Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     788910
Filing Accepted:  10/28/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PILLARISETTY   First Name   SANDEEP
Street Address * 2853 WINDSOR HILL DRIVE
City, State Zip * WINDERMERE, FL 34786
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PILLARISETTY   First Name   SANDEEP
Policy # * OIC30059016-03 Claim #* 22FLHOV0011730
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* DANIELS First Name * MONICA Initial E
Street Address* 560 VILLAGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 110
City, State Zip* WEST PALM BEACH , FLORIDA 33409
Email Address * MDANIELS@THEDANIELS-LAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* RYAN KOMANETSKY, ANDREA SAULS, MICHAEL LANE, HAROLD SPEESE, ZOE WHITE, MATTHEW SOMMERS, “ROSS”, RELLIM CONTRACTING LLC, AND ANY AND ALL ADJUSTERS, MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
* 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
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.
* 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 A. Coverage A – Dwelling 1. We cover: a. The dwelling on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations, including structures attached to the dwelling; and b. Materials and supplies located on or next to the "residence premises" used to construct, alter or repair the dwelling or other structures on the "residence premises". SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. SECTION I – CONDITIONS H. Our Option If we give you written notice within 30 days after we receive your signed, sworn proof of loss, we may repair or replace any part of the damaged property with material or property of like kind and quality. I. Loss Payment We will adjust all losses with you.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Sindhu Golla and Sandeep Pillarisetty (the “Insureds”) purchased an insurance policy from Olympus Insurance Company (“Insurer”), with Policy number OIC30059016-03 (the “Policy”), to cover their property located at 2853 Windsor Hill Drive, Windermere, FL 34786 (the “Property”). On November 10, 2022, a hurricane, to wit, Hurricane Nicole struck the Property. The excessive winds from Hurricane Nicole caused overwhelming damage to the roof and various interior areas of the property. The Insureds immediately reported the loss to Insurer, and complied with all applicable post-loss obligations. The Insurer assigned claim number 22FLHOV0011730 (the “Claim”) to the claim. The Insurer inspected the Property, determined that the roof needed to be replaced and numerous interior damages needed to be repaired, and, ultimately, Insurer selected the option in the Policy to complete repairs at the subject property in lieu of rendering coverage payments for same. However, Insurer’s selected contractor, Rellim Contracting LLC (“Insurer’s Contractor”), caused additional damage to Insureds’ home due to the improper operating of a crane and the improper installation of the roofing system, resulting in damage to the property’s interior, driveway, and even the new roofing system. Despite Insurer’s Contractor admitting that the damage at the subject property was a result of their actions, Insurer has refused and/or failed to complete the repairs necessary to return the Property to its pre-loss condition. As such, Insureds were forced to hire a public adjuster to assist them with their damages and the claims process. The Insureds provided the Insurer with a true and accurate estimate of the damages, extensive photographs of the damages, and complied with all of the Insurer’s requests for documentation and information. The Insurer acknowledged coverage, admitted liability, invoked the repair option, selected Insurer’s Contractor, who further damaged the property, and, now, Insurer refuses to restore the Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insureds understandably became extremely frustrated by the Insurer’s clear delay tactics, failure to properly indemnify them for this Claim in a timely fashion, and failure to adjust the Claim in good-faith. To combat any further attempts by the Insurer to delay the Claim and its failure to make the Insureds whole, the Insureds had no choice but to retain legal counsel to assist with the Claim. Without repairing their property, the Insureds continue to suffer additional damages. The Insurer failed to return the Property to its pre-loss condition despite the Insureds expressing their clear disagreement with the Insurer’s handling of the Claim. Despite providing all necessary documentation to the Insurer to make good on its duty to restore the Insureds to their pre-loss condition, Insurer grossly handled the claim and only contemplated a fraction of the amount of Insureds’ damages given the additional damages caused by Insurer’s Contractor. The scope of the repairs completed by the Insurer’s Contractor is an insult to the Insureds and is far less than necessary to complete the repairs to their Property. The Insurer’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust and fully compensate the Insureds for this Claim undoubtedly evidences the Insurer’s violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurer to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” All available information leads to one conclusion – the Property was damaged by a covered cause of loss for which the Insureds are entitled to full and complete compensation. The Insurer’s obligation to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim is undeniable, and therefore, the Insurer has also violated Fla. Stat. Section 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 624.155(1)(b)(3). The Insurer’s conduct continues to be egregious because the Insurer retained a contractor who failed to provide labor, services and/or materials in a workmanlike manner, e.g. improper installation of roofing system and improper operating of a crane. The actions taken by the Insurer in the handling of the Claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insureds, and have occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice in violation of the law. This practice includes the Insurer hiring a contractor who caused additional damage to the Property, and subsequently refusing to remedy those additional damages in returning the property to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer’s actions amount to, but are not limited to: A. “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 the insured and with due regard for her or his interests;” B. “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”; C. “Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear;” D. “Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims;” E. Claim Delay; F. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offers; and G. Unfair Trade Practices. In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurer’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of the Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201: (3) Code of Ethics . . . An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. The Insureds are dutiful customers who made it a priority to pay their insurance premiums and to ensure that in such an event as the one here, their property would be covered. The Insureds timely filed their claim and fulfilled all post-loss obligations. Insurer acknowledged the loss, assigned a claim number, inspected the property, accepted coverage for the loss, invoked the repair option, selected Insurer’s Contractor, who further damaged the property, and, now, Insurer refuses to restore the Property to its pre-loss condition. Insurer has failed to provide the Insureds with qualified representatives to ensure the claim was initially adjusted, evaluated, and repaired properly. To deny the Insureds the benefit of the bargain after they have satisfied all of their obligations is morally and ethically reprehensible, and reeks of Unfair Trade Practice. Insurer is putting its profits ahead of its contractual and statutory obligations. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees. The Insurer has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ insurance claim and damages. Therefore, the Insurer breached its statutory and ethical duties, and has put profits ahead of the duties it owed to its Insureds when they most needed the insurance coverage they had paid for. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract where one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow specified amounts, or determinable benefit, upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly. This timely and prompt payment allows the insured to mitigate their damages and place them back to the position they were in prior to the loss, as quickly as possible. The Insurer breached this duty. The Insurer has refused and failed to tender all insurance proceeds to the Insureds upon demand. The Insurer’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when it, under all circumstances, should have done so, is wrongful conduct. The Insurer is failing to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim as it is required to do so by contract, in order to influence settlements. To cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must (1) immediately, and under no circumstances no later than sixty days from the date of this civil remedy notice, tender all insurance monies due and owing to the Insured under the Policy, specifically $448,176.06 pursuant to the public adjuster’s repair estimate, less applicable deductible; (2) ensure that payment made would be adequate to place the Insureds and their Property back in the pre-loss condition; and (3) reimburse the Insured’s attorney’s fees and costs, since the Insured was forced to hire legal counsel in order to receive adequate payment. Should the Insurer fail to comply with the demands set forth in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must prepare to pay the full cost of its failure to rightfully indemnify the Insureds, including all future damages that come about as a result of the Insurer’s failure to comply with the demands set forth in this civil remedy notice. This Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ghoffmann@bressler.com 12-27-2024 Via U.S. Mail, Certified Mail and E-mail: MDANIELS@THEDANIELS-LAWGROUP.COM Monica E. Daniels, Esq. Daniels Law Group 560 Village Boulevard, Suite 110 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Complainant(s): Sandeep Pillarisetty Policy #: OIC30059016-03 Claim #: 22FLHOV0011739 DFS Filing #: 788910 Dear Ms. Daniels: Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (hereinafter “Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 788910, filed on behalf of Sandeep Pillarisetty (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on October 28, 2024. The Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) alleges that Olympus violated the following statutes: • 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. • 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. Please accept this as Olympus’s response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, Sandeep Pillarisetty. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to promptly settle claims; failing to adopt and implement standards for investigating claims; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon claims communications; failing to provide a reasonable explanation in writing for the denial of a claim; and failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim, and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Olympus denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Olympus. Beyond Olympus’s adamant belief that it acted with the utmost good faith, the CRN is deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. As an initial matter, Olympus denies and rejects the instant CRN as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. The CRN is therefore deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The Department created a CRN form, Form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements, including in part, the Complainant’s e-mail address, Complainant type, claim number, attorney’s name, attorney’s address, attorney’s e-mail address, type of insurer, the person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and the reason for notice. According to § 624.155, these mandates are required by the Department, and they must be stated with specificity. The instant CRN fails to provide the specificity required by § 624.155 and fails to comply with the form requirements as a whole. Therefore, the instant CRN is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Specifically, the instant CRN filing lists the Complainant’s e-mail address as “WITHHELD.” Withholding the Complainant’s e-mail address within the CRN, and not providing any whatsoever, is insufficient under Florida law to support any action for bad faith against Olympus, without speculation on its part. Due to this intentional withholding of mandated information, the CRN is facially deficient as it fails to comply with the form requirements set forth in Florida Statute §624.155, and specifically § 624.155(3)(b)(3). See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Furthermore, the CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” When prompted to reference the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, the Complainant makes minimal effort to provide the relevant policy language. Instead, the Complainant states generic headings of entire policy sections, including, “SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES,” “SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST,” and “SECTION I – CONDITIONS” followed by one subheading to each corresponding section. The Complainant blatantly ignored the Department’s heading, seeking “[r]eference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation,” and makes no attempt to provide such. Instead, the Complainant provided a list of the subject insurance policy’s section headings, without reference to any specific language which it alleges has been breached or is called to question. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to any relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of Florida statutory provisions, with minimal factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to the violation. The CRN fails to specify what was lacking in Olympus’s investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was unfair or merits additional steps. To Olympus’s knowledge, the instant claim for insurance benefits has been adjusted and/or repaired properly. The CRN further lacks any specificity, facts, or rationale which indicate that Olympus’s coverage determination should have been different. Generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this Response, to put Olympus on notice as to the allegations against it. Moreover, the few facts that are stated in the CRN are contrary to the facts of the underlying claim or are at best misleading. The CRN states that “…[Olympus]’s selected contractor… caused additional damage to Insureds’ home due to the improper operating of a crane and the improper installation of the roofing system, resulting in damage to the property’s interior and driveway.” However, the Complainant has provided no facts or evidence to support this allegation in support of the instant CRN or in any other context throughout the entirety of their claim. Also, the CRN claims that, “The Insureds immediately reported the loss to [Olympus], and complied with all applicable post-loss obligations.” Rather, the claim was not reported to Olympus until 100 days after the alleged date of loss. Despite the timing of the claim, Olympus promptly and thoroughly investigated the subject claim and reached its coverage determination based upon its complete understanding of the facts surrounding this claim. In fact, Olympus investigated the reported loss with an independent licensed field adjuster who provided a report of his observations to Olympus. Based upon those observations, Olympus thereafter invoked its contractual option to repair the covered damages and did just that through the use of a certified roofer. However, the instant CRN makes vague and unsupported allegations while the fact of the matter is that Olympus thoroughly inspected and investigated the subject claim, timely relayed its findings to the Complainant based upon its complete review of the claim’s facts and worked with the Complainant to facilitate the necessary repairs. It is the Complainant who is not complying with the policy’s terms and who is continuing to make unsupported allegations in an attempt to deceive Olympus to issue unwarranted payments and/or additional benefits. The subject CRN makes egregious and baseless allegations that “[Olympus]’s conduct continues to be egregious because the Insurer retained a contractor who failed to provide labor, services and/or materials in a workmanlike manner…,” and “The actions taken by [Olympus] in the handling of the Claim are willful, wanton, and in disregard for the rights of the Insureds…” These are serious blanket allegations made without one scintilla of factual evidence in support of any of such claims. As demonstrated by the facts outlined above, Olympus diligently investigated the subject loss, repeatedly and routinely communicated with the Complainant, and acted accordingly based upon the facts it discovered throughout its investigation of the claim and according to the terms of the insurance contract which provides rights to both the Complainant as well as the insurer