Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     795846
Filing Accepted:  12/9/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
NAVORRO   First Name   JON PAUL
Street Address * 1333 KELLOGG DR
City, State Zip * TAVARES, FL 32778-49
Email Address * JONPNA@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   NAVORRO   First Name   JON PAUL
Policy # * 2MR07691124272 Claim #* 00201808089
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* LINE First Name * KACI Initial A
Street Address* 2431 LEE RD
City, State Zip* WINTER PARK , FL 32789
Email Address * KACI@TAGUSLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 42978
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT, AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THIS CLAIM.
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)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
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.

The complainant will abbreviate the full language policy for purposes of brevity while clearly identifying the significant portions so the Respondent may identify the full language... THIS VIOLATION REFERENCES THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE POLICY AND ITS AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS THAT PERTAIN TO COVERAGES FOR ROOF AND WATER DAMAGES (INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY) TO THE PROPERTY OF JON NAVORRO. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES COVERAGES - COVERAGE A - DWELLING AND ALL APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES THE COVERAGE B - OTHER STRUCTURES PORTION OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A - DWELLING AND COVERAGE B OTHER STRUCTURES, ITS APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES THE ORDINANCE AND LAW PORTION OF THE POLICY THAT WAS PURCHASED WITH PREMIUM DOLLARS PAID TO AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES SECTION I - CONDITIONS - SUBSECTION 3 LOSS SETTLEMENT AND ITS APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE POLICY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AMENDMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS. THIS VIOLATION ALSO REFERENCES FUNGI, WET OR DRY ROT OR BACTERIAL COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Section I Property Coverages provides coverage for the claim and there are no exclusions that apply. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY has failed to issue payment pursuant to the Loss Settlement Provision. On or about, September 24, 2024, during the coverage period while the policy was in full force and effect, the subject property sustained a sudden and accidental covered loss as a result of a hailstorm causing extensive damage to the property. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY (“AMERICAN SECURITY”) received timely notice of the claim and assigned claim number 00201808089. AMERICAN SECURITY performed a cursory inspection of the property that failed to retain the experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. AMERICAN SECURITY continued the intentional path of claim delay and underpayment by failing to implement policies and procedures for payment of clearly covered claims. AMERICAN SECURITY time and time again, relies upon “cookie-cutter” reports that less than ironically state the cause of the damage to be identical to those exclusions found inside of HERITAGE’s policy of insurance. AMERICAN SECURITY continues to fail to promptly settle the claim when its obligation to settle has, under all the circumstances, become reasonably clear. There is no question the roof of the Insured’s home was stuck by hail and winds so severe that caused damage and requiring a full roof replacement. Despite this, AMERICAN SECURITY denied coverage for the clearly covered loss. AMERICAN SECURITY continues to rely upon more restrictive definitions of damage that is not contained within the policy and appears to only look for damage that would not be covered while intentionally not photographing or documenting the extensive covered damage. However, AMERICAN SECURITY continues to use more restrictive definitions of definitions of “hail” to deny a hail claim. Furthermore, AMERICAN SECURITY intentionally did not photograph multiple damaged area of the Insured’s property and did not use clearly damaged property areas while determining the covered loss. AMERICAN SECURITY relies upon the report and estimate of its adjuster which bears little to no relationship to the actual, visible damage to the roof and its necessary repair/replacement. It is clear that AMERICAN SECURITY has put its own interest over that of its insured and has made this case about protecting its bottom line as opposed to living up to the contract of insurance it was paid premium dollars for. The insurer’s conduct in this case occurs with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice. AMERICAN SECURITY knows it has failed to issue proper payment for the clearly covered loss to include damages and repairs covered by the policy and Florida law. Moreover, AMERICAN SECURITY has failed to comply with its loss settlement provision. Rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its insured, AMERICAN SECURITY is delaying and denying the claim. Upon information and belief, AMERICAN SECURITY performs the subject actions as a business practice, including delaying and denying the claim and issuing "low ball" payments in an attempt to dissuade its insureds from pursuing the claim to the detriment of its insureds to increase financial profits. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY can cure the violations contained herein by issuing a payment for all contractual damages owed, per estimates of $33,986.27 plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. This willful and wanton business practice in reckless disregard for the right of insurer’s insureds and is a violation of Florida Statute 624.155(1)(B)(1) which states it is an unfair claims settlement practice in “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 interest.” This willful and wanton business practice of insurer, in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds, is in violation of Florida Statute 624.155(1)(B)(3), which defines unfair claims settlement practices to include “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.” This willful and wanton business practice of insurer, in reckless disregard for the rights of its insureds, is in violation of Florida Statute 626.9542(1)(I)(3)(a), which defines unfair claims settlement practices to include “failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.”
