Filing Number: 790057
|
| Filing Accepted: 11/4/2024 |
| Last/Business Name
*
|
|
|
BETZ
|
|
First Name |
|
KATHERINE |
|
| Street Address
*
|
|
1366 SAND CASTLE ROAD |
| City, State Zip
*
|
|
SANIBEL,
FL
33957
|
| Email Address
*
|
|
KATHERINE_BETZ@YAHOO.COM |
| Complainant Type:
*
|
|
Insured |
|
| Last/Business Name* |
|
BETZ |
|
First Name |
|
KATHERINE |
| Policy # * |
|
HCPC-HW2-456106-9 |
|
Claim #* |
|
928019 |
|
Attorney is Applicable
|
| Last Name* |
CHAVIN
First Name *
VALORIE
Initial
S
|
| Street Address* |
|
12955 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 201, 201 |
| City, State Zip* |
|
NORTH MIAMI
,
FL
33181
|
| Email Address * |
|
VCHAVIN@CMSLAWGROUP.COM |
|
|
| 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):*
ARMONDO JULLIEN, BASIL RILEY
|
| Type of Insurance
*
Residential Property & Casualty
|
|
|
| Reason for Notice
*
|
|
|
Claim Denial
|
|
|
Claim Delay
|
|
|
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
|
|
|
Unfair Trade Practice
|
|
|
Other
:
Violation of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201
|
|
|
*
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)(c) |
|
Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
|
|
| 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) |
|
Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
|
|
| 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e) |
|
Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) |
|
Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
|
|
| 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).
|
|
| 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j) |
|
Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without:
(I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and
(II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or
(III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
|
|
*
Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.
Homeowners Choice Property and Casualty Insurance Company (the “Insurance Company” or the “Carrier”) abandoned its responsibilities to fully, timely and properly compensate its Insured for significant damages to the insured property located at 1366 Sand Castle Road, Sanibel, Florida 33957 (the “Property”) caused by a covered loss. Katherine Betz (the “Insured”) purchased a policy of insurance with the Carrier bearing policy number HCPC-HW2-456106-9, which provides coverage for damages to the Insured’s property, including significant damage sustained as the result of Hurricane Ian. Rather than properly compensating the Insured for the damages suffered, the Insurance Company has elevated its own interests over those of its Insured by refusing to acknowledge the extent of coverage for the loss or the true cost of repairs to the insured Property and denying payment to its Insured.
The Insured believes the following Policy language may be at issue:
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;
. . .
C. Coverage C – Personal Property
1. Covered Property We cover personal property owned or used by an “insured” while it is anywhere in the world.
. . .
E. Additional Coverages
1. Debris Removal
a. We will pay the reasonable expense you incur for the removal of:
(1)Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss
. . .
b. We will also pay the reasonable expense you incur, up to $1,000, for the removal from the “residence premises” of:
(1)Your tree(s) felled by a Peril Insured Against; or
(2)A neighbor's tree(s) felled by a Peril Insured Against; provided the tree(s):
(a)Damage(s) a covered structure;
. . .
2. Reasonable Repairs
a. We will pay the reasonable cost incurred by you for the necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property that is damaged by a Peril Insured Against from further damage.
. . .
PERIL INSURED AGAINST
1. We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverages A, B and C caused only by the peril of windstorm or hail unless the loss is excluded in EXCLUSIONS.
. . .
CONDITIONS
. . .
B. Duties After Loss. You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to covered property:
1. Give prompt notice to us or our agent;
2. Protect the property from further damage. If repairs to the property are required, you must:
a. Make reasonable and necessary temporary repairs to protect the property; and
b. Keep an accurate record of repair expenses;
3. Cooperate with us in the investigation of a claim;
4. Prepare an inventory of damaged personal property showing the:
a. Quantity;
b. Description;
c. Actual cash value; and
d. Amount of loss.
Attach all bills, receipts and related documents that justify the figures in the inventory;
5. As often as we reasonably require:
a. Show the damaged property;
b. Provide us with records and documents we request and permit us to make copies;
c. You or any “insured” under this policy must:
(1)Submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements, while not in the presence of any other persons except legal representation; and
(2)Sign the same;
d. If you are an association, corporation or other entity; any members, officers, directors, partners or similar representatives of the association, corporation or other entity must:
(1)Submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements, while not in the presence of any other persons except legal representation; and
(2)Sign the same;
e. Your agents, your representatives, including any public adjusters engaged on your behalf and anyone insured under this policy, other than an “insured” in c. or d. above; must:
(1)Submit to examinations under oath and recorded statements, while not in the presence of any persons except legal representation; and
(2)Sign the same;
6. Send to us, within 60 days after our request, your signed, sworn proof of loss which sets forth, to the best of your knowledge and belief:
a. The time and cause of loss;
b. The interests of all "insureds" and all others in the property involved and all liens on the property;
c. Other insurance which may cover the loss;
d. Changes in title or occupancy of the property during the term of the policy;
e. Specifications of damaged buildings and detailed repair estimates;
f. The inventory of damaged personal property described in 4. above;
g. Receipts for additional living expenses incurred and records that support the fair rental value loss.
