Filing Number: 792675
|
| Filing Accepted: 11/15/2024 |
| Last/Business Name
*
|
|
|
| Street Address
*
|
|
10317 SANDRIFT AVENUE |
| City, State Zip
*
|
|
ENGLEWOOD,
FL
34224
|
| Email Address
*
|
|
JCQ@QLAWGROUP.LAW |
| Complainant Type:
*
|
|
Insured |
|
| Last/Business Name* |
|
METZKER |
|
First Name |
|
DEBRA |
| Policy # * |
|
AGD10080107 |
|
Claim #* |
|
CDP00131007 |
|
Attorney is Applicable
|
| Last Name* |
QUINTANA
First Name *
J.C.
Initial
|
| Street Address* |
|
2665 S. BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 220 |
| City, State Zip* |
|
COCONUT GROVE
,
FLORIDA
33133
|
| Email Address * |
|
JCQ@QLAWGROUP.LAW |
|
|
| Insurer Type
*
|
|
Authorized Insurer
Unauthorized Insurer
|
|
|
| Insurer Name |
|
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
|
| Street Address* |
|
|
| City, State Zip* |
|
,
|
|
NAIC Company Code 12841 |
|
|
| Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):*
ASHLEY KEMPS, RYAN WRIGHT, SADIE THURMAN, ATHENA RAIS SMITH, CODY HAYWORTH, ROBERT HICKS,
|
| 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)(c) |
|
Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
|
| 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.
Based on information and belief, the entire Policy is relevant to the foregoing violations. More specifically,
the Loss Settlement Provision has been violated by Carrier.
|
| |
*
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.
American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida (hereinafter, the “Carrier”) has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insureds, Debra Metzker and James Metzker (hereinafter, the “Claimants”) claim for Hurricane Ian damages when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward Claimants and with due regard for their interests. The Carrier has done everything possible to delay the claim and deprive Claimants from benefits due and owed under the policy of insurance. Furthermore, Carrier 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…”).
On September 28, 2022, Hurricane Ian slammed into Florida’s southwest coast as one of the most powerful storms in US history. The storm was just short of being classified as a category 5 hurricane with sustained wind speeds of up to 155mph – 7mph slower than a Category 5. Data evidenced gusts across Florida of 140mph in Cape Coral, 135mph in Punta Gorda, 112mph in Pelican Bay and 110mph in La Belle. Carrier was immediately put on notice of the Claimants’ Hurricane Ian damage on September 28, 2022. Claimants’ obtained and produced to Carrier an estimate reflecting the cost to restore the insured property back to its pre-loss condition. In support of the damages claimed, Claimants produced a photo report documenting substantial and widespread damage to the roof, exterior elevations, garage screen door, pool, and elevated levels of moisture within the exterior walls and interior flooring as a direct and proximate result of a tree falling on the roof of the insured property. Despite Carrier’s own field adjuster, Ryan Wright, who upon information and belief may not have been licensed at the time of his assignment, documenting widespread damage to the roof, fascia, soffits, decorative shutters, gutters, covered lanai, pool enclosure, pool, pool equipment, HVAC and ensuing water damage throughout the interiors as a result of Hurricane Ian, the Carrier only considered and adjusted for a portion of the claimed, observed and documented damages, without asserting any basis to exclude or limit coverage under the policy. Throughout the claim’s handling process, Claimants and their representatives, corresponded with and followed up with the Carrier multiple times regarding the status of the claim, and reconsideration of the damages as adjusted. Ultimately, Carrier has failed and refused to comply with said requests in clear violation of Florida Statute § 627.4137.
Nevertheless, on December 22, 2023 – 85 days after the first notice of loss – Carrier acknowledged coverage for the loss, and informed Claimants that payment would be forthcoming in the amount of $0.00. Notably, Carrier’s coverage position letter failed to reference any limiting or exclusionary provisions of the Policy which would apply, nor the applicable deductible of $11,850.00, despite conceding to $19,998.27, in covered repairs. Additionally, despite inspecting the insured property on October 5, 2022, Defendant intentionally refused to complete an estimate of repairs until December 16, 2022. Once the estimate was completed, it failed to consider all of the documented damages to the interiors, gutters, covered lanai, pool, pool equipment, HVAC, and interior of the property. Moreover, the estimate failed to consider items required for the replacement of the roof pursuant to Florida Building Code.
At all times material to the subject claim, Carrier has misrepresented pertinent facts concerning the investigation and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages in order to refuse Claimants’ the full benefits due and owed under the subject policy of insurance. Accordingly, Carrier has failed and refused to attempt in good faith to settle the subject 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.
Claimants have complied with all Carrier’s requests to date. Notwithstanding, Carrier – based on own unilaterally determined deficient valuation of the claim – has refused to reconsider its adjustment of Claimants’ irrefutable Hurricane Ian damage. Over 779 days have passed since the original date of loss, and Carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. Due to Carriers’ refusal to make sufficient payments as due and owed to Claimants under the Policy necessary to restore the insured property to its pre-loss condition, Claimants have been left with no other recourse than to seek legal recourse against Carrier for its breach of the policy and violations of Florida law.
Carrier is well aware of the full extent of the loss and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action since issuing its woefully deficient coverage determination to Claimants. It is clear that Carrier is: (i) not treating the Claimants with good faith claims conduct; (ii) failing to pay a claim clearly owed; (iii) not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to Claimants; (iv) failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the Claimants’ interests; (v) not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; (vi) refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; (vii) looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insureds; and (viii) refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner.
Carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). Carrier’s conduct is not isolated, but appears to be an intentional pattern and business practice adopted in the handling of its claims, as experienced by the undersigned counsel’s clients in several other claims presented to Carrier.
Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Carrier must: 1) pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $107,149.19, less the applicable policy deductible; 2) pay the Claimants’ attorneys’ fees and costs as they have been forced to retain counsel; 3) pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made; 4) implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims; and 5) placing the interests of its insureds before Carrier’s own interests.
A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been printed out and mailed.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (305) 419-4090 if you have any questions or concerns.
|
|
*
|
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
|