Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793252
Filing Accepted:  11/19/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
WILLOW BROOK AT PARKER LAKES   First Name  
Street Address * 9301 ALAMANDER CT
City, State Zip * FORT MYERS, FL 33919
Email Address * MEYER.DOUGLAS73@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   ILLOW BROOK AT PARKER LAKES   First Name  
Policy # * H112425 Claim #* HCP008334
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* ALTMAN First Name * ALEXIS Initial
Street Address* 925 SOUTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, 7TH FLOOR
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * AALTMAN@KPATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* TROY WILLIAMS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Claim Delay
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)(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.

Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“carrier”) has not attempted, in good faith, to settle the insured’s claim when under all the circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for their interests. In fact, the carrier has intentionally under-valued the scope the insureds’ claim in an effort to maximize its profits, thereby preventing the insured from being able to restore his home to its pre-loss conditions. American Integrity has engaged in these actions, despite the clear and unequivocal burden discussed in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held, “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.” This claim arises from a Hurricane Ian which wreaked havoc and decimation in the State of Florida. The Insured Property’s roofs were hit by unprecedented 150 MPH winds. After Ian, Heritage began sending out estimators and instructing the estimators to not include words such as wind damage in their photographs or estimate. Brave estimators have come forward and advised the insureds that the payment was not based upon their estimate, but an adjusted estimate from Heritage’s claims team. Heritage has continued this scheme and was hit with a million dollar fine as well as National attention from 60 minutes. This claim is no different. After sending an estimator to the insured’s property, Heritage sent a letter that the insureds were only entitled to a roof repair and estimated the damages at $62,907.88. Based on Heritage’s actions, it cannot be said that this is the actual estimate written by the field adjuster and most likely it is not. Upon review of the carrier estimate and settlement letter, it was noted that the claim was improperly scoped, grossly underpaid, and is insufficient to properly indemnify Insured’s loss. Heritage and its representative have failed at every step of the process. Heritage has failed to adjust and settle the claim in good faith, in accordance with the insurance contract and Florida Statutes. Heritage continues to conduct its investigation in a manner prejudicial to the insured, failing to complete a thorough and truthful investigation of the claim. To date, Heritage has failed to fairly pay Insured for the damages they are owed. Pursuant to Florida Statute §624.155(1)(b)(1), Heritage has failed to settle the claim in good faith when it could and should have done so. The Insured reported the Loss as soon as they were aware of the damage and the Property was presented for inspection. The damage to the Insured’ property was clearly caused by a covered peril under the Policy, but Heritage intentionally turned a blind eye to the damage, low-balled the Claim, and callously delayed the claim process. Heritage 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), Heritage has a duty to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Adjuster Troy Williams displayed a lack of knowledge, improper training, and/or intent to underpay the claim by signing a letter stating that the insureds were only entitled to a roof repair. Mr. Williams displayed a further lack of knowledge of (or an intentional choice to ignore) Florida Statute relating to settlement of the claim. She should be aware that the roof is unrepairable. Thus, the Insured is entitled to replacement of the roof. Insured believes and asserts that Heritage refuses to implement standards for proper investigation of claims for purely financial reasons. Florida law mandates that insurers and adjusters do not mislead the Insured by misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages. 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), Heritage intentionally misrepresented the available coverage under the policy. Mr. Williams ignored Insured’s right to roof replacement based on matching as mandated by Florida Statute 626.9744 for Claim Settlement Practices. 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 $2,233,995.00, minus any applicable deductibles, for indemnity benefits; 2) Pay the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs as they have been forced to retain counsel to litigate the loss; and 3) 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 please do not hesitate to contact me at 561-892-9988. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Alexis E. Altman, Esq.