Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793796
Filing Accepted:  11/22/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
EMMA A. ZIDAN AND LEILANI R. ZIDAN   First Name  
Street Address * 234 ANNALISA PLACE
City, State Zip * MERRITT ISLAND, FL 32953
Email Address * ZIDANEMAD@YAHOO.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   EMMA A. ZIDAN AND LEILANI R. ZIDAN   First Name  
Policy # * H010000660 Claim #* HOH346928
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* SCHLOSSER First Name * BRADEN Initial
Street Address* 925 S. FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * BSCHLOSSER@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):* TERESA BRANCH
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Claim Denial
* 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)(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.

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.

The carrier was immediately put on notice of the insureds’storm damage claim. Subsequently, the insureds prepared a loss package in the amount of $60,721.93 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. This loss pacakage was supplemented with additional materials including a quote for siding and related construction services in the amount of $68,434.08. In response to initial loss package, the carrier sent a forensic engineer to the property to inspect the damage. Upon review of the engineer’s report, a representative working on behalf of Insured pointed out errors in the report to the carrier. One such error was the engineer’s assertion that a new roof had been installed in 2019. In reality, and as pointed out to carrier, the roof was installed in 2017. In the carrie’s engineer report, the engineer blames the water intrusion on age related wear tear – of a roof installed on a date he did not apparently know – and on roof installed less than 7 years prior to the damage having occurred. The Insured’s agent then also requested additional materials from carrier to substantiate claims it made and relied upon for its coverage decision. Whereas, the carrier has failed to prudently inspect the insureds’ property, come to a fair coverage determination and promptly pay the claim. The carrier improperly determined that the loss was not covered under the policy and wrongfully denied the claim. In turn, the insureds have complied with all of the carrier’s 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. About five hundred seventy-five days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of the damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier 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; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any 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. The 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), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. 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 disregard for the 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, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $128,434.08, less any prior payments and less any applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Rodneisha Smith at (561)-892-9928 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Braden Schlosser Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 01-10-2025 January 10, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: EMMA A. ZIDAN AND LEILANI R. ZIDAN Insured: EMMA A. ZIDAN AND LEILANI R. ZIDAN Insurer: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company DFS File No.: 793796 Claim No: H010000660 Policy No.: HOH346928 Dear Madam and/or Sir: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) official response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”), Filing Number 793796, filed on behalf of Heritage’s insured EMMA A. ZIDAN AND LEILANI R. ZIDAN (“Complainants”). The Department accepted the Notice on November 22, 2024. While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Notice filed concerning this claim, it responds to it specifically denying each and every allegation contained in the Notice. Heritage believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as promulgated in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. The Notice fails to inform Heritage whether it had been given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Additionally, 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. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this Notice contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainants’ opinions regarding the value of their own claim and, therefore, the Complainants’ opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. Moreover, Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires the Complainant to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, if any. Moreover, the Notice contains a list of violations that Heritage has allegedly committed but fails to provide an adequate basis in support of those allegations and, on that basis alone, fails to satisfy the basic requirements of an otherwise proper Notice. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Fla. Stat. §§ 624.155 and 626.9541. As such, the Notice does not comply with Florida law and is legally insufficient. For clarification, Heritage is providing a brief history of the claim: Subject to its terms, endorsements, limitations, exclusions, and conditions, the Complainants were issued Policy HOH346928 (“Policy”) for the property at 234 ANNALISA PLACE., MERRITT ISLAND, FL 32953 (“Property”). The Policy of Insurance applies to direct physical loss of or damage to covered property at the premises described in the Declarations of the Policy or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss as described in the Policy. Upon receiving the Complainants’ first notice of loss on June 19, 2023, claiming damages from hail that allegedly occurred on April 29, 2023. Heritage promptly assigned claim number H010000660. On the same day the loss was reported, Heritage issued its acknowledgment letter and Bill of Rights to the Complainants. Moving forward, Heritage’s representative coordinated an inspection of the damage to the Property caused by the alleged windstorm. The Complainants requested the inspection to occur on June 23, 2023, and the on-site inspection documented the interior and exterior conditions of the property. Field Adjuster, Teresa Branch, provided a post-inspection report. On July 14, 2023, after conducting a reasonable investigation based on available information to Heritage, and in accordance with its obligations under §627.70131, Fla. Stat., Heritage timely issued a letter including a written explanation of the coverage decision to Complainants, which included pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Due to a dispute in coverage, on February 29, 2024, Grindley Williams Engineering completed a site inspection. After review of new documentation, On March 25, 2024, Heritage timely issued a letter including a written explanation of the updated coverage decision to Complainants, which included pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Payment was sent on same. On November 22, 2024, BRADEN SCHLOSSER, on behalf of the Complainants, filed this Notice, to which Heritage now submits its response. A Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation was also submitted on December 4 and 23, 2024. Heritage responded on December 16, 2024. Heritage continues it attempts to resolve the claim with Complainant. In accordance with Fla. Stat. §624.155, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, “to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Notice alleges the reasons for the Notice are the following: Claim Denial The Notice fails to state who, how, and when a “claim denial” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Claim Delay The Notice fails to state instances of “claim delay" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unfair Trade Practice The Notice fails to state instances of “unfair trade" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Further, the Notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage 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 Complainant and with due regard for his or her interests. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainants. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 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 denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainants. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 3. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainants. Additionally, the Notice fails to specifically identify how Heritage fails “to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.” Heritage has always properly investigated the claim. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 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. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainants. Further, the Notice fails to specifically identify the “misrepresenting facts or insurance policy provision” allegedly committed by Heritage. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 5. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always promptly acknowledged communications and acted promptly in furtherance of the resolutions of the claim. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainants. The Notice fails to specifically identify instances where Heritage failed “to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications.” Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. 6. 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. Response: Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has promptly provided a reasonable explanation in writing to Complainants of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the denial. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainants. The Notice fails to specifically identify instances where Heritage failed “to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured [. . .].” Therefore, this allegation is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and without merit. As detailed by the facts stated above, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company did not violate any of the statutes mentioned above sections. Heritage has diligently and thoroughly investigated the subject claim, followed up with Complainants for documents supporting their claim, and provided a coverage determination. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer notice of the issue its Complainants have 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 Complainants 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. See also Julien. Heritage’s position is that it has complied, in good faith, with these obligations. Furthermore, the Complainant’s Notice seeks cures for the alleged defects. However, the “cures” sought are improper pursuant to Florida Case law. Specifically, the case of Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000), provides that the scope of what can be “cured” is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. Talat also commented that “[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a ‘cure,’ what had to be ‘cured’ is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due to the Complainant is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled....” As a result, only the demanded “cures” relating to the payment for covered damages are proper and legal. In short, similarly to Rousso, the Notice reflects a “shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo. This approach 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. Thus, the Notice is insufficient 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 coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainants have failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under § 624.155. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Moreover, regardless of the rejection, Heritage denies all allegations contained in the Notice and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Notice and the information we have to date. If the Complainants feel that Heritage does not have all the facts, please inform Heritage immediately. In closing, Heritage denies each and every assertion of bad faith in the Notice. And, notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver or surrender of the policy terms, limitations, exclusions, conditions or agreements, nor should this letter be considered an exhaustive recitation of the deficiencies in the Notice. Heritage reserves the right to supplement its response at a later time. Should the Department have any questions, concerns, or require any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, /s/ Tamara Schweinsberg Tamara Schweinsberg, Esq. Senior Claims Counsel Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co. Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Response
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