Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793620
Filing Accepted:  11/21/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BIELOSTOZKY   First Name   CLARIBELL
Street Address * 505 KILGORE ROAD
City, State Zip * PLANT CITY, FL 33567
Email Address * UNKNOWN
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BIELOSTOZKY   First Name   CLARIBELL
Policy # * IFH6054440 02 Claim #* CFL200131318
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SMITH First Name * JOSHUA Initial S.
Street Address* 4043 HENDERSONBLVD.
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33629
Email Address * KBOODOO@JSPALAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CYPRESS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10953
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE WITH THE MOST KNOWLEDGE.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Other : Unreasonable Investigation
Other : Failure to act on claim
Other : Misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured
* 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)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
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)(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.

626.9541(1)(i) -- Unfair claim settlement practices. REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE: COVERAGE A PROVISION, ALL ADDITIONAL COVERAGES PROVISIONS, THE DECLARATIONS PAGE, LOSS PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT PROVISION, DUTIES IN EVENT OF LOSS POLICY PROVISION, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION I OF THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE INSURANCE POLICY DEFINITIONS SECTION, THE INSURANCE POLICY‘S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THIS NOTICE IS GIVEN IN ORDER TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE CIVIL REMEDY AUTHORIZED BY FLORIDA STATUTE § 624.155 FACTS OF THE CASE: CYPRESS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“CYPRESS”) HAS COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS IN HANDLING THE INSURED, CLARIBELL BIELOSTOZKY’S, CLAIM: 1) CLAIM DELAY; 2) NOT CONDUCTING FULL AND PROMPT INVESTIGATION; 3) NOT TREATING POLICYHOLDERS WITH GOOD FAITH CLAIMS CONDUCT; 4) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO REDUCE RECOVERY TO THE INSURED; 5) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELAY FULL RECOVERY TO THE INSURED; 6) MISREPRESENTING INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS TO THE INSURED; 7) MISREPRESENTING FACTS SURROUNDING THE CLAIM TO THE INSURED; 8) NOT ADJUSTING CLAIMS AND EVALUATING LOSS PROPERLY, PROMPTLY, AND FAIRLY TO PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED; 9) FAILING TO IMPLEMENT PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS; 10) FAILING TO MAKE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE COVERAGE DETERMINATION FOR ALL DAMAGES. IN FLORIDA, THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. CYPRESS HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY, AS EVIDENCED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS HANDLED INSURED’S CLAIM OF LOSS. CYPRESS HAS FAILED TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT ADEQUATE GUIDELINES FOR PROPER INVESTIGATION, CLAIMS EVALUATIONS, AND CLAIMS HANDLING, RESULTING IN THE VIOLATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE. CYPRESS HAS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND EVALUATE THE INSURED’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ACCURATELY. DESPITE THE INSURED’S TIMELY NOTIFICATION TO CYPRESS OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM, CYPRESS DELAYED PAYING OR TENDERING TO THE INSURED THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE AND OWED UNDER THE POLICY. DESPITE INSURED’S EFFORTS, CYPRESS HAS FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS OBLIGATION TO TENDER ALL INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE AND OWING OR TO ASSIST HER IN MITIGATING DAMAGES. IN EXCHANGE FOR PREMIUMS PAID BY THE INSURED, CYPRESS ISSUED A POLICY INSURING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. DURING THE POLICY PERIOD, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 12, 2024, THE INSURED EXPERIENCED A COVERED LOSS THAT DAMAGED SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF HER PROPERTY. UPON DISCOVERING THE DAMAGE, WHICH WAS LARGELY DUE TO NON-EXCLUDED WATER INTRUSION AND RESULTING MOLD, THE INSURED PROMPTLY NOTIFIED CYPRESS. DURING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM AN ENGINEER FOR CYPRESS WHO INSPECTED THE HOME DETERMINED THAT “THE CEILING STAIN AT THE SECOND-STORY LOFT ADJACENT TO THE HALLWAY BATHROOM WAS REASONABLY DUE TO A ROOF LEAK.” CYPRESS NEVER PROVIDED INFORMATION THAT SHOWED THE DAMAGE FROM THE ROOF LEAK OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE POLICY INCEPTION”. DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXTREME LIKELIHOOD OF MOLD AND OTHER WATER ISSUES BEING RELATED TO THE CONFIRMED ROOF LEAK, THE ENGINEER THEN CLAIMED IN THE SAME REPORT THAT “STORM CREATED OPENINGS” HAD BEEN “ELIMINATED AS A SOURCE OF MOISTURE FILITRATION”, AND IT WAS MORE LIKELY THAT “EXPOSURE TO MOISTURE THAT ORIGINATED AS CONDENSATION OF HUMID AIR THAT PENETRATED THE ROOF SYSTEM DURING THE DRY-OUT PROCESS” AND THEN “INTERIOR HUMIDITY