Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     795037
Filing Accepted:  12/3/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
REZK REAL ESTATE HOLDING INC   First Name  
Street Address * 870 MACK BAYOU ROAD
City, State Zip * SANTA ROSA BEACH, FL 32459
Email Address * ASREZK1@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   REZK REAL ESTATE HOLDING INC   First Name  
Policy # * AL92-001918-00 Claim #* SWYCSCP00272
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* OLADIPO First Name * ABIDEMI Initial
Street Address* 15257 AMBERLY DRIVE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33647
Email Address * AOLADIPO@MSO.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CLEAR BLUE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 37745
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CLEAR BLUE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, CLIFF SPILLER, DAN CONNELL, KELLY DORMAN, MELVIN SMITH, ALONG WITH ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY THE INSURER IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial 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)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM Various provisions in this policy restrict coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout this policy, the words "you" and "your" refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations. The words "we", "us" and "our" refer to the company providing this insurance. Other words and phrases that appear in quotation marks have special meaning. Refer to Section H. Definitions. A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. Covered Property, as used in this Coverage Part, means the type of property described in this section, A.1., and limited in A.2. Property Not Covered, if a Limit Of Insurance is shown in the Declarations for that type of property. a. Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations, including: (1) Completed additions; (2) Fixtures, including outdoor fixtures; (3) Permanently installed: (a) Machinery; and (b) Equipment; (4) Personal property owned by you that is used to maintain or service the building or structure or its premises, including: (a) Fire-extinguishing equipment; (b) Outdoor furniture; (c) Floor coverings; and (d) Appliances used for refrigerating, ventilating, cooking, dishwashing or laundering; (5) If not covered by other insurance: (a) Additions under construction, alterations and repairs to the building or structure; b. Your Business Personal Property consists of the following property located in or on the building or structure described in the Declarations or in the open (or in a vehicle) within 100 feet of the building or structure or within 100 feet of the premises described in the Declarations, whichever distance is greater: (b) Materials, equipment, supplies and temporary structures, on or within 100 feet of the described premises, used for making additions, alterations or repairs to the building or structure. … 3. Covered Causes Of Loss See applicable Causes Of Loss form as shown in the Declarations. …
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On May 31, 2023, Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company (“Clear Blue”) issued policy number AL92-001918-00 (the “Policy”) to Rezk Real Estate Holding Inc (“Insured”) for the bulding located at 870 Mack Bayou Road, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 (“Insured Property”) for the period of May 31, 2023 to May 31, 2024. The Policy provides Building limits of $800,000.00 subject to a $40,000.00 Windstorm or Hail Percentage deductible. The Policy provides coverage for direct damage to the Insured Property as a result of wind and/or hail damages. On June 9, 2023, a tornado struck the Insured Property, causing significant damage. The event resulted in extensive roof damage, leading to interior water damage and other associated damages. Additional impacts included harm to the monument sign and the accumulation of substantial tree and landscaping debris. These damages were visibly evidenced by cracked roof tiles and widespread debris across the Insured Property. On June 22, 2023, the Insured promptly reported the claim to Clear Blue and granted unfettered access to Clear Blue and its representatives for inspection of the Insured Property. Clear Blue acknowledged the claim and assigned desk adjuster Cliff Spiller for its handling. Additionally, Clear Blue designated field adjuster Dan Conell to conduct an inspection of the Insured Property, which took place on June 29, 2023. Following the inspection, Mr. Conell prepared an itemized estimate of damages to the Insured Property, amounting to $22,724.12 in Replacement Cost Value. Subsequently, on August 11, 2023, Mr. Spiller notified the Insured that Clear Blue’s evaluation of the damages did not exceed the $40,000.00 windstorm or hail deductible. As a result, Clear Blue declined to issue any payment for the claim. Regrettably, Clear Blue and its representatives, including Cliff Spiller and Dan Conell, lacked the necessary qualifications to properly assess the damages to the Insured Property and/or willfully disregarded the extent of the damages, seemingly to benefit Clear Blue’s financial interests. This was evident in the inadequate estimate produced by Mr. Conell, which failed to fairly account for the full scope of the damages sustained by the Insured Property. Such actions constitute a misrepresentation of pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions related to the coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Moreover, this reflects a recurrent business practice by Clear Blue across the state of Florida, wherein it engages adjusters and other representatives for the purpose of undervaluing the actual damages to insured properties, thereby maximizing Clear Blue’s profits at the expense of its insureds. This conduct demonstrates Clear Blue’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, as required under Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. As a result of Clear Blue’s inadequate investigation of the claim, the Insured was compelled to secure legal representation to assist in presenting its claim to Clear Blue. On August 15, 2023, a letter of representation was sent to Clear Blue on behalf of the Insured. Clear Blue acknowledged the Insured’s legal representation in a letter dated September 5, 2023, signed by Mr. Spiller, in which Clear Blue requested additional information to proceed with the adjustment of the claim—despite this not being the Insured’s responsibility. To support its claim, the Insured, through its legal representatives, retained Structural Engineering and Inspections, Inc. (“SEI”) to conduct an engineering inspection and provide an expert report regarding the cause and origin of the damages to the Insured Property. The SEI report, dated December 12, 2023, and signed by Byron K. Anderson, P.E., concluded that the tornado on June 9, 2023, was classified as an EF-1 event by the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit, with recorded maximum winds of up to 105 mph. SEI further determined that the physical damage to the building's roof was directly caused by this tornado. Additionally, SEI noted that the widespread damage to the roof tiles, coupled with the unavailability of replacement tiles, rendered the roof irreparable and necessitated its full replacement. SEI also produced an itemized estimate of damages in the amount of $230,774.75. The Insured also engaged a general contractor to prepare an estimate of the actual costs required to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insured retained LSC Construction Consultants (“LSC”), which provided an itemized estimate totaling $165,688.40. This amount reflects the true cost of restoring the Insured Property, considering the current market rates for labor, materials, and permits in the area. All of this information was promptly provided to Clear Blue to aid in its adjustment of the claim but it was ultimately ignored as the Insured was not properly paid for the covered damages. Throughout the handling of this claim, the Insured has fully complied with all Duties After Loss provisions outlined in the Policy. This includes promptly reporting the claim, granting unfettered access to the Insured Property for inspection, providing all available information and documentation related to the claim, notarizing a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss on June 3, 2024, to attest to the damages incurred, and retaining experts—including attorneys, engineers, and general contractors—to present a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the damages sustained on June 9, 2023. In stark contrast, Clear Blue has failed to act in good faith to settle the claim when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so had it acted fairly, honestly, and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, as required under Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Clear Blue has ignored the Insured’s repeated requests for assistance and disregarded the Insured’s considerable efforts to adjust the claim—efforts that are not the Insured’s responsibility under the Policy and case law. Furthermore, Clear Blue has failed to promptly provide a reasonable written explanation for the denial of the claim or any offer of a compromise settlement, as mandated by Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes. On January 31, 2024, Clear Blue reassigned the claim to desk adjuster Melvin Smith. Mr. Smith, via email, stated that Clear Blue had reviewed the reports provided by the Insured's engineer and building experts but determined that the amount of covered damages did not exceed the Policy's deductible. However, Mr. Smith failed to provide any rationale for this coverage determination, did not specify which aspects of the Insured’s reports required clarification, and denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based on the available information, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Furthermore, Mr. Smith continued communicating with the Insured’s representative, making vague and generalized requests for additional information, despite the fact that the Insured had already provided all relevant documentation regarding the loss. These ambiguous requests lacked specificity as to what information was needed or why it was necessary, representing a clear and deliberate attempt to fabricate a failure-to-comply defense under the Duties After Loss provision. Ultimately, the Insured filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation (NOI) on June 26, 2024. In response, on July 24, 2024, Clear Blue requested appraisal of the matter. However, appraisal was not appropriate for several reasons, the most significant being Clear Blue's failure to comply with the statutory timeline under Section 627.70152, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the statute, the insurer must respond to an NOI within 10 business days. Given that the NOI was filed on June 26, 2024, the deadline for Clear Blue to respond was July 11, 2024. By failing to request appraisal within this timeframe, Clear Blue missed its opportunity to invoke appraisal. Furthermore, the statute requires that the appraisal process be completed within 90 days of the 10-business-day response period. Had Clear Blue timely requested appraisal by July 11, 2024, the deadline to complete the appraisal process would have been October 9, 2024. Clear Blue's untimely response renders its appraisal request invalid. Notwithstanding the above, the Insured, in compliance with the terms of the Policy, named Tom Gannon as its appraiser on July 25, 2023. However, Clear Blue failed to acknowledge this communication and neglected to advance the appraisal process or properly continue its claims investigation. This constitutes a violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), Florida Statutes, which requires insurers to promptly acknowledge and act upon communications regarding claims. To date, and as a direct result of Clear Blue’s mishandling of the claim and its failure to establish and implement proper standards for the investigation of claims, the Insured remains unable to fully recover from the loss. