Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     792947
Filing Accepted:  11/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
KLEMZ   First Name   STEVEN
Street Address * 17749 ESPRIT DR
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33647
Email Address * STEVEKLEMZ@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   KLEMZ   First Name   STEVEN
Policy # * 141281473 Claim #* 0718423908 AKR
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ALTMAN First Name * ALEXIS Initial
Street Address* 925 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL - FLORIDA 33432
Email Address * AALTMAN@KPATTORNEY.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):* ALAN GONZALEZ
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
* 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)(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.

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

Steve D Klemz (“insured”) purchased an all-risk policy of insurance with Castle Key Customer (“carrier”) to cover his home. The loss was a direct result of a covered peril under the all-risk policy. Although it is clear that the damages are covered, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the insured’s claim 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 their interests. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. 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…”). The insured put the carrier on notice of the damages to their home after a storm caused. Mr. Klemz is an elderly man and was being taken advantage of by Castle Key. An engineer was sent out. This is a practice of Castle Key to send out engineers who have been paid millions of dollars to write up reports misrepresenting the cause of loss as falling under exclusions under the policy. Thereafter the claim for the roof damage was denied. It is clear that Castle Key advised the engineer that they need to deny the roof and take advantage of Mr. Klemz's condition. Pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1), Castle Key has failed to settle the claim in good faith when it could and should have done so. The damage to the Insured’s property was clearly caused by a covered peril under the Policy, but Castle Key has intentionally and wrongfully denied the roof and interior damage, and callously delayed the claim process. Castle Key has not shown a good faith intention to pay what was owed but rather has underpaid the claim for financial gain and profit. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Castle Key has a duty to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The field adjuster sent out on behalf of Castle Key displayed a lack of knowledge, improper training, and/or intent to misrepresent damages. Pursuant to Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Castle Key failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims as they ignored the request by Public Adjuster to provide a certified copy of Insured’s policy of insurance. Florida law mandates that insurers and adjusters do not mislead the Insured. Florida Insurance companies that fail to follow these Florida laws and regulations, designed to protect consumers, do not only breach their duties under the policy of insurance but do so in bad faith. In violation of Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Castle Key intentionally misrepresented the available coverage under the policy. Castle Key intentionally misrepresented that the roof was damaged by the storm stating that the interior damages were. Furthermore, the Insured believes Castle Key repeatedly and as a standard business practice engages in this behavior to deprive its Insured of their rightful insurance proceeds when they experience a covered loss. Insured contends Castle Key has implemented a claims program and business practices that are tailored to increase its profits at the expense of benefits that are owed to its customers and that other Insured have been refused insurance proceeds due and owing under the policy in the same or similar circumstances, and some have been provided inadequate insurance monies under the same or similar facts or circumstances. This is wrongful conduct and directly violates the purpose of insurance coverage. Castle Key ’s wrongful conduct and omissions include, but are not limited to: claim delay, not conducting a full and prompt investigation, not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct, Castle Key g for ways to reduce recovery to Insured; Castle Key g for ways to delay full recovery to Insured; holding back and failing to pay portions of claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests; establishing severity control initiatives and otherwise establishing a culture of not fully and promptly paying claims following losses; and failing to pay the full amount of the Insured’s damage despite knowing it must do so. Consequently, these actions have caused undo frustration and financial harm to the Insured. As a direct and proximate result of the poor handling of this Claim by Castle Key the Insured sustained extracontractual damages. Due to the bad faith actions of Castle Key, Insured was forced to engage the services of the Public Adjuster to attempt to recover the settlement to which they are rightfully entitled. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless regard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. This notice is provided in order to perfect a right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay all amounts due and owing to the insured in the amount of $41,927.51 for indemnity benefits, minus any applicable deductible or prior payments; and 2) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. Should you have any questions upon receipt please contact the undersigned at 561-892-9988. Sincerely, Alexis Altman
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
