Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 792625

Filing Accepted: 11/15/2024

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

JILL BAVETTA AND LUDWIG BAVETTA

First Name

Street Address *

8917 SILVER LAKE DRIVE

City, State Zip *

LEESBURG, FL 34788-34

Email Address *

JILLBAVETTA@ICLOUD.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		JILL BAVETTA AND LUDWIG BAVETTA		First Name
Policy # *		76093-98-42		Claim #*		7004773100-1-1

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	OLADIPO First Name * ABIDEMI Initial A.
Street Address*		15257 AMBERLY DRIVE
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33647
Email Address *		AOLADIPO@MSO.LAW

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 21709

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* : TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, SEAN ROBINSON, JOSHUA PROULX, ADRIAN ALVILLAR; HANCOCK CLAIMS CONSULTANTS, JONATHAN ROSARIO; RIMKUS CONSULTING GROUP, JASON E. CARDENAS, P.E., RYAN D. PAOLANTONIO, P.E.; ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Denial
	Claim Delay
	Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
	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.
	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)(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.
	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.

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Farmers Florida Homeowners Agreement You agree: 1 . to pay premiums when due; and 2 . to comply with all applicable terms of this policy. In return, we will insure you for the coverages and limits as shown in this policy. This policy includes the Declarations and any endorsements. … Section I - Property Coverages A. Coverage A - Dwelling 1. Under Coverage A - "dwelling" we cover: a. The "dwelling" on the "residence premises" shown in the Declarations by address, 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". … … 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. After a loss and at your request, we will cover personal property owned by: a. Others while the property is on the part of the "residence premises" occupied by an "insured"; or b. A guest or a "residence employee", while the property is in any residence occupied by an "insured". … D. Coverage D – Loss of Use The limit of liability for Coverage D is the total limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil Authority Prohibits Use below.

* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On April 27, 2022, Truck Insurance Exchange D/B/A Farmers Insurance (“Farmers“) issued Policy No. 76093-98-42 (the “Policy”) to Jill Bavetta and Ludwig Bavetta (“Insureds”) for their home located at 8917 Silver Lake Drive, Leesburg, FL 34788-3408 (“Insured Property”) for the period of April 27, 2022 to April 27, 2023. The Policy provides Coverage A – Dwelling limits of $914,000.00; Coverage B - Separate Structures limits of $18,280.00; Coverage C – Personal Property limits of $457,000.00; and Coverage D – Loss of Use limits of $91,400.00. The Policy provides coverage for direct damage to the Insured Property as a result of windstorms. On June 18, 2022, the Insured Property sustained direct damage due to a severe windstorm, with notable impacts including roof damage, substantial interior water infiltration, and resultant microbial growth. Furthermore, various integral components of the Insured Property, including HVAC system, suffered damage attributable to severe winds, which, according to a CoreLogic Wind Verification Report, reached velocities of up to 65 miles per hour. Plaintiffs timely notified Farmers of the loss and granted Farmers unfettered access for inspection and damage assessment. On July 13, 2022, desk adjuster Sean Robinson acknowledged receipt of the claim via correspondence. Farmers assigned claim number no. 7004773100-1-1. Subsequently, on July 22, 2022, Jonathan Rosario of Hancock Claims Consultants conducted an on-site inspection, documenting interior and exterior damage. Mr. Rosario is neither an adjuster and/or a licensed contractor and had no professional basis for conducting any inspection and/or assessing damage to the Insured Property. Farmers utilizes Mr. Rosario and Hancock Claims Consultants to conduct assessments of insureds roofs despite them lacking the professional qualifications to do so. Mr. Rosario engaged in the unlicensed adjustment of the loss on behalf of Farmers. Farmers and its agents demonstrated a lack of qualification to properly assess the damages to the Insured Property and willfully disregarded the full extent of the damages to the Insured Property. This became apparent on July 26, 2022, when desk adjuster Joshua Proulx, on behalf of Farmers, issued partial denial letter to the Insureds, based mostly on the inspection conducted by Jonathan Rosario. Mr. Proulx's letter asserted Farmers' investigation revealed damages consistent with roof wear and tear, as well as interior rainwater and mold damage. Farmers only issued a partial payment of $6,269.59. Citing policy exclusions for wear and tear, Farmers wrongfully denied coverage for the majority of the Insured Property's damages. Farmers failed to provide any factual basis as to why the wear and tear that was the alleged cause of the loss and that according to Farmers existed prior to the loss did not result in any loss to the property on any date prior to the date of loss. Farmers often cites the wear and tear exclusion as a catch-all basis for denial of coverage to its insureds without providing any factual basis for same. Regrettably, throughout the state of Florida, Farmers has a pattern and practice of retaining adjusters and experts who generate results-oriented reports. These reports frequently invoke policy exclusions such as wear and tear to justify denying coverage, thereby enhancing Farmers' financial interests at the expense of premium-paying insureds and the relevant facts at issue. Contrary to Farmers' inadequate claims investigation, the Insureds adjusted their own loss, despite this being Farmers' responsibility. On July 15, 2022, the Insureds retained Air Quality Assessors (“AQA”) for comprehensive mold inspection and water damage evaluation. AQA's Indoor Environmental Assessment, authored by Paul Skillman, conclusively determined – via data analysis, laboratory sampling and report review – Category 3 water damage and mold contamination. Further, Mr. Skillman recommended remediation to restore a healthy mold ecology within the Insured Property. The AQA report and supporting documents were presented to Farmers. Despite the policy providing coverage for mold testing and mold remediation, Farmers refused to pay AQA for the mold testing and remediation, leaving its Insureds subject to financial peril. The Insureds retained Claims Advocate Resolution Experts (“C.A.R.E.”) to help them in presenting their claim to Farmers. On August 11, 2022, C.A.R.E. performed an inspection of the Insured Property and produced an itemized estimate of damages amounting to $357,316.82 for the loss. Through C.A.R.E., the Insureds also notarized a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss to attest to the damages resulting from the loss. Despite timely submission, Farmers disregarded this documentation when provided, neglecting to incorporate it into their claims investigation. Farmers' representatives obstinately clung to biased conclusions, disregarding the Insureds' rationale. As a result, Farmers failed to revisit or revise their coverage determination. Further, Farmers failed in its obligation to adjust the loss by failing to pay the ACV amount due and owing pursuant to the C.A.R.E. estimate despite its obligation to do so. Farmers and its adjusters failed to appropriately review the C.A.R.E. estimate and pay what Farmers owed in accordance to the policy. Instead, Farmers sought and continues to wrongly seek to shift the obligation to adjust the loss, including the determination of ACV amounts, to the Insureds. Pursuant to C.A.R.E.'s payment demands, Farmers issued correspondence on September 28, 2022, announcing the referral of the investigation to Rimkus Consulting Group (“Rimkus”), an engineering firm, to determine the loss's cause and origin. Farmers