7. A claim, supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane is barred unless notice of the claim, supplemental claim, or reopened claim is given to us in accordance with the terms of the policy within 3 years after the date the hurricane first made landfall in Florida or the windstorm caused the covered damage. A supplemental claim or reopened claim means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim.
. . .
E. Mediation or Appraisal
1. Mediation. If there is a dispute with respect to a claim under this policy, you or we may demand a mediation of the loss in accordance with the rules established by the Florida Department of Financial Services.
. . .
CALENDAR YEAR HURRICANE DEDUCTIBLE– FLORIDA
A. Loss By Windstorm During A Hurricane
With respect to Paragraphs C. and D., coverage for loss caused by the peril of windstorm during a hurricane which occurs anywhere in the State of Florida, includes loss to:
1. The inside of a building; or
2. The property we cover contained in a building caused by:
a. Rain;
b. Snow;
c. Sleet;
d. Hail;
e. Sand; or
f. Dust;
If the direct force of the windstorm first damages the building, causing an opening through which the rain, snow, sleet, hail, sand or dust enters and causes damage.
. . .
|
| |
*
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.
On September 28, 2022, Hurricane Ian, a dangerous category four hurricane, directly impacted the island on which the Insured’s Property is located, bringing intense winds, heavy rainfall and storm surge. The Insured was traveling in Missouri on the date of the storm but retained a home watch company to inspect her home while she was away to secure the home prior to the storm. Following the storm, the Insured was provided updates of the area’s total devastation from neighbors who had evacuated and returned to survey the damage to the island. The Insured was advised that the entire area was without power or water and was sent pictures of the significant damage to her home, including broken windows that allowed water to enter and saturate the interior. Downed trees were strewn about the Property, and the exterior stucco, pavers, soffit and gutters were damaged when the screen enclosure was ripped from the side of the home by the Hurricane’s force. The exterior of the home and the interior lower enclosure were flooded with over five feet of water. The Insured knew she had to address the damage with both her flood and wind insurance carriers.
With respect to the flood damage to the Property, the Insured submitted a claim to her flood insurance carrier, Progressive Flood. Progressive inspected the loss and recognized significant flood water damage to the garage on the Property’s lowest level. Progressive issued payment in the amount of $9,792.48 for the flood damage to the Property.
To address the wind damage, the Insured submitted a claim to the Insurance Company via certified letter. The Insurance Company acknowledged receipt of the claim and advised the Insured to make reasonable and necessary repairs to protect the Property from further damage. Rather than properly and timely adjusting the loss and compensating the Insured for the wind damage to the Property from Hurricane Ian, the Insurance Company began its efforts to avoid its contractual obligations to fully compensate the Insured for the claim. The Insurance Company referred the claim to an outcome-oriented adjuster who approached the loss with an eye towards underpayment and denial. The Carrier’s representative, Armando Julien, inspected the Property on November 2, 2022, without coordinating the inspection with the Insured. Mr. Julien is neither an engineer nor a licensed contractor and is therefore unqualified to determine the cause and extent of the loss to the Property. Nevertheless, after a cursory inspection he prepared an estimate that failed to address the overwhelming damage to the Property and undervalues the limited damages addressed in the estimate. The estimate allows only minimal costs to remove and replace the carpet and carpet pad in the living room, hallway, and master bedroom, allows for replacement of only two windows, and acknowledges only nominal damage to the exterior gutters. In total, the estimate presumes the entirety of the damage to the Property could be repaired for only $7,153.44. Relying only on the singular inspection by its unqualified estimator, the Insurance Company declined to issue any payment on the claim because the estimated damages fell below the policy’s hurricane deductible.
