Filing Number: 794277
|
| Filing Accepted: 11/26/2024 |
| Last/Business Name
*
|
|
|
MOYER
|
|
First Name |
|
KATHLEEN |
|
| Street Address
*
|
|
2904 STALLION DRIVE |
| City, State Zip
*
|
|
ORLANDO,
FL
32822
|
| Email Address
*
|
|
MOYERKATHLEEN0@GMAIL.COM |
| Complainant Type:
*
|
|
Insured |
|
| Last/Business Name* |
|
MOYER |
|
First Name |
|
KATHLEEN |
| Policy # * |
|
0927023521 |
|
Claim #* |
|
7007745354-1 |
|
Attorney is Applicable
|
| Last Name* |
KRAPF
First Name *
GRANT
Initial
W
|
| Street Address* |
|
2790 SUNSET POINT RD |
| City, State Zip* |
|
CLEARWATER
,
FL
33759
|
| Email Address * |
|
GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM |
|
|
| Insurer Type
*
|
|
 Authorized Insurer
 Unauthorized Insurer
|
|
|
| Insurer Name |
|
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
FOREMOST PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
|
| Insurer Name* |
|
|
| Street Address* |
|
|
| City, State Zip* |
|
,
|
|
NAIC Company Code 11800 |
|
|
| Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):*
CASEY DEELY, JIMMY PACHECO, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
|
| Type of Insurance
*
Residential Property & Casualty
|
|
|
| Reason for Notice
*
|
|
|
Claim Denial
|
|
|
Claim Delay
|
|
|
Unfair Trade Practice
|
|
|
Other
:
Misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy
|
|
|
Other
:
Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
|
|
|
Other
:
Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
|
|
|
Other
:
Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
|
|
|
Other
:
Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
|
|
|
Other
:
Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
|
|
|
Other
:
Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
|
|
|
*
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.
|
|
| 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)(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.
Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
|
| |
*
Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.
Foremost Insurance Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the policyholder and the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; 8) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for; 9) shifting the burden of investigating the loss onto the Insured; and 10) misrepresenting the terms of the insurance policy.
On or about June 19, 2024, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's suffered a loss caused by wind. The Insured timely submitted a claim to the Insurer for wind damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 7007745354-1 to the loss and inadequately investigated. Subsequently, in a coverage determination letter dated July 1, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. The claims determination letter failed to comply with Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) as it did not include a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts, for the denial. The letter simply copies several policy exclusions with no explanation.
The Insurer misrepresented the loss and issued a wrongful denial. The Insurer based this denial on the rationale that the damage sustained was a result of " wear and tear to the roof which is allowing rain to leak in." However, the Insurer failed to conduct an adequate investigation and never retained an engineer to ascertain the cause of damage to the Insured's roof. Although the Insurer and Insured are in dispute about how the roof was damaged, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697.
Given the denial, the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage, the Insured retained remediation services including but not limited to tarping for which the Insured paid $2,500.00 out-of-pocket. The Insured additionally retained claims advocates who, after assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, sent invoices for mitigation services, contracts for emergency remediation, photographs, and a letter of representation to the Insurer. Subsequently, the Insurer sent a second coverage determination letter, dated August 5, 2024, in which it notified the Insured it was maintaining its decision to deny the claim. As this wrongful denial resulted in further damages, the Insured was again forced to shell out funds for initial repairs and emergency remediation services. To date, the Insurer has failed to indemnify the Insured for their covered loss.
Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims.
Additionally, Insurer shifted the burden and cost of investigating and insuring the loss onto the Insured. During their investigation, the insurer's adjuster did not use a moisture meter, despite the presence of interior water damage. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that the Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. The Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages.
In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim.
The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following:
1. Claim denial
2. Claim delay
3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured
5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured
6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured
7. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's interests
8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured
9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured
10. Conducting inadequate investigations
11. Making material misrepresentations
Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must:
(1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss.
(2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract.
A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com.
Via E-mail:
Foremost Insurance Company
P. O. Box 268994
Oklahoma City, OK 73126
myclaim@foremost.com
|
|
|
*
|
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
|