retained Jason E. Cardenas, P.E. with Rimkus to inspect the Insured Property and produce an engineering report. During the inspection of the Insured Property, Mr. Cardenas never went onto the roof of the home. Mr. Cardenas lacked the appropriate equipment to enable him to appropriately inspect the roof of the Insured Property. Mr. Cardenas unsurprisingly produced a report that provided Farmers with the denial of coverage that Farmers already concluded was warranted. In his report, Mr. Cardenas failed to disclose that he never went onto the roof of the Insured Property and was unable to inspect the entirety of the roof. Mr. Cardenas also failed to provide any factual or engineering basis as to why the alleged wear and tear did not result in a loss at the property on any date prior to the date of loss. Farmers' refusal to act fairly, honestly and transparently toward Insureds, coupled with inadequate claims investigation, violates Florida Statutes 624.155(1)(b)(1) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). At this time, on October 14, 2022. Farmers issued only a partial payment of $3,782.80, which falls far short of the necessary expenses required to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insureds, compelled to restore their Insured Property to its pre-loss condition, engaged legal counsel to help them present their claim to Farmers. Through counsel, the Insured retained Structural Engineering and Inspections, Inc. (“SEI”) to conduct a comprehensive and objective inspection and analysis of the loss. SEI's Initial Findings Report, dated July 26, 2023, concluded that high winds and wind-borne debris cannot be excluded as contributing factors to the physical damage observed on the Insured Property's roof. SEI further concluded that, based on the extent of damage to the roof tiles and underlayment, the unavailability of replacement tiles, and the fact that the damage affects more than 25% of the roof's surface, a complete roof replacement was warranted. Further, SEI also produced an itemized estimate of damages to the Insured Property, dated July 11, 2023, in the amount of $338,894.00. SEI’s report and estimate were provided to Farmers, who maintain a legal and contractual obligation to continue adjusting the loss. Despite being provided with this additional evidence regarding the loss, the cause of loss, and the extent of damages and repairs required to restore the Insured Property back to its pre-loss condition, Farmers has continued its obtrusive pattern of ignoring any evidence, document, material, estimate from the Insureds that lays bare that there was a covered loss at the Insured Property. Farmers ignores this evidence for its financial benefit and at the detriment of the Insureds. Throughout this time, the condition of the Insured Property has deteriorated due to Farmers' failure to provide full payment for this claim. For instance, on July 7, 2023, the ceiling in one of the bedrooms collapsed, posing a threat to the Insureds’ ability to live in habitable conditions. Photos showing this condition were provided to Farmers, however Farmers failed to take any action or provide any response to same. The Insureds retained Dry Lab Restoration Services to obtain an estimate for mold remediation in affected areas of the Insured Property, totaling an estimated $14,619.07. Additionally, tarps were purchased from Impel Outdoor Services on July 14, 2023, at a cost of $2,850.00 and on January 8, 2025 at a cost of $2,500.00. Despite being informed of these circumstances, Farmers completely disregarded this information, along with other documents provided by the Insureds. Furthermore, Farmers retaliated by deciding not to renew the Insureds' policy, as evidenced by the Notice of Non-Renewal dated December 15, 2023. Farmers non-renewed the Insureds policy while this claim remained open and in dispute, knowing that the Insureds would be unable to obtain any other insurance to protect their home. The condition of the Insured Property became so critical in 2024 that the Insureds had no choice but to retain Eusting Roofing, a roofing contractor, to replace the roof, at an estimated cost of $146,000.00. The Insureds were forced to undertake financial jeopardy because of Farmers refusal to meet its obligations under the insurance contract for which the Insureds paid premiums. This is per se bad faith claims conduct and indicative of Farmers' mistreatment of insureds throughout the State of Florida. Due to the consistent harassment and denial of a fair investigation into their claim, the Insureds were left with no choice but to initiate legal action against Farmers. The initial Complaint was filed on February 15, 2023, and was served upon Farmers on February 21, 2023. Throughout the litigation process—including discovery disclosures, depositions, and mediation—Farmers has delayed in fully compensating the Insureds for their claim. As a result, the Insureds have been unable to recover from the loss, further demonstrating Farmers' bad faith. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Farmers has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of the Insureds’ claim of loss. Farmers has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. Farmers has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insureds’ claim for damages. Farmers has failed to promptly settle the Insureds’ claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insureds’ pleas otherwise, Farmers has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Moreover, Farmers has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insureds’ claim when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insureds and with due regard for their interests. Farmers has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, Farmers is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insureds. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). Farmers was timely put on notice of the Insureds’ loss and claim for damages. The Insureds have complied with all of Farmers’ requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good-faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the Insureds, who continue to be held hostage unless/until Farmers engages in good faith claims handling. To date, Farmers has still refused to fully pay the amount owed under the Policy. To make matters worse, the Insureds have incurred incredible costs and efforts to adjust their own loss, with detailed and substantiated damages presented to Farmers in the form of a repair estimate evidencing $338,894.00 in Replacement Cost Valuation. Farmers’ stubborn and/or negligent refusal to fully indemnify the Insureds for the covered damages has resulted in a confluence of consequential damages including, but not limited to, excess damages stemming from Farmers’ maladroit adjustment of the claim, the unaffordability of the Insured Property given the loss of utility and the indefinite delay to address the ongoing dispute, additional costs and expenses to adjust its own loss that include retaining a public adjuster and an attorney, among many other otherwise unnecessary consequences but for the negligence and nefarious business practices of Farmers. It is clear that Farmers is not treating the Insureds with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insureds; and ignoring the Insureds’ pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing Farmers’ interests before the Insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insureds despite the fact that Farmers has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insureds, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. Farmers’ actions are in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) Florida Statutes. All of the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior by Farmers that demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Farmers must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) Farmers must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these type of claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) Farmers must pay the Insureds $338,894.00 for all of the damages sustained as a result of the loss, less the applicable deductible, limitations, plus all contractual damages owed, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, under Sections 57.041 and 627.70131(5)(a) Florida Statutes; and (4) Farmers must act fairly and honestly towards its Insureds and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insureds’ claim.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
jsiegwald@chartwelllaw.com		01-14-2025		VIA E-MAIL: Jill Bavetta and Ludwig Bavetta c/o Abidemo A. Oladipo, Esq. Mubarak, Sherif, Oladipo, PLLC 15257 Amberly Drive Tampa, Florida 33647 aoladipo@mso.law Re: Complainants: Jill Bavetta and Ludwig Bavetta Insurer: Truck Insurance Exchange DFS Filing Number: 792625 Filing Accepted Date: November 15, 2024 Claim Number: 7004773100-1-1 Policy Number: 76093-98-42 Date of Loss: June 18, 2022 To Whom It May Concern: This firm represents Truck Insurance Exchange (hereafter “TIE”) in connection with a claim submitted by Jill Bavetta and Ludwig Bavetta (hereinafter “Complainants”), following a reported loss from a windstorm occurring on or about June 18, 2022. This correspondence shall serve as a formal response on behalf of TIE to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (hereinafter “CRN”), filing number 792625, recently submitted on behalf of Jill Bavetta and Ludwig Bavetta filed against Truck Insurance Exchange and associated with policy number 76093-98-42 and a date of loss of June 18, 2022. TIE denies each and every allegation brought forth in the CRN and denies any wrongdoing in the handling of this matter. Below we include a detailed factual history of the claim handling and actions by TIE, which clearly reveals TIE acted properly in responding to the claim and is in compliance with both its contractual and legal obligations. TIE would further state that the Complainants’ CRN is defective as it fails to comply with the strict governing requirements contained within Florida Statute Section 624.155. Namely, the statute requires that a CRN shall “state with specificity . . . [t]he facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.” Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)2. Under Florida law, a civil remedy notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with such specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure any alleged violation within the 60-day statutory period. See Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The Complainants’ CRN is deficient as the limited facts and circumstances set forth therein are false, incomplete, and misleading. Additionally, the CRN includes a blanket list of seven (7) statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. The referenced statutes and code sections, however, do not appear to be pertinent to the subject claim, and the CRN fails to specify each statute’s relative applicability to same. Further, the CRN does not contain facts addressing and supporting each of the alleged statutory violations against TIE, but rather sets forth only stock, conclusory allegations of purported bad faith. For these reasons alone, the CRN is defective on its face. In light of the incomplete, misleading, and false allegations set forth in the CRN, TIE hereby provides the Department of Financial Services with the following facts of the claim that, in and of themselves, disprove all of the allegations brought forth in the CRN. TIE