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 01-09-2025 January 9, 2025 VIA Certified Mail and e-file submission Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance, c/o: Civil Remedy Section Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 VIA Certified Mail E-mail Correspondence: hlumpkin@reedsmith.com Willow Brook at Parker Lakes c/o Alex Altman, Esq. 925 South Federal Highway, 7th Floor Boca Raton, FL 33432 Re: RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE Claimant : Willow Brook at Parker Lakes Condo Assoc. Inc. (Typo: Illow Brook at Parker Lakes on CRN) Policy Number : HCP008334 Claim Number : H112425 Date of Loss (as claimed) : September 28, 2022 Loss Location : 9301 Alamander Court, Fort Myers, FL 33919 DFS Filing Number : 793252 Date of DFS Acceptance : November 19, 2024 Dear Mr. Altman and Department of Financial Services, This shall serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”), regarding the claim presented by Willow Brook at Parker Lakes Condo. Assoc., Inc. (“Complainant” “Insured’s property” or “Willow Brook”) for alleged damages sustained to the subject property on or about September 28, 2022. We are in receipt of a Civil Remedy Notice accepted on November 19, 2024, as submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services. This shall serve as Heritage’s response to the CRN. While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) filed in relation to this claim, Heritage believes that the Civil Remedy Notice misstates facts and misrepresents facts, as well as provides information which directly contradicts the alleged violations. For this reason, the civil remedy notice must be rejected and/or Heritage be found NOT to be in Violation of the subject provisions/statutes identified. Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2), requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation”, to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. However, the CRN filed by Willow Brook is CLEARLY A FORM DOCUMENT AND SEVERELY DEFICIENT. From the outset, the Complainant mistakenly names “American Integrity” as the Insurer (See the Third Sentence of the First Paragraph of “Reason For Notice”) as follows: “American Integrity has engaged in these actions, despite the clear and unequivocal burden discussed in…[citing case and Legislature requirements of good faith and fair dealings in claims handling]” Indeed, this CRN was of such little importance to the Complainant that they did not name Heritage properly as the Insurer for Willow Brook. Obviously, this Civil Remedy Notice was filed solely as a “box-check” to attempt to increase risks of litigation, rather than actually identify claims handling violations with ANY factual support. This becomes even more apparent after the Complainant is reduced to referring to an unrelated, one-sided, and factually deficient Television interview made by “60 minutes” which has no support or relation to this claim. Unlike the Complainant, Heritage takes these matters seriously and will rely upon facts and information to support denial of any alleged violations, and demonstrate that it handled this claim quickly, efficiently and in good faith compliance with any and all statutes addressed in this matter. The subject property, Willow Brook, consists of Six (6) individual 3-story buildings, with two smaller enclosed garages for each 3- story building (12 small, enclosed garages total). According to the Complainant, the subject property was damaged by Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022. However, the Complainant did not report a claim for damages to Heritage resulting from Hurricane Ian until November 9, 2022, well over a month later (42 days later to be precise). Upon receipt of the claim, a Field Adjuster with DDA Claims Management (“DDA”) was assigned to inspect the property, take photographs, and provide Heritage with an Estimate of damages associated with the claim. The Field Adjuster was not able to access the subject property until early January of 2023, and subsequently, Heritage Issued its Coverage Determination Letter on February 13, 2023. In direct contradiction to the unfounded, and unsubstantiated statements by the Complainant of claims handling violations, the Estimate by DDA was included with the Coverage Determination dated February 13, 2023. Thereafter, Heritage engaged in discussions with officers of Willow Brook regarding the Coverage Determination dated February 13, 2023. As a result, Heritage assigned an Engineer with SDii Global Corporation (“SDii”) to inspect the property, take photographs, and provide analysis to ensure that Willow Brook was being afforded as much coverage as possible under the subject policy of insurance. SDii completed its inspection on March 22nd through March 24th of 2023, with a representative of Willow Brook, and a gentleman by the name of Corey Hadley present during the inspections. Notably, Mr. Hadley was the owner of a now defunct, Lifetime Metal & Tile Roofing (“Lifetime Roofing”). As a result of this inspection by SDii, Heritage issued a Supplemental Coverage Determination dated June 14, 2023, affording a total of $62,907.88 in damages which after application of the Hurricane Deductible of $56,591.23, provided payment of $6,316.65 (and again, included