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
alaine.greenberg@hklaw.com 04-06-2025 VIA UPLOAD onto DFS website Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Insurance Regulation Consumer Assistance / Civil Remedy Section Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION DOI File No.: 795846 Complainant: Jon Paul Navorro Claim No.: 00201808089 Filed by: Kaci A. Line, Esq. Reported DOL: February 4, 2024 Dear Sir or Madam: American Security Insurance Company (“American Security”) received the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) submitted by Kaci A. Line, Esq., on behalf of Jon Paul Navorro (“Complainant”), accepted by the Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) on December 9, 2024. This matter relates to damages purportedly caused by hail to which American Security assigned claim number 00201808089 (the “Claim”). The Claim was reported under lender-placed certificate number 2MR112427202 (the “Certificate”) issued by American Security to Suntrust Mortgage, Inc, its successors and/or assigns (the “Lender”), as “Named Insured” and Complainant as “Borrower[s],” that insured the dwelling located at 1333 Kellogg Drive, Tavares, Florida, 32778 (the “Property”), as more fully set forth therein, between July 7, 2023 through July 7, 2024. As a general matter, American Security objects to the validity of the CRN, as it is deficient on its face. The CRN lacks the specificity required by s. 624.155(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The CRN provides nothing more than vague, ambiguous and conclusory allegations regarding what Complainant believes to be American Security’s motivations, positions and business practices – none of which are true or supported by any facts. Florida law is clear that a claimant is required to state with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” to allow the insurer to understand and cure any purported violation. Longpoint Condo. Assn. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1315810 (N.D. Fla. 2005). A written CRN which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The very purpose of the civil remedy notice, pursuant to Chapter 624, is to inform the insurer of alleged violations with specific information to encourage settlement of the subject claim. “The sixty-day window [as provided for in F.S. §624.155] is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Notice sent to the Department of Insurance concerning settlement violation(s) is intended to serve as a basis for the Department to assist in the settling of claims and to monitor the insurance industry. Id. However, whenever a complainant provides little in the way of adequate notice, the statutory intent of the CRN is frustrated. On July 8, 2024, Complainant reported hail damage to the property that allegedly occurred five months earlier on February 4, 2024. When reporting the Claim, Complainant advised American Security that he had not replaced the roof, notwithstanding that American Security paid to replace the roof in a prior Claim on July 13, 2022. Accordingly, American Security denied the Claim as duplicative. On December 9, 2024, Complainant filed his Notice of Intent to Initiate (“Notice”), alleging an incorrect date of loss of September 24, 2024. American Security acknowledged the Notice and reiterated its prior denial. The pre-loss condition of the roof was that it needed to be replaced, as acknowledged and covered by American Security for a recent covered loss. Complainant is not entitled to be paid twice for the same roof, having pocketed the money and never replaced same. Notwithstanding American Security previously paid to replace the roof less than two years earlier, which roof was not replaced, Complainant lists a number of reasons for submitting the CRN, many of which are inaccurate and/or completely devoid of facts – which further reflects the boilerplate nature of the allegations being asserted against American Security. Specifically, Complainant lists “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer” and “Unfair Trade Practice” as the reasons the CRN was submitted. However, the CRN fails to set forth any specific facts or accurate recitation of circumstances that would support these allegations. Nevertheless, American Security responds to these allegations by stating that they are without basis as American Security undertook a good faith investigation of the Claim. Meanwhile, Complainant failed to comply with the Certificate’s “Duties After Loss” by failing to replace the roof following the prior loss, and thus, failing to protect the property from further damage. Moreover, Complainant cites the following statutory provision under Fla. Stat. § 624.155, without any ultimate facts that support the empty and false accusations. As such, American Security rejects the same as vague and statutorily non-compliant, and further responds as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. American Security denied the Claim in accordance with the terms, conditions and exclusions of the Certificate and in doing so, has always acted fairly and honestly towards Complainant with due regard for their interests. Complainant has provided absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation in the CRN. 624.155(1)(b)(2): Denied. Inapplicable. No payment has been made as the Claim was denied in accordance with the terms, conditions and exclusions of the Certificate. As such, American Security has not failed to make a payment for the Claim which was not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. American Security has never attempted to settle one portion of the Certificate to influence settlements in other portions of the Certificate. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation has been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. American Security has adopted and continues to implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Moreover, American Security has never failed to adopt and implement these standards in such a way that would constitute a business practice. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. American Security has not misrepresented any pertinent facts or Certificate provisions relating to this matter and has not made any such misrepresentations in a way that would constitute a business practice. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. American Security had not failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to the Claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. American Security denied the Claim based upon review of all available information and in accordance with the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Certificate. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by the Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. American Security denied the Claim in accordance with the terms, conditions and exclusions of the Certificate and sent Complainant written correspondence regarding same. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. American Security denied the Claim and promptly sent correspondence explaining the details of its coverage determination to Complainant in its Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. American Security has not failed to notify Complainant of any additional information necessary for the processing of the Claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. Finally, the CRN incorrectly claims that Complainant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs; because, in addition to the proper denial of the Claim, at the time the Certificate was issued statutory fees had been repealed. American Security denies all the allegations in the CRN as false, unfounded and completely devoid of merit or factual predicate. At no time has American Security ever acted in bad faith. At all times material to this Claim, American Security: (a) acted in good faith to investigate the Claim, acted fairly and honestly in its dealings with the Complainant and his representatives; (b) promptly investigated the Claim; (c) acknowledged and acted promptly in response to all communications with the Complainant; and (d) complied with its obligations in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance contract and Florida law. If you are in need of or seek any further information, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, s/, Esq. cc: Kaci A. Line, Esq. Andrea N. Aguilar, Esq.
alaine.greenberg@hklaw.com 02-07-2025 VIA UPLOAD onto DFS website Florida Department of Financial Services Division of Insurance Regulation Consumer Assistance / Civil Remedy Section Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Re: CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATION DOI File No.: 795846 Complainant: Jon Paul Navorro Claim No.: 00201808089 Filed by: Kaci A. Line, Esq. Reported DOL: February 4, 2024 Dear Sir or Madam: American Security Insurance Company (“American Security”) received the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) submitted by Kaci A. Line, Esq., on behalf of Jon Paul Navorro (“Complainant”), accepted by the Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) on December 9, 2024. This matter relates to damages purportedly caused by hail to which American Security assigned claim number 00201808089 (the “Claim”). The Claim was reported under lender-placed certificate number 2MR112427202 (the “Certificate”) issued by American Security to Suntrust Mortgage, Inc, its successors and/or assigns (the “Lender”), as “Named Insured” and Complainant as “Borrower,” that insured the dwelling located at 1333 Kellogg Drive, Tavares, Florida, 32778 (the “Property”), as more fully set forth therein, between July 7, 2023 through July 7, 2024. As a general matter, American Security objects to the validity of the CRN, as it is deficient on its face. The CRN lacks the specificity required by s. 624.155(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The CRN provides nothing more than vague, ambiguous and conclusory allegations regarding what Complainant believes to be American Security’s motivations, positions and business practices – none of which are true or supported by any facts. Florida law is clear that a claimant is required to state with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” to allow the insurer to understand and cure any purported violation. Longpoint Condo. Assn. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1315810 (N.D. Fla. 2005). A written CRN which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059 (S.D. Fla. 2010); Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). The very purpose of the civil remedy notice, pursuant to Chapter 624, is to inform the insurer of alleged violations with specific information to encourage settlement of the subject claim. “The sixty-day window [as provided for in F.S. §624.155] is designed to be a cure period that will encourage payment of the underlying claim, and avoid unnecessary bad faith litigation.” Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Notice sent to the Department of Insurance concerning settlement violation(s) is intended to serve as a basis for the Department to assist in the settling of claims and to monitor the insurance industry. Id. However, whenever a complainant provides little in the way of adequate notice, the statutory intent of the CRN is frustrated. On July 8, 2024, Complainant reported hail damage to his roof. This, however, was the second roof claim that Complainant had reported in a period of less than two years. More specifically, on July 15, 2022, Apex Roofing & Restoration reported, on Complainant’s behalf, windstorm damage to the house that allegedly occurred two days earlier, to which loss American Security assigned Claim No. 00103657530. In August 2022, American Security sent an explanation of benefits letter and tendered payment to replace the roof, less the wind deductible and recoverable depreciation. Complainant never