hereby asserts that all actions taken in the handling of this claim were done so in good faith for the purpose of fair and timely disposition of this matter. CLAIM FACTS The Complainants’ property is located at 8917 Silver Lake Drive, Leesburg, Florida 34788-3408. Truck Insurance Exchange issued a property insurance policy bearing policy number 76093-98-42 to the Complainants, Jill Bavetta and Ludwig Bavetta, with effective dates of April 27, 2022, to April 27, 2023. The subject loss was first reported to TIE on or about July 13, 2022, as damage to the insured property’s roof and interior purportedly caused by a windstorm on June 18, 2022, nearly a month before the claim was reported. TIE immediately acknowledged the claim via correspondence and began its investigation. The following day, Complainant Jill Bavetta provided TIE with seven (7) photographs depicting interior ceiling damage in the living room as well as exposed insulation where sheet rock had purportedly fallen. On July 18, 2022, TIE received correspondence from Air Quality Assessors (“AQA”) which enclosed an Assignment of Benefits agreement and estimate for services. AQA’s estimate totaled $3,000.00 for an initial water damage assessment and mold inspection report. Four days later, AQA provided a swab analytical report and indoor environmental assessment with photographs. TIE also performed an inspection of the property on July 22, 2022. Neither wind nor hail damage was found to the property’s roof during the inspection although prior repairs were found to certain areas of the roof. Storm-related damage was found, however, to the property’s interior. TIE issued its coverage determination correspondence and repair estimate on July 26, 2022. Based on the results of the inspection, TIE’s estimate included repairs to the kitchen and living room as well as mold remediation totaling $6,269.59 ACV. TIE’s coverage determination letter also advised that the claimed roof damages were not covered due to having been caused by wear and tear, a policy exclusion. The letter cited Policy provisions under Property Coverages, Perils Insured Against, and Exclusions. Two days later, TIE paid AQA $600.00 for the mold assessment it prepared. On August 11, 2022, TIE received a letter of representation on behalf of the Complainants from public adjuster (“PA”) Claims Advocate Resolution Experts (“C.A.R.E.”). C.A.R.E. also requested a copy of the Policy. TIE acknowledged the PA’s representation on August 16, 2022, and provided the PA with TIE’s estimate while advising that a copy of the Policy was forthcoming. (TIE issued a copy of the Policy to the PA one week later). On September 6, 2022, the PA provided TIE a Sworn Proof of Loss from the Complainants in the amount of $356,316.82. The PA also began falsely alleging in various correspondences that TIE had no cooperated in communicating regarding the claim despite clear evidence to the contrary. The PA eventually provided TIE with its estimate and photographs. The estimate was the same amount set forth in the Complainants’ Sworn Proof of Loss, and contained line items for a full roof replacement and repairs to the family room, kitchen, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3, and the exterior. Upon receipt of the PA’s estimate, TIE advised the PA on September 28, 2022, that TIE was retaining an engineer to reinspect the property in light of questions pertaining to the cause of damage to the roof and interior. On October 10, 2022, Jason Cardenas, P.E. of Rimkus Engineering reinspected the property on TIE’s behalf. His reported provided photographs, including photographs of the roof, and advised that there were no confirmed wind or hail damages to the roof. He did find, however, 10 cracked tiles caused by mechanical damage and another 4 slipped tiles the cause of which was inconclusive, with wind being a potential cause. He also found that the dark moisture stains to the roof sheathing above the living room were consistent with rainwater bypassing deficiencies in the roof for a period of one year or more prior to his reinspection, age-related deterioration, and/or construction deficiencies, and were further exacerbated by cracks in the stucco finish at the chimney – regardless, this damage was not due to storm-related damage to the roof. Four days later, TIE issued a supplemental Claim Outcome Letter based on the engineer’s findings. The letter advised that coverage was being provided for the 4 roof tiles as well as additional coverage for the interior. An additional payment of $3,782.80 was provided in addition to a copy of the engineer’s report. On December 30, TIE received a letter of representation from the Complainants’ former counsel which also included a request for the Policy and claim documents. TIE acknowledged counsel’s representation via correspondence dated January 3, 2023, and provided counsel with a number of claim documents. The Complainants filed their Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on or about January 20, 2024. TIE timely responded to the Notice. The Complainants subsequently filed a Complaint for breach of contract, and the subject CRN was filed during the litigation of the case. As demonstrated by the above detailed factual summary, TIE has been engaging in a timely, thorough, and good faith evaluation of this claim. As shown, TIE has at all times fully complied with all obligations imposed by the subject Policy and Florida law. ALLEGED REASONS FOR NOTICE: Claim Denial: TIE denies any allegation of improper claim denial. As is evident from the facts outlined above, TIE promptly initiated an investigation of the loss, requested relevant information from the insureds and advised the insureds of pertinent policy language. The facts of this claim set forth herein evidence the proper administration of this claim in strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon TIE. Claim Delay: TIE denies any delay in the claims handling and process of the loss as evident from the facts outlined above. TIE promptly acknowledged the Complainants’ claim and timely initiated its investigation of the loss. Moreover, TIE routinely communicated with the Complainants, advising of its efforts to evaluate the claim, providing notice of all actions necessary to evaluate the loss and promptly noticing the Complainants of its coverage determination. As such, TIE acted in accordance with its duties and obligations pursuant to the policy of insurance. Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. TIE promptly inspected and adjusted this loss on more than one occasion and promptly issued payment for the damages covered under the Policy. The facts of this claim set forth herein evidence the proper administration of this claim in strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon TIE. Unfair Trade Practice: There is no basis for this allegation, thus it is denied. The Complainants submit no facts or circumstances to support this allegation. It is clear from the facts outlined herein the handling and administration of this claim occurred with the utmost expediency and timeliness allowed by the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon TIE. At no time did TIE, its agents, or its employees act improperly in the handling, administration, or disposition of this claim. The facts show that TIE acted promptly with respect to the investigation of the underlying claim. TIE made all communications required to adjust this claim in a prompt and appropriate matter. As outlined above, the facts of this claim set forth herein evidence expedient and timely administration of this claim and full and strict compliance with the statutory and contractual requirements imposed upon TIE. ALLEGED STATUTORY VIOLATIONS The Complainants allege multiple statutory violations in the CRN; however, no specific facts or circumstances are provided to support these allegations. The CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. Notwithstanding, TIE denies each and every individual allegation of statutory violations alleged and asserts it strictly complied with its obligations under the Policy and Florida law as demonstrated above. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY TIE asserts that the Complainants’ CRN merely sets forth a blanket list of Policy provisions purportedly relevant to the alleged violation(s). The Complainants have failed to reference any specific Policy language, and the failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language is a direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, rendering the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. Notwithstanding, TIE denies violating any provision or duties set forth in the Policy and further asserts compliance with the Policy and all of its provisions and endorsements. TIE handled the Complainants’ claim with diligence and at all times acted fairly in administration of this claim and treated its Insureds with honesty and with due regard for their interests. All actions by TIE were done in complete and strict compliance with the Policy. TIE DENIES ALL ALLEGATIONS IN THE CRN TIE hereby denies any and all allegations of bad faith by the Complainants, and states that it has, at all times material, handled and adjusted the claim with the utmost good faith. Any and all allegations of bad faith contained within the CRN are expressly rejected by TIE. As stated above, the CRN is simply a recitation of general, stock allegations of bad faith conduct, along with a list of statutory violations that are not specifically alleged or described. The CRN is therefore non-compliant with Florida Statute Section 624.155(3), which requires that a civil remedy notice 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 any alleged violation(s). The Complainants failed to provide any specific and or accurate facts or circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations in the CRN, and instead simply allege a litany of non-specific, incomplete, misleading, and boilerplate allegations against TIE as alleged acts of bad faith. There are not sufficient references in the CRN to any specific Policy language that is relevant to the allegations of bad faith. Failure to provide such specific reference to Policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155, and renders the CRN deficient on its face, as to form and substance. 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 Fla. Stat. § 624.155. For these reasons, the CRN is denied and rejected. Additionally, as described in detail above, the facts alleged in the CRN are contrary to the actual facts underlying the subject claim. TIE further denies any and all other allegations not specifically addressed in this response related to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. There has been no violation of the referenced statutory sections by TIE. By responding to the Civil Remedy Notice filed by Complainants, TIE neither waives nor abandons, but rather, expressly reserves any and all rights, claims and defenses it has or may have under the terms and conditions of the Policy and applicable Florida law. Herein, TIE has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the allegations alleged in the CRN. Should the Florida Department of Financial Services have any questions or further inquiry with respect to this matter, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, THE CHARTWELL LAW OFFICES, LLP /s/ Justin D. Siegwald, Esq. Justin D. Siegwald, Esq. Christopher R. Cooper, Esq. 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