Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797350
Filing Accepted:  12/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PREFERRED STORAGE PLANTATION, LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 4551 W. SUNRISE BLVD.
City, State Zip * PLANTATION, FL 33313
Email Address * TSPENO@PRD-REALTY.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PREFERRED STORAGE PLANTATION, LLC   First Name   VALORIE
Policy # * IBP1008586 Claim #* 5500494728
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CHAVIN First Name * VALORIE Initial S
Street Address* 12955 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 201
City, State Zip* NORTH MIAMI , FL 33181
Email Address * VCHAVIN@CMSLAWGROUP.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   VANTAGE RISK SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 16275
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LAURA BUCHER
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Violation of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
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.

After suffering a devastating fire loss that not only damaged the Insured’s building but also caused a significant negative interruption to its business, the Insured was forced to endure a needlessly protracted and combative adjustment to finally receive just compensation for the overwhelming damage to its building through a compromised settlement. Once the claim was finally resolved with respect to the damage to the Insured’s Building, the Insured felt hopeful that it would be similarly compensated for the substantial loss of business income it experienced as a result of the loss. Sadly, the Insurance Company refused to uphold its contractual obligations and instead sought to punish its Insured for challenging its position on the scope and amount of the Insured’s loss. In retaliation for the Insured’s refusal to accept the Carrier’s initial undervaluation of the property damage claim, the Carrier unreasonably delayed the adjustment of the Insured’s claim for business interruption and after months of inaction, finally issued an egregiously low valuation that will not come close to compensating its Insured for the actual, documented loss of business income sustained during the time business operations were suspended as the Insured recovered from the fire loss. Moreover, in an flagrant breach of the Non-Disparagement Agreement entered into between the parties to effectuate a compromise of the simple scope and amount dispute relating to the Building damage, the Insurance Company’s desk adjuster was quick to violate the agreement and spread false and malicious accusations about the Insured to the Insured’s broker/agent at BB Insurance, accusing the Insured of “appearing to pocket the money,” and recommending to the underwriter and agent that the Property is a “bad risk.” The desk adjuster’s defamatory statements violate both the Parties’ settlement agreement and Florida law: (1) UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS. — The following are defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices: *** (c) Defamation.—Knowingly making, publishing, disseminating, or circulating, directly or indirectly, or aiding, abetting, or encouraging the making, publishing, disseminating, or circulating of, any oral or written statement, or any pamphlet, circular, article, or literature, which is false or maliciously critical of, or derogatory to, any person and which is calculated to injure such person. *** (e) False statements and entries.— 1. Knowingly: a. Filing with any supervisory or other public official, b. Making, publishing, disseminating, circulating, c. Delivering to any person, d. Placing before the public, e. Causing, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered to any person, or placed before the public, any false material statement. 2. Knowingly making any false entry of a material fact in any book, report, or statement of any person, or knowingly omitting to make a true entry of any material fact pertaining to the business of such person in any book, report, or statement of such person. See Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(c)-(e). To date, the Insured is still without the compensation it needs and deserves and has further been damaged by the Insurance Company’s unwarranted, disparaging, and embarrassing comments. In addition to the above statutory language violated, the Insured believes the following policy language may be at issue: SECTION I – PROPERTY 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. . . . 5. Additional Coverages . . . f. Business Income (1) Business Income (a) We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your “operations” during the “period of restoration.” The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss. . . . (b) We will only pay for loss of Business Income that you sustain during the “period of restoration” and that occurs within 12 consecutive months after the date of direct physical loss or damage. We will only pay for ordinary payroll expenses for 60 days following the date of direct physical loss or damage, unless a greater number of days is shown in the Declarations. (c) Business Income means the: (i) Net income that would have been earned or incurred if no physical loss or damage had occurred, but not including any Net Income that would likely have been earned as a result of an increase in the volume of business due to favorable business conditions caused by the impact of the Covered Cause of Loss on customers or on other businesses; and (ii) Continuing normal operating expenses incurred, including payroll. . . . . . . E. Property Loss Conditions . . . 6. Loss Payment In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy: . . . g. Provided you have complied with all the terms of this Policy, we will pay for covered loss or damage upon the earliest of the following: (1) Within 20 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss and reach written agreement with you or (2) within 30 days after we receive the sworn proof of loss and: (a) There is an entry of a final judgment; or There is a filing with an appraisal award or a mediation settlement with us. (3) Within 60 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. If a portion of the claim is denied, then the 60-day time period for payment of claim relates to the portion of the claim that is not denied. . . .