WAS LOWERED DRASTICALLY, WHICH CREATED A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR VAPOR DRIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COLD AIR BLOWING DIRECTLY ON THE WOOD CEILING FINISHES FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. THE INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND UNTESTED THEORIES” SHOULD HAVE CAUSED CYPRESS TO RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION. THE ENGINEER FOUND DAMAGE FROM A ROOF LEAK, WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CLAIM MADE BY THE INSURED. INSTEAD OF PROVIDING A FAIR EVALUATION, CYPRESS ISSUED A PARTIAL DENIAL AND DEEMED ONLY A PORTION OF THE DAMAGE COMPENSABLE, DISREGARDING CRITICAL ISSUES SUCH AS THE MOLD GROWTH ATTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO ROOF LEAKS. IN ITS APRIL 8, 2024, PARTIAL DENIAL OF COVERAGE LETTER, CYPRESS ASSERTED THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTED FROM WEAR AND TEAR, LACK OF MAINTENANCE, AND THE CONDENSATION OF HUMIDITY, MOISTURE, AND VAPOR. CONSEQUENTLY, COVERAGE WAS DENIED FOR MOLD DAMAGE TO THE CEILING AND WALLS. FOLLOWING THEIR INVESTIGATION, CYPRESS CONCLUDED THAT THE COVERED DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY AMOUNTED TO $213.69. DESPITE INSURED’S STRONG OBJECTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR AN EARNEST INVESTIGATION, CYPRESS AFFIRMED THEIR DETERMINATION IN A MAY 10, 2024, LETTER, STATING THAT THE PARTIAL DENIAL OF COVERAGE WOULD STAND. IN RESPONSE, THE INSURED RETAINED FAIRWINDS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC (“FAIRWINDS”) TO CONDUCT A FULL EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE ON AUGUST 7, 2024. FAIRWINDS PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE TOTALING $188,152.14. CYPRESS’ HANDLING OF INSURED’S CLAIM IS EVIDENTLY IN BAD FAITH, AS IT FAILED TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, UNREASONABLY UNDERVALUED THE DAMAGE, AND IMPROPERLY RELIED ON POLICY EXCLUSIONS. CYPRESS’ CONCLUSION THAT THE COVERED DAMAGE AMOUNTED TO ONLY $213.69 REFLECTS EITHER A SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION OR INTENTIONAL UNDERVALUATION, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE OF EXTENSIVE PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE DISPARITY BETWEEN CYPRESS’ VALUATION AND FAIRWINDS’ ESTIMATE OF $188,152.14 HIGHLIGHTS THIS POINT AND DEMONSTRATES CYPRESS’ FAILURE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LOSS. THESE ACTIONS BY CYPRESS VIOLATE FLORIDA STATUTES §§ 624.155(1)(B)(1), 626.9541(1)(I)(3)(A), 626.9541(1)(I)(3)(D), AND 626.9541(1)(B)(1). ADDITIONALLY, CYPRESS RELIED ON GENERALIZED EXCLUSIONS, SUCH AS WEAR AND TEAR AND CONDENSATION, WITHOUT PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE ASSERTIONS, DESPITE BEARING THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE APPLICABILITY OF EXCLUSIONS UNDER FLORIDA LAW. CYPRESS’ REFUSAL TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL, EVEN AFTER BEING PRESENTED WITH FAIRWINDS’ DETAILED EVALUATION, DEMONSTRATES ITS FAILURE TO ACT FAIRLY AND OBJECTIVELY, CAUSING UNDUE FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL HARDSHIP TO THE INSURED. THESE ACTIONS BY CYPRESS CONSTITUTE DIRECT VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §§ 626.9541(1)(I)(3)(B), 626.9541(1)(I)(3)(F), AND 626.9541(1)(I)(3)(D). HAD CYPRESS CONDUCTED ITS INVESTIGATION IN GOOD FAITH, IT WOULD HAVE FOUND FULL COVERAGE FOR THIS CLAIM. CYPRESS HAS SOUGHT WAYS TO AVOID PAYMENT BY ATTRIBUTING THE DAMAGE TO HIGH HUMIDITY AND DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, IGNORING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WATER INTRUSION AND ROOF LEAKS DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE DAMAGES. IN SHORT, CYPRESS’S CONDUCT IN HANDLING INSURED’S CLAIM REPRESENTS CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §§ 624.155 AND 626.9541. AS OF TODAY, CYPRESS HAS FAILED AND REFUSED TO INFORM INSURED OF HER RIGHTS UNDER THE POLICY AND FLORIDA LAW. CYPRESS HAS MADE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE INSURED REGARDING THE POLICY AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY ADJUSTING THE CLAIM IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE POLICY AND FLORIDA STATUTES. CYPRESS HAS FAILED AND REFUSED TO ADEQUATELY INDEMNIFY THE INSURED FOR HER LOSS AND CONTINUES TO DO SO. TO DATE, THE INSURED HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE POLICY. IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT CYPRESS DOES THE SAME. DESPITE PAYING HER PREMIUMS, REPORTING THE LOSS PROMPTLY, AND COMPLYING WITH ALL OTHER POLICY REQUIREMENTS, CYPRESS HAS CONTINUOUSLY USED MISINFORMATION AND DELAY TACTICS IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID PROPERLY ADJUSTING THE INSURED’S CLAIM AND PAYING THE FULL COVERAGE DUE UNDER THE POLICY. ULTIMATELY, CYPRESS HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE THE LOSS IN GOOD FAITH. THE INSURED HAS REQUESTED THAT CYPRESS ADMIT FULL COVERAGE AND PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF DAMAGES; CYPRESS HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO DO SO. CYPRESS CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED FOR HER LOSS AND TO PAY THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO REPAIR