Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     796987
Filing Accepted:  12/16/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
THE POINTE AT MARINA BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name  
Street Address * 43 BAYVIEW COURT
City, State Zip * ST. PETERSBURG, FL 33711
Email Address * WJMCKENNAJR@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   THE POINTE AT MARINA BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION   First Name  
Policy # * HCP006842-4 Claim #* H101362
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FANTETTI First Name * KELLY Initial A
Street Address* 109 S. EDISON AVENUE
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address * KFANTETTI@STOCKHAMLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* UNDERWRITING, WESLEY HEATH, JULIE COLLINS
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Cancellation
Non-renewal
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of 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.

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. Loss Payment Provided you have complied with all the terms of this Coverage Part, we will pay for covered loss or damage upon the earliest of the following: . . . (3) Within 90 days of receiving notice of an initial, reopened or supplemental claim, unless we deny the claim during that time or factors beyond our control reasonably prevent such payment. 3. Replacement Cost a. Replacement Cost (without deduction for depreciation) replaces Actual Cash Value in the Loss Condition, Valuation, of this Coverage Form.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

627.4133(2)(d)1 Upon a declaration of an emergency pursuant to s. 252.36 and the filing of an order by the Commissioner of Insurance Regulation, an insurer may not cancel or nonrenew a personal residential or commercial residential property insurance policy covering a dwelling or residential property located in this state which has been damaged as a result of a hurricane or wind loss that is the subject of the declaration of emergency for a period of 90 days after the dwelling or residential property has been repaired. A structure is deemed to be repaired when substantially completed and restored to the extent that it is insurable by another authorized insurer that is writing policies in this state. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“HERITAGE”) has breached the public’s trust by its adjustment of The Pointe at Marina Bay Condominium Association’s (“INSURED”) claim of loss. HERITAGE’s address is 1401 N. Westshore Blvd., Tampa, FL 33607. HERITAGE 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. HERITAGE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the INSURED’S insurance claim for damages. HERITAGE has failed to promptly settle the INSURED’S insurance claim when the obligation to settle the insurance claim had become reasonably clear. To date, notwithstanding the INSURED’S pleas otherwise, HERITAGE has continued to refuse to acknowledge its obligation to conduct a proper investigation, and to tender the full amount of insurance monies due and owing its INSURED under the policy. Rather, HERITAGE has denied the claim, in part, without conducting a reasonable investigation of the available information. Furthermore, HERITAGE has non-renewed the INSURED’s policy, despite the pending insurance claim and unrepaired damage to the roof. This claim involves the INSURED’S property located at 43 Bayview Ct. S., St. Petersburg, FL 33711, which sustained significant damage from Hurricane Ian on September 28, 2022. Specifically, the high winds caused damage to the sliding glass doors and caused the roof access hatch to blow open, which allowed water to saturate the roof membrane and infiltrate throughout the entirety of the penthouse unit, Unit 3. The claim was promptly reported to HERITAGE, who sent field adjuster Wesley Heath to inspect the property and prepare an estimate. Ms. Heath’s estimate included some drywall and insulation to the interior of Unit 3, but it was woefully inadequate to compensate for the actual cost of these damages. Additionally, the estimate failed to include anything for the roof, the attic area, the interior doors and trim, the sliding glass doors, the fire sprinklers, the electric, the HVAC system, the stucco repairs, or the mitigation. On December 2, 2022, HERITAGE, through its adjuster, Julie Collins, notified the INSURED that the independent field adjuster had estimated the damages at just $4,366.67, which fell below the INSURED’s hurricane deductible. Therefore, no payment was issued. Thereafter, the INSURED submitted additional documents from its roofer and its contractor documenting the extent of the damages. As a result, HERITAGE requested a reinspection by an engineer. On August 31, 2023, Grindley Williams Engineering inspected the property on behalf of HERITAGE. Although the report begins by noting that the INSURED is not claiming any damages to Building 40, the report seems to focus primarily on Building 40. Even with regard to Building 43, which is actually at issue, the report focuses primarily on the tiled sections of the roof, which are mostly decorative, rather than the flat membrane, which is at issue. The report acknowledges the prior repairs to the roof and hatch, but states that it cannot opine on the repairs. Despite the deficiencies in the Grindley Williams report, on October 4, 2023, HERITAGE adjuster Julie Collins notified the INSURED that it had completed its supplemental investigation, including reinspecting the property, reviewing the documents submitted by SDF, and reviewing the report from Grindley Williams Engineering. HERITAGE advised that no payment would be forthcoming. The INSURED then had the roof inspected by its own engineer from Prescott Engineering, who confirmed that water had migrated below the roof membrane throughout the flat roof section, which would require removal to properly mitigate the trapped moisture between the roofing layers. The engineer recommended a complete roof replacement. The INSURED also had the sliding glass doors water tested, and confirmed the water intrusion through the doors as well. The replacement of the sliding glass doors and the repairs to the interior of Unit 3 have been completed, along with temporary repairs to the roof. However, the complete replacement of the roof, along with truss and stucco repairs, still remain to be completed. The total of the invoices and estimates for the repairs for which the Association is responsible is $289,181.87. All of the invoices, along with a spreadsheet explaining same, was provided to