, updated proof of loss with all support (Mr. Beyer testified the loss is now consistent with the new estimate prepared by Stone Claims Group and Arch anticipates that a proof of loss affirming the insured’s position will be forthcoming); 2. The identity and qualifications of the author of the new Stone Claims estimate; 3. Accounting of all costs spent by the hotel related to maintenance since April 2021 purchase (Mr. Beyer said he has accounting software that will at least show 2022 onward; Arch specifically requests amounts paid to Air IQ and the insured’s contract, Mr. Schmidt, and whether either considers there are still amounts due and owing relative to the insurance claim); 4. The names and information of various maintenance personnel who performed repairs following the storm; 5. Information on whether the new Stone Claims estimate includes amounts for non-physical purpose such as matching or ordinance or law; 6. Mortgage documents for $8.45m property purchase including the most recent statement(s) indicating all amounts due or past due; 7. Power company statements since date of purchase; 8. The insured’s signed contract and support from Perry Roofing pre-storm inclusive of all correspondence/communications/emails about the insured declining to replace the 2900 roof (the version provided by the insured is unsigned and requested the replacement of all three roofs); 9. All correspondence/documentation/communications with City of Gainesville regarding code violations and subsequent “deal” worked out where there would be patience for situation to be resolved by December 2024; and 10. Any further documents including photos from Stone Claims (the insured only provided a “Preliminary Summary Estimate” and the new Stone Claims estimate). Arch has been diligently investigating the claim and requires the above documentation to complete its assessment. Contrary to the CRN's allegations, Arch has promptly acknowledged the claim, conducted thorough investigations, maintained open communication, and requested necessary documentation to confirm the cause of loss and scope of damage. Any perceived delays are directly attributable to the Complainant’s failure to satisfy its post-loss obligations, which require the production of requested documents and records. These obligations are critical to Arch’s ability to verify the cause, nature, and extent of the claimed damages as well as to Arch’s ability to make coverage determinations. The CRN’s demand that Arch “immediately render a written coverage determination” ignores the Complainant’s outstanding obligations and Arch’s right to fully investigate the claim. Florida law and the policy permit Arch to take reasonable steps to evaluate the claim before issuing a determination. To date, the Complainant has not met these obligations, and Arch remains unable to complete its assessment. For the reasons outlined above, the CRN is legally insufficient and fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. The CRN’s lack of specificity, factual support, and acknowledgment of the Complainant’s post-loss failures render it invalid. Nevertheless, Arch remains committed to completing its investigation in good faith and requests that the Complainant provide all outstanding documents promptly to facilitate a fair and thorough assessment of the claim. Arch reserves all rights under the policy and applicable law, including the right to request additional information as necessary. Should you have any further questions or wish to discuss this response, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, JD Dickenson, Esq. Tiffany Bustamante, Esq.
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008