Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     793868
Filing Accepted:  11/22/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
JAMES   First Name   ROSA
Street Address * 117 S WARNER AVE.
City, State Zip * PERRY, FL 32348
Email Address * JMANTEN@HSTALAW.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   JAMES   First Name   ROSA
Policy # * 592-441-863 Claim #* FL24-0121260-J424
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MANTEN First Name * JASON Initial
Street Address* 2598 E. SUNRISE BLVD.
City, State Zip* FORT LAUDERDALE , FL 33304
Email Address * JMANTEN@HSTALAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* N/A
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

VARIOUS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROVISIONS GOVERNING COVERAGE FOR ROOF DAMAGE, WATER DAMAGE, MOLD, HAIL DAMAGE, AND/OR WINDSTORM DAMAGE, THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION(S), THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURER; AND COVERAGE A – DWELLING; COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES; COVERAGE D – ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

IN FLORIDA, THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE BREACHED THIS DUTY THROUGH ITS HANDLING OF THE CLAIM. THE INSURER HAS FAILED TO EVALUATE CLAIMS HANDLING AND TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES RESULTING IN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH WITHIN THIS CRN: 1) FAILURE TO PAY CLAIM IN FULL; 2) FAILURE TO PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 3) FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 4) FAILURE TO ADJUST LOSS; 5) FAILURE TO ACT IN DUE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE CLAIM; 6) PLACING FINANCIAL INTEREST OF INSURER BEFORE THAT OF POLICY HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS; 7) FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EVALUATE AND MANAGE ADJUSTERS; 8) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY COVERAGE, PAY LESS, DELAY PAYMENT AND OTHERWISE “LOW BALL” OR “STONE WALL” CLAIM; 9) THE REASONS FOR THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR MOTIVATION OF ADJUSTERS AND CLAIMS SUPERVISORS. THE INSURER APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED TO ADOPT THE PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE FULL PAYMENT AND PROMPT PAYMENT FOR THE LOSS IS NOT OCCURRING. THIS COMPLAINT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE NAMED INSURED, ROSA JAMES IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMIUM PAID TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE, A POLICY OF INSURANCE TO, ROSA JAMES. WHICH PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN LOSSES-INCLUDING HURRICANE RELATED DAMAGES. DURING THE POLICY PERIOD A HURRICANE CAUSED CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE TO THE INSURED RESIDENCE PREMISES AND OTHER STRUCTURES. THE INSURED PROPERTY SUFFERED DAMAGE WHICH WAS AND IS COVERED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY. THE LOSS WAS SUDDEN AND ACCIDENTAL, AND THEREFORE A COVERED PERIL UNDER THE POLICY. THE INSURED PROMPTLY REPORTED THE LOSS TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY. AFTER AN INSUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION AND THE PREPARATION OF A LACK LUSTER ESTIMATE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY UNDERVALUED AND UNDERPAID THE DAMAGES TO THE INSURED PROPERTY. DUE TO CONCERNS WITH THE DELAY IN THE INVESTIGATION AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY’S UNDERVALUE AND UNDERPAYMENT OF THE CLAIM, THE INSURED RETAINED AN EXPERIENCED AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED PUBLIC ADJUSTER, CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC. TO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF DAMAGE. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIRS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY CURRENTLY STANDS AT APPROXIMATELY $ 137,572.88. THE INSURED HAS PROVIDED THE INSURER WITH DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THE REPAIRS OF THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CLAIM FROM CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC. AND THAT THE INSURED HAS MADE AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICY BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PAY THE FULL BENEFITS TO WHICH THE INSURED IS ENTITLED FOR THE LOSS. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS BREACHED THE POLICY OF INSURANCE BY FAILING TO PAY ALL OF THE BENEFITS DUE UNDER THE POLICY. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY SETTLE THIS CLAIM AND HAS DEPRIVED THE INSURED OF A PROPER RESOLUTION OF THIS CLAIM. THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE THE LOSS AND HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO TENDER THE PROPER AMOUNT OF INSURANCE BENEFITS DUE AND OWING TO THE INSURED. IN ORDER TO CURE THE CONDUCT GIVING RISE TO THE VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST COMPLETE A PROPER EVALUATION OF THE DAMAGES VIA QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS AND IMMEDIATELY ISSUE PAYMENT FOR ALL THE COVERED DAMAGES PRESENTED BY THE INSURED, AND CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC. IN ADDITION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST ISSUE PAYMENT TO THE INSURED FOR REASONABLE FEES, COSTS, AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST IF REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATUTES. AS AN ALTERNATIVE CURE OPTION, THE INSURANCE COMPANY MAY CURE THE ALLEGATIONS GIVING RISE TO THIS NOTICE BY TENDERING A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 137,572.88 LESS THE APPLICABLE DEDUCTIBLE, WITHIN THE 60-DAY , CURE PERIOD, JOINTLY PAYABLE TO ” CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC. ” AND THE NAMED INSURED, “ROSA JAMES.”