HERITAGE on February 20, 2024, and again on March 7, 2024, when there were apparently issues opening some of the documents. Additionally, the INSURED’s engineering report was provided to HERITAGE ON April 8, 2024. HERITAGE never responded to or made any further adjustment of the claim after receiving these documents. The matter is now pending in litigation; however, on November 19, 2024, HERITAGE sent the INSURED a Notice of Non-Renewal. This Notice of Non-Renewal violates Florida Statute Section 627.4133(2)(d)1, which states that a policy cannot be nonrenewed while hurricane damages remain unrepaired if a state of emergency was declared for that hurricane. HERITAGE is well aware that the INSURED has unrepaired hurricane damage, as this claim is currently open and being actively contested. The concept of insurance is that the insurer will investigate and grant timely and prompt indemnity or security against a contingent loss. Florida Statute §624.02 defines “insurance” as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent in that definition is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the INSURED may mitigate its damages and be put back into the position it was in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. HERITAGE has breached this duty. The INSURED was, and still is, forced to expend out of pocket monies to submit its insurance claim, e.g., retaining an attorney and other experts to force HERITAGE to honor its obligations under the insurance policy and to pay all the insurance proceeds due and owing to it. HERITAGE has refused and/or failed to tender all the insurance proceeds due and owing to the INSURED. HERITAGE’s refusal and/or failure to settle the insurance claim when under all circumstances it could have and should have done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards the INSURED is wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the INSURED contends that HERITAGE’s adjusters and/or representatives financially benefit from such wrongful conduct. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, HERITAGE must reinstate the INSURED’S policy and continue to insure the property and tender the full amount necessary to complete the necessary repairs, plus interest. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Fla. Stat. §624.155.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 02-04-2025 February 4, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: The Pointe at Marina Bay Condominium Association Insured: The Pointe at Marina Bay Condominium Association Insurer: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company DFS File No.: 796987 Claim No: H101362 Policy No.: HCP006842-4 Dear Madam and/or Sir: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) official response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”), Filing Number 796987 filed on behalf of Heritage’s insured, The Pointe at Marina Bay Condominium Association and accepted by the department on December 16, 2024. On or about December 30, 2024, Complainant and Heritage agreed to a settlement and full release of the above-referenced claim, including but not limited to any claim or suit for breach of contract, declaratory action, bad faith, or breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, anticipatory or otherwise, at the property located at 40 BAYVIEW CT, S., ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33711, (identified location of loss as 43 BAYVIEW CT, S., ST PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33711) related to Claim No.: H101362, Policy Number HCP006842. As such, the settlement renders this Notice moot. Without waiving Heritage’s arguments that the subject Civil Remedy Notice is moot, legally insufficient and non-compliant with Florida law. The CRN does not include an adequate description of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violations, fails to specifically reference any policy language, and fails to articulate the curative amount sought. Heritage has at all times performed its obligations under the insurance policy in a prompt and diligent manner with due regard for the interest of its insured, The Pointe at Marina Bay Condominium Association. The Notice contains a list of violations which are alleged to have been committed by Heritage. Heritage specifically denies Complainant’s allegations that they violated Florida Statutes 624.155(1)(b)(1), 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)(g), or that it has acted, in any fashion, unfairly to its insured or in bad faith. Heritage diligently investigated and evaluated this claim and believes it fairly and honestly evaluated the claim based on all information available to it. Heritage has, at all times, fully performed its contractual obligations and duties owed to its insured. Heritage flatly denies any allegation by The Pointe at Marina Bay Condominium Association that it has acted improperly with regard to the handling of this claim. Heritage has and will continue to fulfill its duties by fully investigating the facts of any claim it is presented, and responding in a reasonably appropriate manner. Heritage has, and will continue to, diligently and thoroughly investigate this claim, and at all times, Heritage has fully performed its contractual obligations and duties owed to its insureds. Heritage flatly denies any and all allegations that it has acted improperly with regard to the handling of this claim. Fla. Stat. §624.155 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., 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006); see also Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2000). Here, the Notice is insufficient as it does not provide factual details as to the alleged violations and provides no specific “cure” and merely makes conclusory allegations of wrongdoing, all of which Heritage denies. Heritage denies any and all violations listed in the Insured’s Civil Remedy Notice. Insurers have a right and duty to its policy holders to appropriately investigate and contest claims. See, Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1998). Heritage has and will continue to fulfill its duty by fully investigating the facts of any claim it is presented, and responding in a reasonably appropriate manner. As such, Heritage denies all allegations in the Insured’s Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation. Sincerely, /s/ Dee Nwosu, Esq. Udoka “Dee” Nwosu, Esq. Staff Counsel Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co. cc: Kelly A. Fantetti, Esq. kfantetti@stockhamlawgroup.com CRN Response
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008