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Clear Blue has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of the Insured’s claim of loss. Clear Blue has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of claims, claims handling, and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations as set forth above. Clear Blue has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the Insured’s claim for damages. Clear Blue has failed to promptly settle the Insured’s claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the Insured’s pleas otherwise, Clear Blue has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation. Moreover, Clear Blue has not attempted in good faith to settle the Insured’s claim 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 their interests. Clear Blue has done everything possible to delay and/or deny the claim. Furthermore, Clear Blue is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insureds. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)(“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…”). Clear Blue was timely put on notice of the Insured’s loss and claim for damages. The Insured have complied with all of Clear Blue’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 Insured, who continues to be held hostage unless/until Clear Blue engages in good faith claims handling. To date, Clear Blue has still refused to fully pay the amount owed under the Policy. To make matters worse, the Insured has incurred incredible costs and efforts to adjust their own loss, with detailed and substantiated damages presented to Clear Blue in the form of a repair estimate evidencing $230,774.75 in Replacement Cost Valuation. Clear Blue’s stubborn and/or negligent refusal to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered damages has resulted in a confluence of consequential damages including, but not limited to, excess damages stemming from Clear Blue’s maladroit adjustment of the claim, the unaffordability of the Insured Property given the loss of utility and the indefinite delay to address the ongoing dispute, additional costs and expenses to adjust its own loss that include retaining a public adjuster and an attorney, among many other otherwise unnecessary consequences but for the negligence and nefarious business practices of Clear Blue. It is clear that Clear Blue is not treating the Insured 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 Insured; and ignoring the Insured’s pleas for assistance; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing Clear Blue’s interests before the Insured’s interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the Insured despite the fact that Clear Blue has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay and/or deny full recovery to the Insured, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. Clear Blue’s actions are in violation of Sections 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), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior by Clear Blue that demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for 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, Clear Blue must: (1) Create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees, which will avoid future statutory violations as set forth above, and prevent this from occurring in the future; (2) Clear Blue must create and implement adequate guidelines for the proper investigation and evaluation of these type of claims and for the training and supervision of employees with regard to these type of claims to ensure that the claims handling procedure with regard to these types of losses are adequate to prevent other insureds from being treated unfairly and wrongfully; (3) Clear Blue must pay the Insured $230,774.75 for all of the damages sustained as a result of the loss, less the applicable deductible, limitations, plus all contractual damages owed, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, under Sections 57.041 and 627.70131(5)(a) Florida Statutes; and (4) Clear Blue must act fairly and honestly towards its Insured and with due regard for their interests in attempting to settle its Insured’s claim.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 01-29-2025 January 29, 2025 Via E-Mail Only Rezk Real Estate Holding, Inc. c/o Abedemi Oladipo, Esq. Mubarak, Sherif, & Oladipo, PLLC 15257 Amberly Dr. Tampa, FL 33647 aoladipo@mso.law Re: Insured: Rezk Real Estate Holding, Inc. Date of Loss: June 9, 2023 Claim Number: SWYCSCP00272 Policy Number: AL92-001918-00 DFS Filing Number: 795037 Dear Mr. Oladipo, As you know, my firm has been retained to represent Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company (“Clear Blue”) in the above-referenced matter. Please allow this letter to acknowledge that Clear Blue is in receipt of the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations bearing Filing No. 795037 (the “Notice” or the “CRN”) filed on behalf of Rezk Real Estate Holding, Inc. (the “Insured”). The Notice is void because it is legally invalid. Beyond that, the allegations in the Notice have no merit. I. The Civil Remedy Notice is legally invalid. The filing of a valid Civil Remedy Notice is a condition precedent to an action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Id. “[A]ny statute in derogation of the common law requires strict compliance with its provisions by one seeking to avail himself of its benefits.” Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Devs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1986). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires a civil remedy notice to provide specific information to put the insurer on notice of the alleged violation. Additionally, a civil remedy notice must be “specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days.” Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 8:04CV1615T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the Notice is invalid because it does not contain all of the information required by section 624.155. Also, it is invalid because it lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice to Clear Blue of the alleged wrongdoing, as discussed below. First, the CRN does not provide any specific supporting facts and merely makes conclusory statements. No specific facts identifying what, if anything, Clear Blue did or failed to do with regard to the claim were provided. Instead, the allegations are mere self-serving and conclusory statements without substance or relation to any alleged violation. For instance, the CRN falsely alleges that Clear Blue “denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based on the available information, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes.” However, coverage was never denied for the subject claim. Additionally, the Notice alleges, “Given that the NOI was filed on June 26, 2024, the deadline for Clear Blue to respond was July 11, 2024. By failing to request appraisal within this timeframe, Clear Blue missed its opportunity to invoke appraisal.” However, there is no legal support cited in support the proposition that deadline for a party to invoke appraisal is in response to a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. Additionally, the insured does not cite any policy language that states that appraisal must be invoked no later than in response to a Notice of Intent. This is presumably because no such legal authority or policy provision exists. These types of conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations undermine the purpose of the CRN requirement preventing Clear Blue from investigating and resolving any of the alleged violations. The failure to provide any specific supporting facts for the allegations renders the CRN invalid. Second, the CRN fails to relate the specific policy language to the alleged violation as required by Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. However, the CRN makes a blanket reference to numerous coverages under the policy without explanation or specification. This, in turn, this prevents Clear Blue from addressing any issues regarding the policy the Complainant alleges to have been violated which is the underlying purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN, therefore, is statutorily deficient because it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Third, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists ten (10) different statutes which Clear Blue allegedly violated. However, the CRN fails to provide any relevant facts supporting the alleged violations or relating these alleged violations to the ten (10) cited statutes. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to relate the cited statutes to any facts explaining why the Insured believes Clear Blue violated the statutes, Clear Blue is unable to properly respond, and the CRN is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Finally, the Notice is invalid because it conditions Clear Blue’s ability to “cure” by requiring Clear Blue to pay for things and do things that are not required under Talat. In Talat, the Florida Supreme Court said that to “cure” a Notice, an insurer must pay the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy.” However, the Notice here demands payment of money that is not owed pursuant to the policy, such as attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. It is improper to demand such items as a cure for a civil remedy notice. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282–83; see also Francois v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 01-CV-8070, 2002 WL 33760405, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2002) aff'd, 49 Fed. Appx. 290 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussing whether a demand of attorneys’ fees in a civil remedy notice is proper). As such, the CRN is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Because the CRN fails to comply with the information requirements promulgated by the Department of Financial Services, it is legally invalid. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100072, *7 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Again, in serving this response, Clear Blue reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with a properly completed and statutorily compliant CRN. As the CRN fails to strictly comply with the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, it is legally insufficient and should be rejected. II. The Civil Remedy Notice Lacks Merit. The Notice also lacks merit. During the initial claims investigation, Clear Blue opened coverage for the subject claim but found that the covered damages did not exceed the applicable policy deductible of $40,000.00. On July 8, 2024, Claims Specialist Melvin Smith, on behalf of Clear Blue, responded to the Notice of Intent filed by the insured’s counsel (Mr. Mohammad Mubarak) by offering $50,000 new money (on top of the $40,000 policy deductible) in a good faith attempt to resolve the subject claim in exchange for a release. Mr. Smith advised Mr. Mubarak that the offer would expire on July 23, 2024. On July 24, 2024, having received no response from the insured or its counsel, Mr. Smith, on behalf of Clear Blue, wrote to Mr. Mubarak to advise of Clear Blue’s invocation its contractual right to resolve the subject claim via appraisal. In that correspondence, Clear Blue notified the insured of its selected appraiser, Keith Herb of TelaClaims, and provided Mr. Herb’s contact information. On July 24, 2024, Mr. Mubarak wrote to Mr. Smith to object to participating in appraisal, claiming that Clear Blue has “blown the deadline to request appraisal” because it did not request