keierica.baker@allstate.com 01-10-2025 January 10, 2025 VIA CRN ONLINE SYSTEM AND EMAIL TO AALTMAN@KPATTORNEY.COM Steven Klemz c/o Alexis Altman, Esq. Kanner & Pintaluga, P.A. 925 S. Federal Hwy Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Re: Policyholder: Steve D Klemz Complainant: Steven Klemz DFS Filing No.: 792947 Date of Loss: June 4, 2023 Claim reported: June 20, 2023 Policy No.: 141281473 Claim No.: 0718423908 Steven Klemz c/o Alexis Altman: This serves as Castle Key Insurance Company’s (“Castle Key”) response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”). This response is provided on behalf of Castle Key and all of its employees, agents, officers and affiliates. The Department accepted the CRN on 11/18/2024. Therefore, this response has been timely filed within the statutory deadline. Castle Key continues to specifically deny the allegations set forth in the CRN and maintains that Castle Key has continually acted in good faith. Castle Key reserves all rights and defenses associated with the filing’s invalidity and comments below. 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 regarding 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 denies that it violated Florida Statutes §§ 624.155 or 626.9541 (or any subpart thereof) as alleged in the CRN or that it has improperly handled and/or adjusted the insured’s claim. Further, Castle Key wholly denies any and all allegations of wrong-doing, claim delay, claim denial, unfair claims handling, improper investigation, 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. Complainant’s 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 the Complainant 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. Complainant’s notice fails the requirements for a valid civil remedy notice under Florida Statutes Section 624.155 which mandates the Complainant 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. Castle Key strenuously denies all allegations in Complainant’s filing and would further state that the Notice is facially deficient with respect to these allegations in that it cites the statutory violations but does not provide sufficient specificity as to how Castle Key’s conduct violated these statutes. In large part, the Notice appears to be nothing more than boilerplate and conclusory allegations that have no specific application to the governing facts or law of this claim. Florida law does not allow a Complainant, without providing any facts, to allege that the insurer’s only option to avoid bad faith is paying whatever the Complainant’s demands. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008). The Complainant’s CRN violates the specificity requirement and thus Complainant failed to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Insurance Company, LEXIS 100072 (S.D. Fla. 2020). In spite of Complainant having the subject policy of insurance, which was provided by Castle Key on or about May 14, 2024, the CRN fails to reference the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations or set forth facts in support of each of the alleged violations. This information is required to be included and be correct on the statutory Civil Remedy Notice form. The CRN also improperly seeks “cures” which are not available under the policy of insurance or Florida’s Civil Remedy Notice statute. Further, the CRN inexplicably contains multiple unsubstantiated accusations. These allegations are neither supported by facts within the four-corners of the filing nor by Castle Key’s handling of the claim. Accordingly, Castle Key would like this opportunity to set forth an accurate factual background and accounting of the subject claim. On June 20, 2023, the Complainant contacted Castle Key and reported that the insured residence sustained damage as the result of a weather event on June 4, 2023. Castle Key promptly began efforts to investigate and adjust the claim. A claim acknowledgment letter was sent to the insured from Castle Key on June 21, 2023, as well as a “DFS Mediation Letter”, advising the insured of his rights under the policy contract to pursue mediation. Incident to its initial inspection on June 28, 2023, Castle Key determined that there were no covered damages to the insured residence. Subsequent to receiving an estimate prepared by Ask An Adjuster totaling $40,487.51 on May 6, 2024, Castle Key, in good faith, requested a reinspection which occurred on July 18, 2024. Again, no covered damages to the insured residence were found. Notwithstanding the above, Castle Key categorically denies any and all wrongdoing, including any violation of Florida Law. Specifically, Castle Key denies any violation of Section 624.155 and 626.9541 (or any subpart thereof). Castle Key expressly denies the six allegations of statutory violations in the Notice, including but not limited to, denying that it: (1) failed to settle the claim in good faith; (2) failed to promptly settle the claim; (3) failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (4) misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions related to coverages at issue; (5) failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims and (6) denied claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Conclusion The Civil Remedy Notice is invalid for the reasons set forth above. No evidence has been produced to substantiate the CRN’s allegations. Castle Key Insurance Company has fulfilled its duties as provided under the terms and conditions of the policy. Based on the foregoing, Castle Key Insurance Company renews its denial of all allegations of wrong-doing; claim delay; claim denial; unfair claims handling; improper investigation; misrepresentation; and/or bad faith in connection with the above claim. Castle Key Insurance Company reserves all of its rights. If Complainant or their counsel have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Castle Key Indemnity Company at our office for a further response. Sincerely, CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY Prepared by KeiErica Baker, Esq. /s/ KeiErica Baker, Esq.
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