HER PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AWARE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS TO DO SO. IN SHORT, CYPRESS HAS FAILED TO HANDLE THIS CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH. CYPRESS’ ACTIONS AMOUNT TO BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. NOT CONDUCTING FULL AND PROMPT INVESTIGATION 2. NOT TREATING POLICYHOLDERS WITH GOOD FAITH CLAIMS CONDUCT 3. LOOKING FOR WAYS TO REDUCE RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 4. LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELAY FULL RECOVERY TO THE INSURED 5. MISREPRESENTING INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS TO THE INSURED 6. MISREPRESENTING FACTS SURROUNDING THE CLAIM TO THE INSURED 7. NOT ADJUSTING CLAIMS AND EVALUATING LOSS PROPERLY, PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY TO PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED 8. FAILING TO IMPLEMENT PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS 9. FAILING TO MAKE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE COVERAGE DETERMINATION FOR ALL DAMAGES THEREFORE, TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, CYPRESS MUST: (1). ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS. (2). TENDER ALL INSURANCE MONIES DUE AND OWING TO THE INSURED FOR ITS LOSS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ALL DAMAGES UNDER THE SUBJECT POLICY. (3). PAY STATUTORY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID CONTRACT DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE LOSS TO THE PRESENT TIME PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE § 627.70131, AND PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS INCURRED AS ALLOWED BY THE POLICY AND APPLICABLE STATUTES.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kmixon@gspalaw.com 01-02-2025 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this response to Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations No. 793620 (the “Notice”) on behalf of Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Cypress”). On November 21, 2024, upon information and belief, the Notice was filed by Joshua S. Smith, Esq. on behalf of Claribell Bielostozky (the “Insured”) against Cypress alleging violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Cypress denies any and all allegations of violations of Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjudication of this matter. The Notice filed by the Insured generally alleges that Cypress did not attempt to settle the claim in good faith and failed to acknowledge and act promptly with respect to the claim. Cypress contends that the Notice filed by the Insured is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to § 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any; 5. a statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. In addition to the criteria cited above, the Florida legislature created “Form DFS-10-363”, which is a Civil Remedy Notice form that lays out an additional fifteen (15) requirements: 1. Complainant’s Name; 2. Complainant’s Address; 3. Complainant’s email address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise) 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s email Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise) 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice. Similar to the five (5) criteria specifically listed in Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the fifteen (15) additional items required by the Department of Financial Services must be correctly stated with specificity in order to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing an action under Fla. Stat. § 624.155. See, Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 20-CV-14013, 2020 WL 3038576, at * 3-4 (holding that the plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was deficient as a matter of law because the email address listed for the Complainant was the attorney’s email address); Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins, Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (holding that the correct policy number, one of the above listed requirements promulgated by the Florida Department of Financial Services, must be on a Civil Remedy Notice for it to be valid because Fla. Stat. § 624.155 requires a Civil Remedy Notice to have the information required by the Florida Department of Financial Services). To put it simply, a CRN is defective as a matter of law if any of the twenty (20) mandatory items cited above are missing or otherwise incorrect. Here, the Notice’s deficiencies include but are not limited to: failing to list the address of the insurer and failing to provide an email address for the Complainant. The notice also fails to name all insureds as complainants, under the terms of the policy. With respect to the statutory requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Cypress that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Notice contains conjecture and supposition as opposed to any facts supporting the conclusory allegations. A written notice which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails to satisfy the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 580 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1193; see also Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059 at *3-6; Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. The Notice fails to meet the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 624.155 on several grounds. First, with respect to the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Notice asserts general allegations consisting largely upon conclusory and inaccurate statements rather than providing specific facts to support its conclusory allegations regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. The Notice does not set forth any facts regarding Cypress’s purported failure to investigate the claim and does not set forth any facts to support any allegations in the Notice. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. As a result, the Complainant failed to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. Further, the Notice generally alleges that Cypress violated Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) by “Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” However, the Notice does not set forth any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Cypress and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. The Notice does not state any facts to support the Complainant’s misrepresentation allegations or any of the allegations contained therein. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Fla. Stat. §624.155. As a result, the Complainant failed to comply with the requirements provided in Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4) in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation with any degree of specificity. In particular, the Notice cites to certain vast portions of the policy at issue without specifically delineating what specific subsection was violated. The Insured also fails to provide factual specificity for any purported violations of the policy at issue. As such, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the specificity requirement of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Third, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how Cypress may “cure” the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the only real “cure” that the Notice is seeking is full payment of a random sum unilaterally determined by Complainant notwithstanding Cypress’s right to investigate and adjust the loss. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The Notice does not serve this purpose. Specifically, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Cypress can “cure” the alleged defects, short of paying additional benefits which are not due and owing. This failure to provide a proper opportunity to cure renders the Notice improper. Longpoint Condominium Associations v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2005 WL 131580 (N.D. Fla. June 2, 2005). Moreover, the method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). In addition, the Notice seeks remedies that are “extra-contractual”. A demand for a cure is properly limited to the four corners of the policy and thus the extra-contractual demands render the Notice insufficient on its face. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a Civil Remedy Notice is invalid if the curative action demands more than the payment of contractual benefits under the insurer’s policy. See, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Subsequent to Talat, Florida courts, and federal courts applying Florida law, reaffirmed the rule articulated in Talat. See, Do v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 1:17-CV-23041-JLK, 2019 WL 331295, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding that a plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was invalid as a matter of law because the curative actions demanded did not concern payment of contractual benefits owned under the insurer’s policy). Here, Cypress properly adjusted the claim, accepted coverage for certain covered portions of the claim, and denying the non covered portions of the claimed damages, which was below the applicable deductible and the claim was closed. The Insured has produced no evidence that the Insured is entitled to the damages demanded. Cypress asserts it has been diligent in responding to the Insured’s requests and investigating the claim. The subject policy of insurance, governing statutes, and case law only permit submission of a claim and payment for covered losses. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. After reviewing the Civil Remedy Notice, Cypress conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Insured’s claim. Cypress denies that it violated any statutes, administrative code provisions, or ethical rules or obligations in connection with its investigation and handling of the Insured’s claim. Notwithstanding, Cypress remains committed to resolving this matter. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations set forth in the Notice are devoid and without merit. Cypress has abided by the policy and the coverage determination was made in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties. Very truly yours, GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. /s/ Stephanie Wurster Stephanie Wurster, Esq. For the Firm cc: Via email only Joshua S. Smith, Esq. kboodoo@jspalaw.com
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