the Adjuster’s Estimate with the Letter dated June 14, 2023). Mr. Hadley advised SDii during the inspection that he/Lifetime Roofing had installed the metal roofing at Willow Brook, in 2021. Additionally, Mr. Hadley advised that Lifetime Roofing had performed repairs at Willow Brook after September 28, 2022, and that he would provide photographs of Willow Brook he had taken on September 30, 2022, and on October 1, 2022, over a month before any claim for damages was reported to Heritage. TO DATE, these photographs have not been provided to Heritage, NOR HAVE any documents, photographs, invoices or information from Mr. Hadley or Lifetime Roofing regarding the stated repairs to Willow Brook apparently occurring nearly 30 days prior to reporting the claim to Heritage AND BEFORE HERITAGE WAS AFFORDED the ability to inspect the property. Based on statements by Mr. Hadley to SDii, Willow Brook and Mr. Hadley (Lifetime Roofing) had replaced 500 square feet of metal roofing prior to the notifying Heritage of a claim for damages, and despite being aware of a potential claim for damages to the Insurer, performed repairs BUT FAILED TO PROVIDE PHOTOGRAPHS, DOCUMENTATION, OR ANY INFORMATION regarding repairs to Heritage at any stage of the claim. Additionally, for unknown reasons, Mr. Hadley’s name appears on an Estimate by ROC Solid Roofing, licensure “CCC1335247”. To be sure, License Number CCC1335247 is a certified roofing contractor license attributed to Alex Flores d/b/a Ryan Odom Construction, LLC (ROC being an Acronym for Ryan Odom Construction apparently). A professional license search with the Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, and Department of Financial Services, for Corey Hadley provided no professional licensure, adjuster, estimator or otherwise. Furthermore, an internet search for Lifetime Roofing provided that the company is not accredited with the Better Business Bureau and has an “F” rating. The website link afforded for Lifetime Roofing does not appear active. Given the investigations by an independent adjuster on behalf of Heritage, and the investigations of SDii, which Heritage relied upon (above), the Complainant has absolutely no basis to support “Troy Williams” lacked knowledge, had improper training, and intended to intentionally ignore or underpay the claim. To the Contrary, the facts demonstrate the exact opposite and show that Troy Williams acted knowledgeably, with his training and reliance on other expertise, and intentionally afforded coverage to the best of his ability. The Complainant relies upon falsehoods, and a TV show involving a distinct and separate matter, rather than address the facts of this claim leading up to the CRN. Indeed, the vague, generalized statements in the CRN amount to nothing more than a mudslinging “witch-hunt” which Willow Brook and its attorneys assert in a veiled attempt to hide or avoid scrutiny of an overvalued, excessive, and questionable Estimate apparently authored by an individual named Corey Hadley. In CONTRAST to all the steps taken by Heritage to ensure proper claims handling, Willow Brook DID NOT COMPLY WITH ITS DUTY TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING ANY CLAIMS OR DAMAGES DURING THE CLAIMS PHASE to Heritage, nor did Willow Brook attempt to communicate or discuss the amount paid by Heritage to attempt to resolve in the claims phase. Rather, Willow Brook waited almost 1 year and 8 months both after SDii’s inspection, and after a Coverage Determination by Heritage, AND only at the time it submitted the Statutory Notice of Intent to Initiation of Litigation (“NOI”), to communicate a dispute or provide any documentary support to dispute the coverage determination. In this way, Willow Brook intends only to pursue more damages by utilizing the unfounded threat of a CRN, and Litigation, rather than engage in good faith discussions to resolve the matter with Heritage (it should be noted that the parties are engaging now in attempts to resolve afforded by 627.70152 Fla. Stat. per Heritage’s request based upon documents received for the first time by Heritage) The documents received from the Complainant with the NOI again fails to include any documents or information which would support a Civil Remedy Notice. Rather, the document received was an Estimate titled “ROC Solid Roofing” (“the ROC Estimate”), but for some reason was authored by Corey Hadley (who did not even appear to be employed by ROC Solid Roofing). The Estimate that was attached to the NOI does not identify the square footage of each individual roof, but instead identifies a total amount of material (unknown quality, cost, or likeness except to reference a company called Provia Metal). Nothing in the Estimate attached to the NOI supports the requisite of a full roof replacement for every structure at Willow Brook, which notably would also include areas which Mr. Hadley purportedly already repaired. The Complainant provided/provides no photographs, documentation, or information to support the basis of its claim or dispute regarding damages in any part of the pre-suit claims phase, and now including this NOI. The Complaint also failed to provide any photographs taken prior to purported repairs Finally, the Estimate attached