Dismayed by the Carrier’s refusal to acknowledge the full extent of the damage caused by the storm, the Insured found it necessary to retain Elite Public Adjusters Group, Inc. (the “Public Adjuster”) to assist in holding the Carrier to its contractual duties to indemnify the Insured for the full scope and amount of her loss. The Insured also sought reputable local contractors to begin restoring the Property to a livable condition. The Insured retained Jason Gamache Landscaping to remove the massive trees that came down onto her Property, Taylor Carpet One Flooring Centers to replace the saturated carpeting that was ruined when the Hurricane broke through exterior windows and allowed rainwater to enter the Property, and Sanibel Glass & Mirror, Inc. to replace the windows damaged by the storm. To assess the full extent of the damage to the Property, the Public Adjuster inspected the Property and prepared an estimate of the reasonable costs to repair all damages resulting from the Hurricane. After a thorough inspection and consideration of real-world costs charged by the contractors who completed work at the Property, an estimate was prepared that details $193,174.93 in repairs necessitated by the Hurricane. The Public Adjuster’s estimate addresses the carpet replacement, window replacement, and tree removal, and further allows for repairs to the exterior of the home that was damaged when wind ripped screen enclosure from the Property, damaging the pavers, siding, stucco, soffit and gutters. The estimate also details $6,657.28 in contents damaged by the storm.
The Public Adjuster furnished the Insurance Company with extensive evidence of the full extent of the damage to the Property and the reasonable costs incurred by the Insured to make repairs. The Insurance Company was provided a copy of the Public Adjuster’s estimate and photographs of the loss, together with invoices and proof of payment from Jason Gamache Landscaping, Taylor Carpet One Flooring Centers, and Sanibel Glass & Mirror, Inc. The Insured executed a Sworn Proof of Loss attesting to $193,174.90 in damages based on the Public Adjuster’s estimate and the cost of completed repairs at the Property. The Insurance Company acknowledged receipt of the Proof of Loss but advised it was not in agreement with the same. The Insurance Company further rejected the Public Adjuster’s estimate, claiming that the estimate was excessive.
On June 27, 2024, the Insurance Company issued its coverage determination letter acknowledging coverage for the loss but, again, declining to issue any payment, alleging “the amount of the loss is less than the deductible.” The Insurance Company relied upon the estimate prepared by its independent adjuster, Mr. Julien, as well as on the opinion of SDII Global engineering firm that evaluated the loss on behalf of the Insurance Company. Although the Insurance Company based its coverage decision on SDII’s opinions, it refused to provide a copy of SDII’s report to its Insured, depriving its Insured of the opportunity to evaluate and consider SDII’s methodologies and conclusions. Nevertheless, the Insured was left puzzled when SDII’s findings appeared incongruous with the Carrier’s refusal to acknowledge coverage and issue payment for the damages caused by the storm. Specifically, the quoted portions of the SDII report referenced in the Insurance Company’s Coverage Determination Letter indicate that SDII acknowledged significant wind damage to the Property, including acknowledgement of a storm-created opening to at least one bedroom window that allowed rainwater to penetrate the inside of the home, yet the Insurance Company failed to appreciate the overwhelming interior damage caused by the water intrusion and refused payment to make necessary repairs. The report also recognizes that SDII was unable to assess the full extent of the damage caused by the displaced pool screen enclosure, but conceded the damage was attributed, at least in part, to wind damage. Still, the Carrier refused to consider the Insured’s proof of the reasonable costs associated with repairing the exterior damage caused by the displaced screen enclosure.
Confused by the Carrier’s inconsistent position and disappointed by its undervaluation of the loss, the Insured expressed dissatisfaction and requested that the Carrier reevaluate its position. To substantiate her Claim, the Insured and her Public Adjuster were meticulous in providing the Carrier with all of the information requested of them and made clear that they would continue to cooperate in the Carrier’s investigation and readily provide any additional information necessary for the Carrier to fully appreciate the scope and amount of the Insured’s loss. To alleviate the Carrier’s concerns of overlap between the wind and flood claims, the Public Adjuster provided evidence of the damage to the Property caused by flooding, which was separate and distinct from the damage caused by wind. The Public Adjuster then questioned the Carrier’s refusal to acknowledge the full extent of the exterior wind damage to the home caused when the screen enclosure was ripped from the Property, noting that even if the damage to the screen enclosure is not covered by the policy, the resulting damage to the stucco, pavers, soffit and gutters that resulted from the wind damage to the enclosure should be covered under the Policy. The Public Adjuster also questioned the Carrier’s refusal to issue any monies for the removal of the trees that fell onto the Property from the storm, and further challenged the Carrier’s refusal to reconsider its valuation of the interior damages after considering the evidence provided by the Insured that unequivocally shows the actual costs incurred in replacing the damaged carpet and windows, which far exceeded the nominal amounts estimated by the Insurance Company’s adjuster. The Insurance Company disregarded the Public Adjuster’s valid concerns and, despite the ample evidence demonstrating that the Carrier failed to account for significant damage to the Property, it refused to offer any payment on the claim.