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
sm1130@universalproperty.com 01-10-2025 January 10, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 793868 Filing Date: 11/22/2024 Complainant: Rosa James Insureds: Rosa James Policy No.: 592-441-863 Claim No.: FL24-0121260-J424 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Jason Manten, on behalf of Complainant, Rosa James (also referenced as “Insured.”) As a preliminary matter, the Complainant prematurely filed the Notice, and it is therefore legally deficient. Pursuant to Sec. 627.70131(7)(a) Fla. Stat., an insurer has sixty (60) days from the date it receives notice of a supplemental claim to make a coverage determination unless there are factors beyond its control that prevents a coverage determination. The Complainant submitted notice of a supplemental claim to Universal on October 24, 2024. The instant Notice was filed twenty-nine (29) days after receipt of the supplemental claim, and therefore well within the 60-day period allowed to an insurer to pay or deny a claim pursuant to Florida law. Thus, the Notice is legally deficient. The Notice alleges violations of Secs. 624.155 and 626.9541, Fla. Stats. Universal specifically denies each allegation contained in the Notice. Additionally, Universal denies it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the adjudication of this matter. With that said,?Universal asserts the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. and Florida law. The Notice is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 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 Sec. 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...; and 5. a statement that the Notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) created form DFS-10-363, which sets out fifteen (15) requirements the Complainant(s) must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. "must be strictly construed." Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant(s) specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).). The Notice fails to meet the requirements of Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. on several grounds. First, regarding 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 Complainant lists four (4) reasons for filing the Notice, including claim denial, claim delay, unfair trade practice and unsatisfactory settlement offer. However, the Complainant’s allegations regarding these “Reasons for Notice” are unsupported by facts anywhere in the Notice. The Notice asserts general allegations consisting of boilerplate, conclusory and inaccurate statements without the required specificity or context. As an example, the Notice states in part: “EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES RESULTING IN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS AS SET FORTH WITHIN THIS CRN: 1) FAILURE TO PAY CLAIM IN FULL; 2) FAILURE TO PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 3) FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE CLAIM; 4) FAILURE TO ADJUST LOSS; 5) FAILURE TO ACT IN DUE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE CLAIM; 6) PLACING FINANCIAL INTEREST OF INSURER BEFORE THAT OF POLICY HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS; 7) FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EVALUATE AND MANAGE ADJUSTERS; 8) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DENY COVERAGE, PAY LESS, DELAY PAYMENT AND OTHERWISE “LOW BALL” OR “STONE WALL” CLAIM; 9) THE REASONS FOR THIS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IMPROPER TRAINING, SUPERVISION, AND/OR MOTIVATION OF ADJUSTERS AND CLAIMS SUPERVISORS. THE INSURER APPEARS TO HAVE FAILED TO ADOPT THE PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE FULL PAYMENT AND PROMPT PAYMENT FOR THE LOSS IS NOT OCCURRING.” The Complainant’s boilerplate assertions as outlined above include no facts and do not provide any specificity as to how Universal allegedly violated any policy provision or statute. As an additional example, the Notice states “THE INSURED RETAINED AN EXPERIENCED AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED PUBLIC ADJUSTER, CORBITT PUBLIC ADJUSTING, LLC. TO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF DAMAGE. THE ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIRS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY CURRENTLY STANDS AT APPROXIMATELY $ 137,572.88… BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO PAY THE FULL BENEFITS TO WHICH THE INSURED IS ENTITLED FOR THE LOSS.” The Complainant fails to specify any facts to support these conclusory statements or any facts to support that the amount claimed by the Insured is what is owed for the claim. As previously mentioned, the Insured failed to allow Universal the full statutorily permitted time period to pay or deny the Insured’s supplemental claim before filing the instant Notice. In addition, when asked to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated, the Complainant asserts a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) for “[f]ailing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).” However, this is not applicable in a first party property claim. Moreover, the Notice generally alleges Universal violated Sec. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Fla. Stat. by “[m]isrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” However, the Notice does not specify any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal, what was allegedly misrepresented and does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations. The Notice is replete with boilerplate and conclusory statements in lieu of specifying facts regarding any alleged misconduct or statutory violations. 