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The Insured, Preferred Storage Plantation, LLC (the “Insured”) owns a storage facility insured by a businessowners policy issued by Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company (the “Insurance Company” or the “Carrier”). The Policy provides coverage for damages caused by fire, as well as for the loss of business income sustained due to the necessary suspension of business operations during the period of restoration following a loss. On April 30, 2024, a fire broke out in a storage unit within the Insured’s property causing extensive smoke damage and activating the facility’s internal sprinkler system. The property was badly damaged by the fire, heavy smoke, and sprinkler and hose water used to extinguish the flames. The magnitude of the loss resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of repairs and mitigation to restore the Property to its pre-loss condition. The Insured’s business was interrupted from May 2024 through August 2024 during the time the Property was damaged and undergoing repairs. Despite the Insured’s desire to repair the Property and resume normal business operations as quickly as possible, the process was slowed by the Carrier’s unnecessary escalation of the simple scope and amount dispute. The dispute dragged on for months and resulted in both parties retaining counsel. Thankfully, once attorneys became involved, the parties were able to negotiate an amicable resolution of the scope and amount dispute relating to the damage to the Insured’s Building, but left open the claim for interruption of the Insured’s business while the parties exchanged information. As part of the parties’ settlement of the Building claim, the parties entered into a Non-Disparagement Agreement in which they agreed “that they will not make nor will they direct any other person or entity to make any derogatory, defamatory or disparaging statements of any kind about the other in any form or in any manner or medium, including without limitation, all non-verbal, verbal and written communications; print and electronic media; internet; television; terrestrial, satellite or internet radio; and/or social networking platforms and services.” Just as it had during the initial adjustment of the claim for damage to the Property, the Insured fully cooperated with the Insurance Company’s investigation and supplied all information necessary for the Insurance Company to value the interruption to the Insured’s business during the time following the loss. The Insured engaged Burrell & Associates, certified public accountants, to provide a detailed analysis of the loss of income and extra expenses incurred by the Insured as a result of the loss. After careful and considered analysis and review of financial statements, income statements, distribution reports, general ledgers, and other business records, Burrell & Associates conservatively estimated the Insured experienced a loss of income of $73,929.00 for the months of May through August 2024. In addition, it determined the Insured incurred $20,776.00 in extra expenses, including payroll expenses for additional staff and management to assist tenants in moving from impacted units into vacant units. In total, the Insured experienced $94,948.00 total loss of income and extra expenses, supported by facts and business records. The Insured furnished the Insurance Company with all documents and records supporting its claim for loss of business income following the loss. Had the Insurance Company upheld its contractual duty to the Insured, it would have acknowledged the detailed analysis prepared by Burrell & Associates and the supporting documentation and would have issued payment to compensate the Insured for the loss. Instead, the Insurance Company has chosen to punish its Insured for disagreeing with its initial undervaluation of the property damage claim, and in retaliation has failed and refused to properly compensate the Insured for the business income lost as a direct result of the covered fire loss. Despite receiving all the information necessary to adjust the claim, the Insurance Company unnecessarily delayed the adjustment and failed to issue any update or respond to the Insured’s inquiries for a status on the Carrier’s coverage position and/or payment of the Insured’s business income loss. Finally, after months of inaction, on December 17, 2024, the Insurance Company issued correspondence to the Insured advising that “Vantage Risk has evaluated [the] claim for reimbursement and determined that [the Insured’s] loss of business income is in the amount of $7,216.” Wholly disregarding the documentation provided by the Insured confirming that its business operations were severely impacted from May 2024 through at least August 2024, the Insurance Company instead unilaterally determined the claim should cover only the period from May 4, 2024, through May 21, 2024. The Insurance Company relied on its own outcome-oriented expert, Meaden & Moore (“M&M”), who – unsurprisingly – far undervalued the Insured’s claim for loss of income. M&M’s flawed evaluation of the Insured’s business interruption loss gave every benefit possible to the Carrier – resulting in an unfair valuation of the Insured’s loss. M&M was improperly instructed to calculate the Insured’s loss up to May 21, 2024, which failed to take into account the Property’s condition and the status of repairs being performed at that time through July, 2024. M&M claimed a decrease in rent from 2023 to 2024 for February through March, but ignored the January increase in rent. It also failed to consider the fact that several units were unavailable in February and March, which contributed to the decrease in the year-over-year rent. With distorted consideration of the Insured’s documented losses, the Insurance Company has committed to belatedly issuing an egregiously low payment that