Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     791556
Filing Accepted:  11/12/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
ALBERTO CORRALES AND XIOMARA ALVAREZ   First Name   ISABELLE
Street Address * 1709 OAK BREEZE AVENUE
City, State Zip * KISSIMMEE, FL 34744
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ALBERTO CORRALES AND XIOMARA ALVAREZ   First Name  
Policy # * 941480741 Claim #* 0751026006
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KUHN First Name * CLAYTON Initial
Street Address* 2110 WEST PLATT STREET
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 30511
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY AND ALL PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS HANDLING FROM CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
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.

THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER 941480741 INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS DENIAL TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Alberto Corrales and Xiomara Alvarez (hereinafter “Insureds”) are homeowners/property owners with an all-risk policy issued by Castle Key Insurance Company (hereinafter “Carrier”). On or about September 28, 2022, Insureds’ home located at 1709 Oak Breeze Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida 34744 sustained significant damage as a result of a windstorm event. Specifically, Hurricane Ian created multiple openings to the roof of Insureds’ property. This resulted in interior water damage to various areas of the interior of Insureds’ property including but not limited to, the living room, kitchen, bedroom, laundry room, and garage. The Loss is covered under Insureds’ policy issued by Carrier. The Insureds mitigated damages by contacting Loss Restorations LLC who performed mitigation services and placed a tarp on the roof of the subject property. All of the relevant documents were provided to Carrier. Insureds promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. Carrier assigned Claim No. 0751026006 to the loss. The Insureds have fully cooperated with Carrier’s investigation of the claim, including providing all requested documentation and complying with all post-loss policy conditions. Specifically, the Insureds, with assistance from their public adjuster, submitted an estimate for $61,312.65, which was a fair and reasonable assessment for the repair/replacement of damages. Loss Restorations LLC has an outstanding balance in the amount of $10,993.76 for their mitigation services and tarp placement. Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Despite Insureds providing Carrier with a detailed estimate, Carrier failed to pay Insureds the amount necessary to repair/replace the damaged property, less the applicable deductible. Instead, Carrier denied full coverage for the loss. This has become a common business practice for Carrier. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insureds and with due regard for the Insureds’ interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly, and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insureds. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In denying full coverage for this claim without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, Carrier has violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. By representing to Insureds that the Policy does not afford full coverage for this loss, Carrier is misrepresenting pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. Florida Statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insureds, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for the Insureds’ claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Carrier can cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice and avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Insured’s estimate of $61,312.65, and Loss Restorations LLC in the amount of $10,993.76, less applicable deductible, which is the reasonable amount of the covered loss pursuant to the policy. A copy of this form has been submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services who has transmitted the same to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice: Castle Key Insurance Company
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
joanna.opato@allstate.com 01-16-2025 January 16, 2025 VIA CRN ONLINE SYSTEM Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building, 200 Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Complainant: Isabelle Alberto Corrales and Xiomara Alvarez DFS File No.: 791556 Insured: Isabelle Alberto Corrales and Xiomara Alvarez Insurance Company: Castle Key Insurance Company Claim No.: 0751026006 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is Castle Key Insurance Company’s (“Castle Key”) response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. This response is provided on behalf of Castle Key and all of its employees, agents, officers and affiliates. The Department accepted the CRN on 11/12/2024. As a preliminary matter, Castle Key at all times during the handling of this claim acted fairly and honestly toward its insured. Castle Key fully and fairly considered information in regard to the matters at hand and fully observed its contractual, statutory and administrative obligations. Castle Key has carefully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the alleged violations charged and believes they are completely without merit. Castle Key wholly denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing, claim delay, claim denial, unfair claims handling, unsatisfactory settlement offer, unfair trade practice, misrepresentation or bad faith in connection with the above claim. Additionally, the CRN is defective and either does not sufficiently state the circumstances at hand or does so inaccurately. Accordingly, the CRN should be rejected Complainants’ CRN violates the requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for civil remedy notices. It fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the statute. Accordingly, Castle Key respectfully requests the Department return the CRN and insist Complainants provide the specific facts required for civil remedy notices. See Section 624.155(3)(c), Florida Statutes. These requirements arise from the provisions of Section 624.155(3)(a) & (b), Florida Statutes. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F. Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. Thus, the CRN cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida statutes must be strictly construed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 2000) (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. There are requirements for a valid civil remedy notice. Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes. Section 624.155 mandates Complainants to provide specific facts and circumstances of the alleged violations. This would necessarily include specific facts regarding the method of the investigation, the reasons the investigation was improper or otherwise inadequate, the reasons why this alleged inadequacy is due to the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, and the facts supporting these conclusions. Florida law does not allow an insured, without providing any facts, to allege that the insurer’s only option to avoid bad faith is paying whatever the insured demands. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008). Complainants’ CRN violates the specificity requirement. As such, Castle Key would like this opportunity to set forth an accurate factual background, and thereby correct omissions in Complainants’ CRN. Castle Key received its first notice of loss on April 9, 2024, for damages allegedly sustained by a wind hail story to the roof on September 28, 2022, to the property located 1709 OAK BREEZE AVE, KISSIMMEE, Florida 34744. During this claim a prompt investigation was made, and an inspection was done by the appropriate Castle Key representative. Additionally, there was detailed follow up communication by Castle Key during all phases of this claim. Castle Key has fulfilled and is fulfilling its duties as provided under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Castle Key does not consider there to have been any violation of the referenced statutory provisions or otherwise. At all times during the investigation of the subject claim, Castle Key acted diligently and in good faith to resolve same. Castle Key reserves all of its rights. If anyone at the Department has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Castle Key at our office for a further response. Sincerely, CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY
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