As it had become clear that the Carrier refused to meaningfully adjust the loss and consider the Insured’s evidence of the true cost of repairs to the Property, in a last-ditch effort to resolve her Claim and the scope and amount dispute with the Carrier amicably, the Insured demanded mediation. The parties attended mediation on October 15, 2024, which resulted in an impasse when the Carrier refused to make a meaningful offer that would allow the Insured to make all the necessary repairs to her home. Following the failed mediation, the Insurance Company issued correspondence, “stand[ing] on the final evaluation of the claim and the estimated value.” The Carrier’s refusal to resolve the claim forced the Insured to retain an attorney to protect her contractual rights under the insurance policy. The Insured has and will continue to incur and unnecessarily suffer damages, including costs to prosecute her Claim, attorney’s fees, and delay damages if the Insurance Company does not retain competent, qualified, and unbiased representatives, participate in good faith adjustment practices, and communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to negotiate a fair compromise of the claim within 60 days of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice.
Notwithstanding the Insured’s complete cooperation at every step of the adjustment, the Insurance Company failed to meaningfully adjust the loss and assist its Insured in restoring her storm-damaged Property. The Insurance Company approached the loss with an eye towards underpayment and denial, first retaining an outcome-oriented adjuster to provide biased opinions related to the cause and extent of damage to the Property, then skewing the opinions of its retained engineer in efforts to justify withholding payment from its Insured, while refusing to provide the Insured with a copy of the engineer’s report. The Insurance Company refused to consider evidence of the true cost of repairs to the Property, disregarding the hard costs incurred by the Insured in paying reputable contractors to replace the damaged carpet and windows and to remove fallen trees following the storm. The Carrier misrepresented the available coverages and conditions under the Policy to support its baseless refusal to issue payment on the claim. All available information leads to one conclusion – the Insured’s home was damaged by a covered loss for which she is entitled to full and complete compensation. Yet the Insurance Company shirked its responsibilities in efforts to deprive the Insured of the contractual right to payment.
The Insurance Company’s unfounded refusal to issue payment for the loss has forced the Insured to pay out-of-pocket to make repairs to her home. The failure of the Insurance Company to fully and completely compensate the Insured demonstrates either inexcusable negligence or an intentional decision to elevate its own interests over those of its Insured. The Insurance Company’s refusal to properly investigate, adjust, and fully compensate the Insured for the claim evidences the Insurance Company’s violation of sections 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, which require the Insurance Company to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims” and to conduct “reasonable investigations based upon available information.” The Insurance Company made material misrepresentations to its Insured regarding the scope and amount of her damages, its engineer’s opinions, coverage for the loss, and conditions under the Policy for the purpose and with the intent to deny coverage for the claim based on less favorable terms than those provided for in the policy, constituting a violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). Finally, the Insurance Company’s unreasonable delay and failure to promptly settle the Insured’s claim establishes violations of sections 626.9541(1)(i)(4), 624.155(1)(b)(1), and 624.155(1)(b)(3).
The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the Insured’s claim giving rise to the violations addressed herein, including the established pattern of misrepresenting the true scope and amount of the Insured’s loss and the available coverage afforded under the policy and by refusing to acknowledge coverage for the full extent of the loss and the real-world cost of repairing damage to the Property, disregarding the Insured’s evidence of the cause and cost of the damages, relying on outcome-oriented adjusters and experts to confirm the Carrier’s refusal to issue payment on the claim, refusing to provide the Insured with a copy of the engineer’s report upon which the Carrier relied to justify its failure to issue payment, and refusing to participate in mediation in good faith occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are willful, wanton, and in gross disregard for the rights of its Insured.
The Insurance Company’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 its insured and with due regard for her or his interests;” (Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1);
B. “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;” (Fla. Stat. sec. 624.155(1)(b)(3))
C. Claim Delay;
D. Claim Denial; and
D. Unfair Trade Practices
The Insurance Company’s actions further amount to unfair claim settlement practices:
1. 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; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(2)).
2. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following:
a. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a))
b. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b))
c. Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c))
d. 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; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f)).
In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurance Company’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of 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.
In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurance Company breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above-mentioned obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must:
A. Tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably place the Insured back into a pre-loss condition;
B. Timely communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to complete the adjustment of the Insured’s loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ dispute over coverage, scope and amount;
C. Provide the Insured with a copy of the Insurance Company’s engineer’s report to verify the information that the Carrier is relying on to limit the value of the Insured’s loss;
D. Immediately issue payment for statutory interest for any late payments and owed profit/overhead;
E. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for her interests;
F. Hire a fair, unbiased, and qualified adjuster(s) and expert(s) to properly assess the Insured’s damages;
G. Timely and substantively respond to the Insured’s communications;
H. Timely adjust the claim with the Insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct above has caused and continues to cause the Insured;
I. Participate in good faith claims adjustment to avoid the Insured incurring unnecessary costs of litigation.
This Civil Remedy Notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.
|
|
|
*
|
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
|