Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     790385
Filing Accepted:  11/5/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
THE GARDEN MEDICAL SPA FL, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 1201 US 1, SUITE 9
City, State Zip * NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33408
Email Address * MICHAELMIRMANESH@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   THE GARDEN MEDICAL SPA FL, LLC   First Name  
Policy # * SPCP0003716-02 Claim #* 10002940
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 15341
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* VALERIE WALKER, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SAFEPOINT INSURANCE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
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 : 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.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

627.444(2)(a) Notwithstanding any other law, an insurer shall provide to an insured within 15 calendar days after an individual or entity designated by the insurer receives the insured's written request, either: A loss run statement; 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.

SafePoint Insurance (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) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; 9) shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured; 10) failing to provide a loss run statement; and 11) misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy On or about July 6, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's suffered a loss caused by wind. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for wind damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 10002940 to the loss and sent a field adjuster to inspect the property on August 1, 2024. Subsequently, in a coverage determination letter dated August 15, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and issued a wrongful denial. The Insurer based this denial on the rationale that the damage sustained was a result of " wear and tear/deterioration, pooling, and ponding to the roof around the roof drains/scupper vents." Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the dwelling was damaged, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. 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. 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. Furthermore, the Insurer and its agents failed to comply with Fla. Stat. 627.444 by not providing the Insured and the Insured's representatives with a loss run statement. On September 3, 2024, the Insured's legal counsel provided the Insurer with a letter of representation. Within the letter, legal counsel requested a copy of a loss run statement. The Insurer and its agents have not acknowledged the request for a loss run statement nor has a loss run statement been provided. Upon an Insurer receiving a written request for a loss run statement, the Insurer is required, within fifteen (15) calendar days, to provide either a loss run statement or information on how to obtain a loss run statement at no charge through a consumer reporting agency. There has been no response within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Insured's written request and the Insurer has not provided information on how to obtain a loss run statement at no charge through a consumer reporting agency. This Insurer has breached its duty to settle claims in good faith when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so. The Insurer and its agents have not acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and the Insured's representative and have moreover failed or refused to promptly acknowledge the Insured's communications in an attempt to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured's claim. Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. During their investigation, the insurer's adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. 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 denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. 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 denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. 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 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Failing to provide a loss run statement 12. Making material misrepresentations 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: SafePoint Insurance P. O. Box 291579 Tampa, FL 33687 claims@safepointins.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
mbakas@safepointins.com 01-03-2025 January 3, 2025 VIA EMAIL: GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM Grant W. Krapf, Esq. 2790 Sunset Point Rd Clearwater, FL 33759 RE: Insured: The Garden Medical Spa FL, LLC Claim Number: 10002940 Policy: SPCP0003716-02 Date of Loss: July 6, 2024 CRN Filing Number: 790385 Dear Sir/Madam: This is the formal response of SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) to the purported Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“Purported Notice”) that was filed on behalf of The Garden Medical Spa FL, LLC (“Complainant” / “Insured”). The Florida Department of Financial Services accepted the Purported Notice, in form only, on November 5, 2024. The Purported Notice was filed in connection with Insureds’ insurance claim for property damage. The Purported Notice names SafePoint and alleges, “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy” “Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct,” “Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the insured,” Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the insured,” “Failing to properly investigate the insured’s loss,” “Failing to provide the insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t[sic],” “Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,” “Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly,” “Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the insured,” and “Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 627.444(2)(a) Florida Statutes. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons discussed below. ^ 1 ^ 1 SafePoint reserves all (and waives none) of its rights or defenses, including its right to assert additional deficiencies in the Purported Notice. Under Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes, a claimant must file a notice with the Florida Department of Financial Services (“the Department”) at least 60 days before filing a Statutory “bad faith” lawsuit. This notice is commonly referred to as a “civil remedy notice” (“CRN”). Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes sets out five pieces of information which must be included in a CRN: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that, in addition to these five requirements, the CRN shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity . . . such other information as the department may require.” (emphasis added); The Florida Supreme Court has held that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied will all statutory requirements. After the promulgation of this statute, the Department created a CRN form: Form DFS-10-363. Form DFS-10-363 lays out 15 requirements: 1. Complainants Name; 2. Complainants Address; 3. Complainants E-mail address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise); 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s E-mail Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise); 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & Casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. As these requirements are all information required by the Department, according to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, they each must be stated with specificity. The Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on the following grounds. Deficiency #1 Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the name of any individual involved in the violation. The Purported Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the Complainant must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation to allow SafePoint to properly investigate the allegations. Here, the Complainant does not identify the person or persons at SafePoint with the most knowledge of the facts regarding any alleged violation(s), rather it states: “VALERIE WALKER, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, SAFEPORT INSURANCE, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.” The Purported Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to whom the Complainant is asserting has knowledge as to each specific allegation contained in the Purported Notice. Accordingly, Complainants’ Purported Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Thus, the CRN is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. Deficiency #2 Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes, requires the CRN to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third-party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third-party claimant pursuant to written request. Complainant is the Insured and not a third-party claimant; therefore, the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject Policy that is relevant to the alleged violations which it does not. The Purported Notice states, “…The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language.” However, the Purported Notice alleges numerous Policy