appraisal in response to the Notice of Intent. Curiously, Mr. Mubarak also stated that the “deadline for appraisal to have been completed had it been timely requested would have been October 9, 2024.” However, this allegation is both factually, contractually, and legally baseless. Nevertheless, Mr. Smith conferred with defense counsel and then advised Mr. Mubarak via email on July 25, 2024, that the subject policy’s appraisal provision does not contain a deadline by which appraisal can be invoked during the claims process. Because the parties disagree as to the amount of the loss, Clear Blue again reiterated its invocation of appraisal pursuant to the terms of the policy, not in breach of it. That same day, on July 25, 2024, Mr. Mubarak wrote to Mr. Smith and stated: “In compliance with the terms of the policy, the insured names their competent and impartial appraiser as follows. . .” The CRN also alleges that the insured “in compliance with the terms of the policy, named Tom Gannon as its appraiser on July 25, 2023.” Notably, the insured disclosed its appraiser in 2024, and nevertheless, the CRN concedes that appraisal was invoked and that the insured participated in the same pursuant to, and in compliance with, the policy. By virtue of these admissions, the insured has conceded that Clear Blue invoked appraisal pursuant to the policy, not in breach of it, and certainly not in bad faith. Thereafter, as the insured and its counsel know, the carrier’s and the insured’s appraiser’s inspection that was originally scheduled to take place on September 3, 2024, had to be rescheduled. as Mr. Herb contracted COVID and was unable to attend. The parties’ appraisers then rescheduled and completed the joint inspection on September 16, 2024. Thereafter, the appraisers were unable to reach an agreement and engaged an umpire, Keith Womback. Due to the umpire’s schedule, the umpire’s inspection could not take place until December 17, 2024. Despite the confirmed and pending umpire inspection, on December 3, 2024, counsel for the insured filed the subject CRN, somehow blaming Clear Blue for any and all delays regarding the completion of appraisal. On December 13, 2024, the undersigned sent a letter acknowledging the CRN and requesting clarification on the allegations of bad faith and included a request for information seeking supporting documentation. In response, counsel for the insured advised that they had, in fact, already filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract against Clear Blue on December 12, 2024, even though the appraisal process had not yet been completed. No other response or documentation was provided by counsel for the insured in response to the undersigned’s December 13, 2024, correspondence. On December 17, 2024, the umpire and appraisers’ inspection took place as planned. On January 7, 2025, the undersigned received a copy of the executed appraisal award dated December 31, 2024, which was signed by Mr. Womback and the insured’s appraiser, Thomas Gannon. Notably, the insured’s appraiser agreed with the umpire’s award and valuation of the amount of the loss, as outlined in the final appraisal award, which broke down as follows: On January 8, 2025, the undersigned conferred with Mr. Mubarak to discuss the appraisal award and lawsuit. In that correspondence, Mr. Mubarak agreed to dismiss the subject lawsuit upon receipt of payment of the appraisal award. The parties memorialized this agreement in writing via email on January 9, 2025. On January 14, 2025, Clear Blue sent the insured, via its counsel, correspondence accepting the appraisal award, and issuing payment of the final appraisal award as follows: Building Total Appraisal Award Replacement Cost $215,801.51 $215,801.51 Appraisal Award Recoverable Depreciation (-) ($9,637.89) ($9,637.89) Deductible (-) ($40,000.00) ($40,000.00) Sub-Total $166,163.62 $166,163.62 Excess of Limit(s) (-) ($0) $ 0.00 Net Payment $166,163.62 $166,163.62 On January 17, 2025, the appraisal award payment was delivered to counsel for insured. On January 23, 2025, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff filed the Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of the breach of contract action, as there is no remaining contractual dispute or damages at issue as a result of the timely payment of the final appraisal award. In light of the above, Clear Blue has issued substantial claim payment of the full ACV amount of the final appraisal award less the deductible, pursuant to the policy, not in breach of it. Further, Clear Blue timely issued payment of the appraisal award in full at ACV pursuant to the policy and prior to the expiration of the CRN cure period. At no point has Clear Blue received any documentation or information from the insured reflecting that the repairs to the property were made that exceeded the ACV amounts to allow for the release of recoverable depreciation. Clear Blue is not required to pay an exorbitant and inflated estimate simply because one is submitted by the insured and/or estimator and/or public adjuster who is not licensed to make the actual repairs to the property, especially considering the binding appraisal award which sets the amount of the loss for this matter. Moreover, it was the insured’s appraiser who accepted and agreed with the umpire’s award and valuation of the amount of the loss, as outlined in the final appraisal award. Clear Blue does not, by this letter or otherwise, waive any rights or defenses relating to the existence of coverage or liability for the alleged loss. Clear Blue also reserves the right to rely upon any other policy defenses, limitations, exclusions and conditions that are warranted. All rights and defenses are specifically and expressly hereby reserved. Accordingly, Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Rezk Real Estate Holding, Inc. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /s/ Cristina P. Cambo Cristina P. Cambo, 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