submitted documentation that the roof was replaced that would have been necessary to recover the withheld deprecation, nor provided notice of a supplemental claim or request to reopen the claim. Accordingly, when Complainant reported the Claim for hail damage to his roof, American Security requested confirmation that Complainant had replaced his roof after the July 2022 wind claim. At that time, Complainant advised that the roof had neither been replaced nor repaired the roof since the last claim. Accordingly, American Security sent a letter denying the Claim as duplicative. On December 9, 2024, Complainant filed its Notice of Intent to Initiate (“Notice”), again setting forth an incorrect date of loss of September 24, 2024. American Security acknowledged the Notice and reiterated its prior denial. Notwithstanding American Security’s good faith investigation of the Claim, the Complainant lists a number of reasons for submitting the CRN, many of which are inaccurate and/or completely devoid of facts – which further reflects the boilerplate nature of the allegations being asserted against American Security. Specifically, Complainant lists “Claim Denial,” “Claim Delay,” “Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer” and “Unfair Trade Practice” as the reasons the CRN was submitted. However, the CRN fails to set forth any specific facts or accurate recitation of circumstances that would support these allegations. Nevertheless, American Security responds to these allegations and states that at all times, American Security acted in good faith in handling Complainant’s claims. Moreover, Complainant cites the following statutory provision under Fla. Stat. § 624.155, without any ultimate facts that support the empty and false accusations. As such, American Security rejects the same as vague and statutorily non-compliant, and further responds as follows: 624.155(1)(b)(1): Denied. American Security paid to replace the roof with regard to a wind storm claim reported less than two years earlier, but which Complainant never replaced. American Security denied the Claim because Complainant is not entitled to be paid twice to replace the same roof. American Security has always acted fairly and honestly towards Complainant with due regard for their interests. Complainant has provided absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation in the CRN. 624.155(1)(b)(2): Denied. Complainant tendered payment to replace the roof with regard to Complainant’s July 2022 claim. The Claim was not covered because it was seeking duplicative damages to replace his roof and simply reported the same claim to replace his roof previously covered. As such, American Security has not failed to make a payment for the Claim which was not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made. 624.155(1)(b)(3): Denied. American Security has never attempted to settle one portion of the Certificate to influence settlements in other portions of the Certificate. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation has been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Denied. American Security has adopted and continues to implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Moreover, American Security has never failed to adopt and implement these standards in such a way that would constitute a business practice. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Denied. American Security has not misrepresented any pertinent facts or Certificate provisions relating to this matter and has not made any such misrepresentations in a way that would constitute a business practice. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Denied. American Security had not failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to the Claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denied. American Security denied the Claim based upon review of all available information and in accordance with the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Certificate. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by the Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Denied. American Security denied the Claim in accordance with the terms, conditions and exclusions of the Certificate and sent Complainant written correspondence regarding same. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f): Denied. American Security denied the Claim and promptly sent correspondence explaining the details of its coverage determination to Complainant in its Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Denied. American Security has not failed to notify Complainant of any additional information necessary for the processing of the Claim. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Denied. Absolutely no facts or circumstances supporting this allegation have been provided by Complainant in the CRN. Finally, the CRN incorrectly claims that Complainant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs; however, the subject Certificate was issued in 2023 and, therefore, subject to the recent amendment in the law, Complainant is not entitled to recover statutory fees and costs. American Security denies all the allegations in the CRN as false, unfounded and completely devoid of merit or factual predicate. At no time has American Security ever acted in bad faith. At all times material to this Claim, American Security: (a) acted in good faith to investigate the Claim, acted fairly and honestly in its dealings with the Complainant and his representatives; (b) promptly investigated the Claim; (c) acknowledged and acted promptly in response to all communications with the Complainant; and (d) complied with its obligations in accordance with the terms of the subject insurance contract and Florida law. If you are in need of or seek any further information, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, s/, Alaine S. Greenberg, Esq. cc: Kaci A. Line, Esq. Andrea N. Aguilar, 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