violations throughout the Purported Notice, including but not limited to, “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” Thus, as the actual specific Policy provisions are not properly identified the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy” “Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct,” “Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the insured,” Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the insured,” “Failing to properly investigate the insured’s loss,” “Failing to provide the insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t[sic],” “Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,” “Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly,” “Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the insured,” and “Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 627.444(2)(a) Florida Statutes. On March 3, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a relevant opinion in Junior Julien v. United Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D19-2763. In Julien, the insured appealed the circuit court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his insurer, finding that the insured’s Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that an insured “state with specificity” the policy language and the statutory provisions at issue. In his CRN, the insured cited numerous statutory provisions and listed nearly every provision in the insurance policy. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal and agreed with the circuit court that the CRN failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Like the CRN in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to “state with specificity” the policy language at issue. Deficiency #3 Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the CRN state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply specific facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, the Purported Notice asserts general allegations consisting of conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than specific allegations of fact regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations and fails to explain how the purported facts constitute violations of Florida law. For example, the Purported Notice states, “On or about July 6, 2024 while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured’s suffered a loss caused by wind.” However, these statements are conclusory, inaccurate and without factual basis. This is a claim for water damage to the interior, HVAC and business personal property that was late reported on July 29, 2024, twenty-three (23) days after the alleged date of loss, July 6, 2024. On August 1, 2024, SafePoint retained independent adjuster, Evolv Claim Solutions to inspect the subject property and document any visible damage. Their inspection report noted wear and tear/deterioration, as well as pooling and ponding around the roof drains and scupper vents. Cracking and splitting were observed in the roof-to-wall flashing and parapet areas of the flat roof. Alligator cracking and splits were visible throughout the rolled roofing system. The reported water intrusion was not due to a storm-created opening. Further, on August 8, 2024, HVACI inspected the HVAC. They concluded that the system was void of refrigerant due to a leak at the condenser coil. The system was not damaged due to wind. The Policy does not provide coverage for (1) Wear and tear; (2) Rust or other corrosion, decay, deterioration, hidden or latent defect or any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself. Further, the Policy expressly excludes coverage for the ensuing water damage to the interior of the property unless it is damaged by a covered cause of loss to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust enters. As such, on August 15, 2024, contrary to the Purported Notice erroneous assertion, “The Insurer misrepresented the loss and issued a wrongful denial” the Complainant was notified in writing and provided a detailed explanation as to why there was not a covered peril under the Policy terms and conditions and coverage was denied. Further, the lease and proof of responsibility for the ceiling tiles and HVAC were requested from the Complainant but have not yet been provided. Complainant, was advised that for any future consideration of the claimed betterment and improvements, including the HVAC, a copy of the lease and proof of incurred HVAC repair or replacement prior to the date of loss, confirming the tenant's use interest, would be required. To date Complainant has failed to provide the requested documents. Further, Complainant alleges SafePoint failed to comply with Fla. Stat. § 627.444 by not providing a loss run statement. The loss run statement was provided to Krapf Legal on November 26, 2024, well within the cure period of the filing of the Purported Notice. Finally, the Purported Notice makes boilerplate recitations of statutes and conclusory statements without the requisite specificity. Specificity is of particular importance for this Purported Notice as Complainant generally alleges that SafePoint “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to the coverages at issue.” However, the Purported Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by SafePoint and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. The above noted deficiencies apply to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy” “Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct,” “Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the insured,” Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the insured,” “Failing to properly investigate the insured’s loss,” “Failing to provide the insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t[sic],” “Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,” “Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly,” “Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the insured,” and “Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 627.444(2)(a) Florida Statutes. Deficiency # 4 The Complainant has failed to provide a cure amount or an estimate of damages. Instead, the Purported Notice states, “Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract” without specifying the amount. As a result, SafePoint is left to speculate on the monetary figures necessary to address their grievance. The Complainant must specify the exact amount they are demanding to fully resolve their claim. This lack of specificity does not comply with the procedural requirements for filing the Purported Notice, thus leaving SafePoint at a disadvantage in resolving the matter as no cure amount was provided. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice, including but not limited to “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unfair Trade Practice,” “Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy” “Not treating the insured with good faith claims conduct,” “Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the insured,” Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the insured,” “Failing to properly investigate the insured’s loss,” “Failing to provide the insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t[sic],” “Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made,” “Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly,” “Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the insured,” and “Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims” supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3) 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) and 627.444(2)(a) Florida Statutes. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 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. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. 627.444(2)(a): Notwithstanding any other law, an insurer shall provide to an insured within 15 calendar days after an individual or entity designated by the insurer receives the insured's written request, either: A loss run statement; SAFEPOINT denies the allegation that it violated the above referenced statute. The allegations set forth in the Purported Notice are denied as they are mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, devoid of logic and intended solely to tarnish SafePoint’s name and reputation. SafePoint has at all times, acted fairly, honestly and in good faith in its dealings with the Complainant. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. SafePoint unequivocally denies each and every allegation asserted in the Purported Notice. At no time has SafePoint breached any duty to the Complainant. An insurer is not required to pay whatever amount the Insured demands. Finally, SafePoint retained a field adjuster and a HVAC inspector and conducted an inspection of the subject property to investigate the Insured’s claim. Thereafter, Safepoint made a coverage decision pursuant to all applicable policy language and statutes. Please be advised, by this letter, SafePoint neither waives, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, SafePoint hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. If you have any questions or concerns with this response, or, regarding any other matter, please contact me in writing. Sincerely, /s/ Ari Zeltzer Ari A. Zeltzer, Esq. Staff Counsel SafePoint Insurance Cc: Florida Department of Financial Services
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