to the NOI was not provided to Heritage at any time during the pre-suit claims phase. To be sure, the ROC Estimate attached to the NOI was not only excessively overvalued, but it also failed to itemize each roof individually or provide necessary information to support the basis for a full roof replacement of every roof at Willow Brook where some or most were not damaged. Willow Brook intends to require Heritage to pay for all the roofs to be replaced just to appease their aesthetic conformity of all roofs on the property, even those not damaged. Undeniably, the policy does not provide coverage for damages which were not directly caused by damages from Hurricane Ian. It is Heritage’s position that it compensated the Complainant properly for all damages related to the loss claimed, and that any other damages are not covered and specifically excluded (with some potentially being failure to properly install the roofs in the first place by the Mr. Hadley). At no time has Willow Brook provided photographs, documents, or information to support damages beyond the amount Heritage identified as covered under the subject policy of insurance, and the CRN by Willow Brook fails entirely to provide that information. Complainant provides nothing with any specificity to avoid the fact that Heritage properly and accurately afforded coverage under the subject policy for Willow Brook. What is readily apparent is that this Civil Remedy Notice appears to be nothing more than a disguised dispute as to the value of damages, with Willow Brook attempting to use any manner or fashion to get or obtain monetary damages beyond that which the Subject Policy of insurance provides coverage. In doing so, Willow Brook stoops to utilizing ambiguous, inapplicable, and incorrect statements in its CRN, and effectively, fails to cite facts or information at all. Heritage’s response to Complainant’s boilerplate and deficient CRN demonstrate that Heritage conducted a thorough investigation of Complainant’s claim, including, but not limited to: (1) assigning an Independent Adjuster and Engineer to inspect the property; (2) reviewed any and all information in the best possible position to afford as much coverage and benefits in favor of the insured for damages as the policy affords; (3) and discussed, maintained and kept open lines of communication open with Willow Brook and its offices regarding coverage, and basis for determination of coverage consistent with the terms, conditions, endorsements and exclusion of the subject policy of insurance The Complainant’s CRN only sets forth inapplicable, false statements regarding Heritage in other, unrelated matters. Indeed, it is the Complainant who has NOT provided any facts, causation opinions, or reports in support of a suggestion of undervaluation, or inadequate inspection/adjusting. The only information provided by Willow Brook was well after the coverage determinations by Heritage and included with an NOI on the same day as filing a CRN. Under Florida Law, a Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, “pursuant to section 624.155, F.S., to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company violated the following statutory provisions: 1. 624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for his or her interests. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. As indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant. Heritage promptly investigated and adjusted the Complainant’s Hurricane Ian claim and issued and explained its coverage determination to the Complainant. 2. 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. Response: Heritage issued payment under the policy of insurance for $62,907.88 in damages after application of the Hurricane Deductible of $56,591.23, and provided payment of $6,316.65 The Complainant fails to identify describe any facts and/or circumstances regarding the failure to settle a claim by Heritage, or indication of facts where the Complainant communicated or reached out to settle the claim during the claims phase but Heritage would not settle. Rather, after Heritage issued payment based upon the subject policy of insurance and its thorough investigation of the claim, the Complainant made no other communications with Heritage. The CRN fails to identify any portion of the subject insurance policy which affords more coverage, or payment for damages pursuant to the policy, above the amount already paid by Heritage. There is no support for this assertion, and Heritage’s response to the CRN, as well as the facts above demonstrate that Willow Brook’s unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations are false and without merit. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: The Complainant fails to describe any facts and/or circumstances regarding the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. There is no support for this assertion, and Heritage’s response to the CRN, as well as the facts above demonstrate that Willow Brooks unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations are false and without merit. Heritage completed thorough investigations of the reported claim and issued coverage determinations with attached detailed estimates and detailed reports. 4. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. As indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times provided clear and concise coverage determination attaching detailed estimates and detailed reports from individuals and engineers acting as independent consultants for investigation/inspection purposes who found that damages were below the deductible amount. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communication with respect to claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. This allegation of violation is improper and misplaced. The facts clearly demonstrate Heritage contacted, assigned and inspected the property as soon as the Complainant, Willow Brook, and its representatives could appear to coordinate the inspection. Additionally, Heritage remained in frequent contact and communication with the officers/contact at Willow Brook when discussing perceived damages and scope, ultimately leading to an Engineer with SDii also inspecting the property with the officer/contact with Willow Brook present, as well as other representatives. As indicated herein, as well as the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times provided acknowledged and acted promptly in its communication with respect to the subject claim and provided a clear and concise coverage determination attaching detailed estimates and detailed reports from individuals and engineers regarding coverage afforded under the subject policy of insurance. 6. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Response: This claim is completely unsubstantiated and inapplicable. Heritage did not deny this claim. Willow Brook apparently is unaware of the facts of its own claim and CRN. Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Willow Brook is aware that an independent adjuster, and engineer with SDii inspected the property, performed investigations, took photographs, reviewed historical permit data and historical photographs of the property, reviewed weather and wind data, and met with Mr. Hadley, the manufacturer of sheet metal for the roofs, and officers of Willow Brook. Heritage expressly relied upon this information for its coverage determinations and communicated/provided this information to Willow Brook clearly and concisely. There is no failure by Heritage. As detailed by the facts stated above and herein, Heritage did not violate any of the aforementioned statute sections. Heritage has properly investigated the subject claim and provided a detailed explanation with regards to coverage for same. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer notice of the issue its insured has with the claim and what it is seeking to remedy that issue. However, it is important to note that Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328, at *14-15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). The Florida Supreme Court has held that an insurer's appropriate response to a Civil Remedy Notice filed pursuant to Fla. Stat. 624.155 is “based upon the insurer's good-faith evaluation of what is owed on the insurance contract.” Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla 2000). The Court further stated, “What is owed on the contract is . . . governed by whether all conditions precedent for payment contained within the policy have been met.” Id. For its part, an insurer “must evaluate a claim based upon proof of loss required by the policy and its expertise in advance of a determination by a court or arbitration.” Id. at 1275-76. Heritage has complied, in good faith, with these obligations. This CRN reflects an unfounded, blatantly false and mistake filled effort to attack an Insurance Carrier (Heritage). This approach, WHERE THE COMPLAINANT CANNOT EVEN NAME THE CORRECT INSURER OF THE POLICY IN THE CRN is contrary to the purpose of the statute. The Notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform Heritage of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. This CRN is insufficient factually, and as a matter of law. Under § 624.155, Heritage is entitled not only to a clear proposed solution, but also more and accurate details about how Heritage fell short of its obligations to provide any further coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainant has failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under § 624.155. Heritage denies all allegations contained in the CRN and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the CRN and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that we are not in possession of all the facts, please inform us immediately. Please note that Heritage’s response is not necessarily exhaustive and does not preclude us from asserting any other valid reason for seeking rejection and return of the CRN. Also, this letter or any act or failure to act on the part of Heritage or any agent or representative of Heritage or at law as all such rights and defenses are hereby specifically reserved. We trust that this response addresses the allegations of insurer violation alleged in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need anything further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, /s/ Kevin J. McAllister Kevin McAllister, 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