fails to properly compensate the Insured. Despite the Insured’s full and complete cooperation during the initial protracted adjustment and again during the Carrier’s subsequent failure to properly adjust the claim for interruption to the Insured’s business, the Carrier has continually failed to uphold its contractual obligations to its Insured. The Insurance Company has remained resolute in its objective to punish its Insured for disagreeing with the Insurance Company’s deficient valuation and unreasonable delay of the adjustment of its significant loss, resulting in the abject failure to issue adequate monies towards the interruption of the Insured’s business. In addition to its refusal to properly adjust and pay the Insured for its lost business income, the Insurance Company maintained its pattern and practice of disparaging its Insured in violation of both the Non-Disparagement Agreement and Florida law. Before the ink even dried on the Non-Disparagement Agreement executed between the parties, the Insurance Company’s desk adjuster took the first opportunity to retaliate against the Insured. Determined to punish the Insured for its refusal to acquiesce and accept the Carrier’s initial undervaluation of the Building damage, Ms. Bucher wholly disregarded the Agreement and contacted the Insured’s broker/agent at BB Insurance, accusing the Insured of “appearing to pocket the money,” defaming its Insured by casting its Insured in a bad light with its broker with whom it has a 30+ year business relationship. Moreover, Ms. Bucher’s resolve to retaliate against the Insured manifested in her recommendation to the underwriter that the Property is a “bad risk,” negatively impacting the Insured’s ability to obtain continued coverage at comparable rates. Ms. Bucher’s misrepresentations, falsely accusing the Insured of suspect and fraudulent activity in relation to its insurance claim, have defamed and harmed the Insured’s business reputation, and put it at imminent risk of serious financial harm. Moreover, the derogatory and defamatory statements made by Ms. Bucher as an agent of the Insurance Company constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in direct violation of Florida Statutes § 626.9541, which prohibits knowingly making statements that are false or maliciously critical of, or derogatory to, any person, and which is calculated to injure such person, and Florida Statutes § 624.155(1)(a)(1), which provides a civil remedy for anyone damaged by an insurer’s violation of § 626.9541. Ms. Bucher, and by extension, the Carrier, violated the statutes by vengefully spreading false accusations about the Insured with the express purpose of harming the Insured’s business relationships and reputation. The off-color and disparaging remarks about the Insured have damaged the Insured’s reputation and could result in a significant negative financial impact. The Insurance Company’s retaliatory actions of refusing to properly compensate the Insured for its lost business income and making false and disparaging statements related to the Insured are violative of Florida law. The failure to properly investigate, adjust, and fully compensate the Insured for its claim for interruption to its business during the period of restoration following the admittedly covered loss evidences the Insurance Company’s violation of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires the Insurance Company to “adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The Carrier’s misrepresentation of pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue constitutes a violation of 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). The Insurance Company’s unreasonable failure to promptly and completely settle the claim establishes violations of sections 626.9541(1)(i)(4), 624.155(1)(b)(1), and 624.155(1)(b)(3). Further, the Insurance Company violated section 626.9541(1)(i)(2), Florida Statutes (“A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy”). The Insurance Company also violated section 626.9541(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides that it is an unfair and deceptive act or practice to “knowingly make[] . . . [a] statement, . . . which is false or maliciously critical of, or derogatory to, any person and which is calculated to injure such person.” The actions taken by the Insurance Company in the handling and adjustment of the claim giving rise to the violations addressed herein, including the established pattern of unreasonably delaying the adjustment, relying on biased and outcome-oriented adjusters and experts to undervalue the claim, refusing to issue adequate monies for the loss of business income experienced during the period of restoration following the admittedly covered loss, disregarding the Insured’s evidence of the actual damages experienced, and undermining the professionalism of the Insured in violation of the signed Non-Disparagement Agreement and Florida law as a means of punishing and retaliating against the Insured occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are willful, wanton, and in gross disregard for the rights of its Insured. Further, the combative, antagonistic, demeaning and unprofessional comments and conduct portrayed by the Insurance Company’s representative, Ms. Bucher, should not be condoned by the Carrier, especially given the Non-Disparagement Agreement between the parties. Ms. Bucher’s retaliatory comments casting the Insured in a negative light could have a significant financial impact on the Insured’s business relationships, and the spreading of such unwarranted rumors should not be tolerated. The Insurance Company’s actions amount to, but are not limited to: A. “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;” (Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1). B. “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;” (Fla. Stat. sec. 624.155(1)(b)(3)) C. Claim Delay; D. Claim Denial; and E. Unfair Trade Practices The Insurance Company’s actions further amount to unfair claim settlement practices: 1. A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(2)). 2. Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following: a. Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)) b. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)) c. Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)) d. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)) e. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)) f. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary; (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h)). 3. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a residential property insurance claim, determines the amounts of partial or full benefits, and agrees to coverage, unless payment of the undisputed benefits is prevented by an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. (Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(4)). In addition to the above statutory violations, the Insurance Company’s adjuster violated the following ethical requirements of Florida Administrative Code 69B-220.201: (3) Code of Ethics . . . An adjuster shall put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjuster’s own interests in every instance. The following are standards of conduct that define ethical behavior, and shall constitute a code of ethics that shall be binding on all adjusters: (b) An adjuster shall treat all claimants equally. 2. An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. (c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. (d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. (e) An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties without any remuneration to himself except that to which he is legally entitled. (f) An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. (o) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. During the adjustment of the Insured’s claim, the Insurance Company breached this duty by failing to adhere to and comply with the above referenced obligations. To cure the defects outlined above, the Insurance Company must: A. Tender all insurance proceeds due and owing to the Insured that would reasonably compensate the Insured for the interruption to its business suffered during the period of restoration following the covered loss; B. Timely communicate with the Insured’s representative(s) to complete the adjustment of the loss by participating in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement relating to the parties’ scope and amount dispute; C. Immediately issue payment for statutory interest for any late payments; D. Act fairly and honestly towards the Insured and with due regard for its interests; E. Hire a fair, unbiased, and qualified adjuster(s) and expert(s) to properly assess the Insured’s damages; F. Timely and substantively respond to the Insured’s representative(s)’s communications; G. Issue a full and complete payment and provide a written explanation and detail of the payment issued; H. Clearly explain the nature of any outstanding requested information, including what specifically the Insurance Company is seeking in order to value and issue payment for the interruption to the Insured’s business following the loss, and the reasons why such information is necessary; I. Timely adjust the claim with the Insured and avoid/limit any additional delay, costs, and prejudice that the Insurance Company’s conduct above has caused and continues to cause the Insured; J. Cease and desist from all disparaging communications regarding the Insured and its ownership; K. Retract in writing any disparaging statements made regarding the Insured, its ownership, its insurance claim and/or the property made to the Insured’s insurance agent, the underwriters and any other third parties ( L. Refrain from non-renewing the Insured as retaliation for its disagreement with the Insurance Company’s valuation of its Claim; M. Participate in good faith claims adjustment to avoid the Insured incurring unnecessary costs of attorneys, appraisal, and/or litigation. This Civil Remedy Notice is given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hzelinger@bressler.com 02-17-2025 Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. 515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 800 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 February 17, 2025 Via E-mail, U.S. Mail and Certified Mail Valorie S. Chavin, Esq. CMS Law Group 12955 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 201 North Miami, FL 33181 vchavin@cmslawgroup.com Complainant(s): Preferred Storage Plantation, LLC Policy #: IBP1008586 Claim #: 5500494728 DFS Filing #: 797350 Dear Mrs. Chavin: Please accept this response on behalf of Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Vantage Risk” or the “carrier”), the insurance carrier for the Policy, and Tower Hill Insurance’s (hereinafter “Tower Hill” or the “administrator”), the managing general agent and third-party administrator acting on behalf of Vantage Risk, initial response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 797350, filed on behalf of Preferred Storage Plantation, LLC (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on December 18, 2024. The administrator requests additional time to complete the investigation of the business income claim that serves as the basis of the CRN. To that end, documents remain outstanding as well as the Examination Under Oath of the Insured. The Examination was previously scheduled for February 11, 2024 and February 14, 2024 but had to be rescheduled at the Insured’s request and inability to appear. The administrator is accommodating that request and requesting additional time to evaluate and adjust this claim. The CRN was premature when it was filed as the necessary documentation to support the Insured’s business income claim had not been submitted. Remarkably, the CRN remains premature as we sit here today. Rather than withdrawn the CRN and comply with the policy, the administrator, on behalf of the carrier, has been obligated to file this response to address the false and overstated allegations by the Insured. As noted below, all allegations of bad faith are specifically rejected by the carrier and the administrator and the administrator specifically states that it has acted in good faith throughout the entire investigation of this claim. The CRN alleges that the carrier and the administrator violated the following statutes: • 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. • 624.