Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     788882
Filing Accepted:  10/28/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RILEY   First Name   BRIANNA
Street Address * 13805 155TH PLACE NORTH
City, State Zip * JUPITER, FL 33478
Email Address * RILEYBF115@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RILEY   First Name   BRIANNA
Policy # * 12-1056605-03 Claim #* 12-3017207-23
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*   TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15885
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* KRYSTAL MATHIS, VALERIE MCDONALD, JOSH MONTGOMERY, BRIDGETT WILLIAMS, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
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)(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.

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.

TypTap Insurance Company (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) failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes; and 9) artificially inflating the Insured’s recoverable depreciation. On or about April 30, 2023, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s property was severely damaged by wind. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the roofing system and exterior. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for wind damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 72-3077207-23 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on June 27, 2023. Then in a letter dated August 4, 2023, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was extending coverage for the loss. However, the Insurer wrongfully determined that it would only require $27,248.96 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. Given the vastly underestimated cost of repairs, the Insured’s disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from wind, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $78,737.82 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. In response, the Insurer, in a letter dated June 18, 2024, stood by its prior evaluation of the claim—even after the public adjuster pointed out that the field adjuster did not properly measure the amount of squares on the roof. The public adjuster also requested resolution through the appraisal process, which the Insurer refused. 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 by failing to properly measure the roof, 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. Moreover, the Insurer unreasonably inflated the amount of recoverable depreciation in this case, thereby artificially lowering the Insured’s recoverable value, to the detriment of its Insured. Per the field adjuster’s estimate, the Insurer calculated the replacement cost value of the loss at $27,248.96, but withheld $15,884.87 in recoverable depreciation, which represents 58% of the net claim. Thus, the has Insurer withheld an exorbitant amount of the net claim determined by the Insurer as recoverable depreciation. The Insurer has attempted to gain an unreasonable financial benefit by inflating the recoverable depreciation because it knows that it is unlikely, or at least less likely, that the Insured can actually complete the repairs which is a condition precedent to the recovery of the depreciation withheld under the claim. In other words, the Insurer pays an unreasonable amount less on the front end of a claim, which makes it more difficult for the Insured to restore the property to its pre-loss condition and recover the withheld depreciation from the Insurer. Only after Insured pays to restore the property out of pocket, if he can, will the Insurer fully pay its Insured under the policy. Withholding an inflated amount of depreciation is a creative, sneaky, and deceptive practice that is employed as to limit the amount the Insurer will ever have to pay out on a claim and essentially make the homeowner a self-insured. The Insurer is hoping that the Insured is unaware of her right to recover the recoverable depreciation so that it can pay the Insured less than it is obligated. The Insurer is shifting the cost and the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured. The Insurer has the duty to inspect the loss and provide the Insured with the full benefits under the policy. The Insurer has breached that duty by not providing the Insured with the full value of the loss and caused the Insured to take on the burden of investigating the loss. 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 determined that it would only require $27,248.96 to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition. 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 delay 2. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 3. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 4. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 5. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 6. 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 7. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 8. Failing to provide an estimate that complies with the Florida Building Codes 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 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: TypTap Insurance Company 3001 SE Maricamp Road Ocala, FL 34471 claims@typtap.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
claims@typtap.com 12-23-2024 This is TypTap Insurance Company’s (“TypTap”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Brianna Riley (“Insured”). After reviewing the CRN, TypTap conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“Claim”) and confirmed it handled the Claim properly. Ultimately, all issues regarding the Claim, including all issues raised in the CRN, have been resolved via a full and final settlement agreement (“settlement”). Pursuant to the settlement, the Insured signed or is in the process of signing a full, final and valid release that addresses all claims for bad faith in relation to the Claim. This response to the CRN in no way impairs or otherwise alters the full and final settlement of the Claim. Subject to the foregoing, TypTap denies it committed a violation of any Florida statute prior to the settlement or at any time as alleged in the CRN. TypTap also notes the CRN is deficient as, for instance, it fails to cite relevant statutory provisions along with supporting, specific insurance contract language and facts. Ultimately, as referenced above, TypTap settled all issues regarding the Claim, including any and all issues raised in the CRN, as set forth in the release. Finally, upon request by the Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the Department of Financial Services detailed correspondence TypTap provided to the Insured regarding TypTap’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