Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797101
Filing Accepted:  12/17/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
SATILL   First Name   AVRON
Street Address * 1155 BELLA VISTA CIR
City, State Zip * LONGWOOD, FL 32779-58
Email Address * AVRONSATILL@LBUGROUP.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   SATILL   First Name   AVRON
Policy # * 000988723119 Claim #* 0768304867
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* LINE First Name * KACI Initial A
Street Address* 2431 LEE ROAD
City, State Zip* WINTER PARK , FLORIDA 32789
Email Address * KACI@TAGUSLAW.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10835
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JOHN WALLER AND ALL ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY 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)(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)(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 policy language 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 AVRON SATILL. 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 CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY 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 THE 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. Castle Key Indemnity Company has failed to issue payment pursuant to the Loss Settlement Provision. On or about, September 5, 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 wind and hail event causing extensive damage to the property. Castle Key Insurance Company (“CASTLE KEY”) received timely notice of the claim and assigned claim number 0768304867. CASTLE KEY performed a cursory inspection of the property – Castle Key failed to retain qualified inspectors necessary to identify the repairs required to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. CASTLE KEY failed to issue full payment for the subject loss and wrongfully denied coverage for various areas of the property. CASTLE KEY continued the intentional path of claim delay and underpayment by failing to implement policies and procedures for payment of clearly covered claims. CASTLE KEY knew or should have known that their adjuster would find little to no damage to the roof from the hail and windstorm storm and if found damage would contribute damage to an exclusion. CASTLE KEY 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 CASTLE KEY ’s policy of insurance. CASTLE KEY 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 struck by hail and winds so severe that caused damage and requiring a Emergency Tarp, Full Roof Replacement, Gutters, Stucco Repair, Exterior Painting, and extensive Interior Repair. Despite this, CASTLE KEY denied any and full coverage for the clearly covered loss. CASTLE KEY 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. CASTLE KEY 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. Following its initial inspection, It is clear that CASTLE KEY 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. CASTLE KEY 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, CASTLE KEY has failed to comply with its loss settlement provision. Rather than issuing the proper payment or attempting to reach an agreement with its insured, CASTLE KEY is delaying and denying the claim. Upon information and belief, CASTLE KEY 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. CASTLE KEY can cure the violations contained herein by issuing a payment for all contractual damages owed, per estimates of $195,986.67 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
joanna.opato@allstate.com 02-10-2025 February 10, 2025 VIA CRN ONLINE SYSTEM Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Building, 200 Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: Complainant: Avron Satill DFS File No.: 797101 Insured: Avron Satill Insurance Company: Castle Key Indemnity Company Claim No.: 0768304867 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is Castle Key Indemnity Company’s (“Castle Key”) response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. This response is provided on behalf of Castle Key and all of its employees, agents, officers and affiliates. The Department accepted the CRN on 12/17/2024. Therefore, this response has been timely filed within the statutory deadline. As a preliminary matter, Castle Key at all times during the handling of this claim acted fairly and honestly toward its insured. Castle Key fully and fairly considered information in regard to the matters at hand and fully observed its contractual, statutory and administrative obligations. Castle Key has carefully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the alleged violations charged and believes they are completely without merit. Castle Key wholly denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing, claim delay, claim denial, unfair claims handling, unsatisfactory settlement offer, unfair trade practice, misrepresentation or bad faith in connection with the above claim. Additionally, the CRN is defective and either does not sufficiently state the circumstances at hand or does so inaccurately. Accordingly, the CRN should be rejected Complainants’ CRN violates the requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for civil remedy notices. It fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the statute. Accordingly, Castle Key respectfully requests the Department return the CRN and insist Complainants provide the specific facts required for civil remedy notices. See Section 624.155(3)(c), Florida Statutes. These requirements arise from the provisions of Section 624.155(3)(a) & (b), Florida Statutes. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F. Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. Thus, the CRN cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida statutes must be strictly construed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 2000) (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. There are requirements for a valid civil remedy notice. Section 624.155(3), Florida Statutes. Section 624.155 mandates Complainants to provide specific facts and circumstances of the alleged violations. This would necessarily include specific facts regarding the method of the investigation, the reasons the investigation was improper or otherwise inadequate, the reasons why this alleged inadequacy is due to the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, and the facts supporting these conclusions. Florida law does not allow an insured, without providing any facts, to allege that the insurer’s only option to avoid bad faith is paying whatever the insured demands. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008). Complainants’ CRN violates the specificity requirement. As such, Castle Key would like this opportunity to set forth an accurate factual background, and thereby correct omissions in Complainants’ CRN. Castle Key received its first notice of loss on September 9, 2024, for damages allegedly sustained by a lightning strike to the roof on August 13, 2024, to the property located at 1155 Belle Vista Cir Longwood, Fl 32779. During this claim a prompt investigation was made, and an inspection was done by the appropriate Castle Key representative. Additionally, there was detailed follow up communication by Castle Key during all phases of this claim. Castle Key has fulfilled and is fulfilling its duties as provided under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Castle Key does not consider there to have been any violation of the referenced statutory provisions or otherwise. At all times during the investigation of the subject claim, Castle Key acted diligently and in good faith to resolve same. Castle Key reserves all of its rights. If anyone at the Department has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Castle Key at our office for a further response. Sincerely, CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
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