for scenarios just like this one. Olympus’s investigation of the subject claim was swift and routine: Olympus received a claim for damages, Olympus sent a representative to inspect the property, Olympus reviewed the representative’s observations and applied the relevant policy language thereto, Olympus invoked its option to repair the covered damages, and Olympus, through a third-party licensed roofer, followed through on its duty to repair the covered damages. The Complainant’s cure demand is indiscernible and as such Olympus is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. First, the CRN fails to state the amount of damages which must be paid to cure the CRN. The CRN states “To cure the defects outlined in this [CRN], [Olympus] must (1) immediately… tender all insurance monies due and owing to the Insured under the Policy, specifically $448,176.06 pursuant to the public adjuster’s estimate, less applicable deductible; (2) ensure that payment would be adequate to place the Insureds and their property back in the pre-loss condition; and (3) reimburse the Insured’s attorney’s fees and costs…” This is the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). However, the CRN itself contains a cure in the form of an admission of liability without any indication as to the precise amounts associated to cure the alleged violations. This requires speculation on behalf of Olympus as to the total amount demanded by the Complainant to cure the CRN and alleged violations. There is no guidance on the face of the CRN, or in any documents provided to Olympus on behalf of the Complainant during the claim investigation, that could possibly allow Olympus to ascertain this total amount demanded by the Complainant. The CRN is devoid of any specific date nor basis for Olympus to calculate an amount that would “reimburse the Insured’s attorney’s fees and costs…” Regardless of its legitimacy, Olympus cannot even begin to attempt to cure the instant CRN on such unclear terms. Further, the cure is vague, ambiguous, and subjective, as it demands Olympus must “ensure that payment would be adequate to place the Insureds and their property back in the pre-loss condition.” However, the CRN fails to cite or reference any methodology to determine such an amount other than the public adjuster’s estimate. Furthermore, the amount demanded fails to account for significant payments made by Olympus to date including a payment of over $143,000 in November of 2024 which served to cure the entirety of the claimants’ prior CRN number 783186 filed with the DFS on September 17, 2024. Again, Olympus is left to speculate. Given the cure, Olympus affirmatively asserts that the CRN is deficient. Since no other distinct basis for a cure has been set forth by the Civil Remedy Notice, Olympus was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts…’”). Based on the facts provided, it is impossible for Olympus to satisfy the Complainant without significantly prejudicing itself, and therefore the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Similarly, for these reasons, the CRN fails. Furthermore, the Olympus has deduced the claimants are making a supplemental claim for the roof that has already been replaced as well as interior damages. Some of the interior damages may in fact overlap prior interior damages. As mentioned above, Olympus afforded coverage for the interior damages to the dining room and family room pursuant to its prior payments. The coverage numbers afforded for these rooms were based on the claimants’ own estimate and included interest. At no point prior to the subject CRN was any mention of the roof being defective, improperly installed, asking for warranty work to the roof. A timeline on the roof replacement by Rellim Contracting, paid for by Olympus is as follows. The roof replacement began in early Januaruy, 2024. The claimants had emailed Olympus on December 19, 2023 about “new” damage , however, Olympus was not apprised of what this new damage may be. Olympus did not get back the requested sworn proof of loss nor any documentation in support of any “new” damage. The roof was completed January 25, 2024. The issue of “new” damage is not raised again and when claimant emails Olympus on April 20, 2024. In that correspondence, the claimant states Rellim had painted the entire ceiling thereby suggesting Rellim addressed any “new” damage as mentioned in the December 19, 2023 email. However, in the laimants April 20, 2024 email, which is after her own public adjuster inspected the property pursuant to the date on their estimate, the claimant mentions “office damage.” Due to the above, any “new” damage in the dining room was addressed by Rellim and any dispute as to the amount of that loss is resolved when we issued the partial cure payment. As a result of the supplemental claim on “office damage”, Olympus retained an engineer to inspect. After several attempts to secure a date to inspect with most dates offered by the claimants in January, 2025, Olympus was finally afforded the opportunity to reinspect on December 23, 2024, just four days before the expiration of this CRN. Due to the holiday and the short window afforded to Olympus, the supplemental damages are still under investigation. Finally, the Claimants and Olympus have voluntarily agreed to mediate the remaining dispute and anticipate a good faith mediation on February 14, 2025. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. Olympus consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainant and/or their agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Olympus from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Olympus believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim, and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, s/ Gregory S. Hoffman _ Gregory S. Hoffman, 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