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). As a result, the Complainant fails to comply with Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat., because it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations. The Notice does not reference any specific policy language but instead states: “VARIOUS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROVISIONS GOVERNING COVERAGE FOR ROOF DAMAGE, WATER DAMAGE, MOLD, HAIL DAMAGE, AND/OR WINDSTORM DAMAGE, THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION(S), THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURER; AND COVERAGE A – DWELLING; COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES; COVERAGE D – ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSES.” The Notice is broad in scope and fails to identify the “specific policy language” relevant to any alleged violation. The Notice overbroadly references a number of potential policy sections and/or provisions but fails to specify any actual facts regarding how those sections or provisions were violated. Moreover, by stating “various language throughout the policy,” without limitation, the Complainant has in essence cited the entire policy which provides no guidance or explanation, such that Universal is left to wonder what policy provisions Complainant believes were allegedly violated. Therefore, it is unclear what, if any, policy language pertains to any allegation. General, vague, or overbroad references to the entire policy do not satisfy the specificity required by Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. As such, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. See generally Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Third, the Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. To comply with Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat., the Complainant(s) must name the individual(s) involved with specificity related to the purported violation(s) to allow Universal to investigate the allegations properly. The Notice lacks the requisite specificity required by Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. because the Notice states “N/A” which clearly defeats the requirement in the DFS Form to provide specificity in order to put the carrier on notice and provide an opportunity to investigate any allegation with a specific individual. The Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to whom the Complainant is asserting has knowledge as to any allegation contained in the Notice. Specific identification of a person or persons with the most knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because, as noted, the Complainant alleges that Universal “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” The Notice fails to include any specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations, what was misrepresented, when any of these misrepresentations were made and/or to whom any alleged misrepresentation was made to. Accordingly, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Lastly, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Universal can “cure” the alleged defects without paying benefits not due and owing to the Insured. A Civil Remedy Notice aims 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). However, Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat., does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever amount its insureds demand. Id. at 1282. On the contrary, the Florida Supreme Court holds that the scope of what can be “cured” in responding to a Civil Remedy Notice, is limited to contractual amounts due to the insureds. See Id. at 1281. The Complainant demands extra-contractual damages not owed under the policy in the Notice. Here, the Notice demands, among other things, that to cure the alleged defects, Universal must “ISSUE PAYMENT TO THE INSURED FOR REASONABLE FEES, COSTS…” Universal is only obligated to pay contractual amounts owed to cure a civil remedy. See id. at 1278. As such, the Notice is deficient as it does not provide Universal an opportunity to “cure” as proscribed under Florida law. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainant failed to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form in the Notice with the requisite specificity as stated herein including, but not limited to, failing to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation; failing to identify the person or persons representing the insurer who is most responsible for/knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations in the Notice; failing to provide sufficient facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violations; and failing to provide a means whereby Universal can cure the alleged violations in the Notice without potentially paying extra-contractual amounts which are not due and owing to cure a civil remedy notice. Therefore, the Notice is insufficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. See Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Accordingly, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with Universal’s response to the Notice. On September 19, 2024, Universal was untimely notified by Darr Schackow Insurance Agency that the insured location was damaged on August 5, 2024. Based upon the Insured’s lack of compliance with the required Policy conditions, unfortunately Universal was not permitted to inspect the property nor was it provided with all material documents and/or information necessary to make a coverage determination. Consequently, on October 8, 2024, Universal advised the Insured it was closing the claim due to the Insured’s failure to comply with her post-loss obligations. On November 21, 2024, Universal was finally permitted to inspect the property and document any visible damage. On October 24, 2024, the Insured submitted, for the first time, an estimate totaling $137,572.88 prepared by Corbitt Public Adjusting, LLC on her behalf. Pursuant to Section 627.70131(7)(a), Florida Statutes, an insurer has sixty (60) days from the date a supplemental claim is received to make a coverage determination unless there are factors beyond its control that prevent a coverage determination. On November 22, 2024, the instant Notice was filed, twenty-nine (29) days later. As such, the Notice is legally deficient. Notwithstanding, on or about December 7, 2024, pursuant to the terms of the Policy, Universal advised the Insured that there was no available coverage for the claim. Universal did not breach any duty to its Insured. An insurer has no obligation to pay whatever amount its insureds demand, especially when the Insured has not permitted the carrier the requisite statutory period to investigate the supplemental claim. Accordingly, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the Notice lack factual support and are without merit. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Universal complied with all policy provisions and applicable Florida Statutes and law regarding the adjudication of this claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position regarding this matter and fully responds to the Notice filed by the Complainant. Sincerely, /s/ Stephen Methe Stephen Methe
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