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. • 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. The carrier and the administrator deny each and every allegation and claim against it and as alleged in the above referenced Civil Remedy Notice. The below facts will demonstrate that the administrator attempted in good faith to settle all aspects of this claim, including submitting multiple payments for business income, providing the Insured and its accountant every benefit of the doubt as it relates to the claim. The administrator has not misrepresented the policy or any aspect of this claim, but rather, has read the policy as a whole and evaluated the claim consistent with the policy provisions and endorsements. The administrator has inspected the storage space on numerous occasions, informed the Insured of outstanding information and documentation, requested the Examination Under Oath and implemented standards for the proper investigation of claims. The administrator has not only acted promptly upon communications, but acted affirmatively and proactively with regards to every aspect of this claim, which includes numerous emails, calls and conferences initiated by administrator adjuster Laura Bucher. Finally, the statutory language related to the denial of claims without conducting reasonable investigations is belied by this claim as the claim was paid. A review of the CRN reveals that the Insured is alleging that the investigation of the claim was protracted, combative, that the administrator retaliated as it relates to the business income claim, that the administrator delayed the adjustment of the business interruption claim, that the administrator undervalued the business interruption claim, that the administrator violated the non-disparagement agreement, that the administrator spread “false and malicious accusations”, that business was in fact interrupted from May 2024 through August 2024, that the property was “undergoing repairs” during that time, that the Insured desired to repair the property and resume normal business operations as quickly as possible, that Burell & Associates estimated the loss of business income at $73,929 and extra expense at $20,776 for a total of $94,948, that the administrator’s estimate at $7,216 for loss of business income through May 21, 2024 was inaccurate, that the administrator ignored the January rent increase, and that the administrator failed to consider that several units remained unavailable. As set forth below, the above allegations are misconstrued, misleading and inaccurate. As support for the rejection of the claims and allegations related to bad faith, the administrator states that the Insured has failed to comply with the policy conditions, failed to submit for an Examination Under Oath, and failed to submit documents that are reasonable and necessary to adjust the loss. Notwithstanding the noncompliance, the administrator has made and continues to make good faith payments related to this claim based on the information and documentation available. The claim related to purported disparagement by the administrator and against the Insured is statutorily non-compliant, vague and ambiguous and renders the CRN invalid in this regard. The Insured directs DFS to the release related to the underlying building damage claim. The administrator did not disparage the Insured. Nor could administrator representative Laura Bucher have been bound to non-disparagement release, because it was not signed by Ms. Bucher or anyone on behalf of the administrator. As a result, the administrator is not bound by the language of the release. Either way, the administrator affirmatively disputes the claims of disparagement and liability stemming from any related claims. Furthermore, the allegations of disparagement arise from a conversation that the Insured claims happened before the release was submitted to the administrator. Specifically, the Insured claims (although this was not included in the CRN) that the allegations were made around November 6, 2024 between Laura Bucher and the insurance agent. That being said, the release was not submitted to the administrator until November 13, 2024. The claim that the administrator disparaged the Insured is also improperly pursued within this civil remedy notice. There is no specific way to cure to this alleged behavior, that the administrator vehemently denies, and as a result, the CRN an improper mechanism for resolution. As a final note, the release that the Insured references as containing non-disparagement language, specifically precluded the Insured from pursuing any CRNs related to building damage and that any future allegations of bad faith must be limited to the adjustment of the business income claim and ServPro invoice and may not include any allegations or statements made by the carrier or the administrator. As a result, the Insured’s claim of non-disparagement is not only false and improperly pursued within this CRN, but it is also unsupported by the release that the was executed by the insured, and the insured only. As a preliminary matter, since the inception of the reporting of this claim, the administrator has tried tirelessly to obtain the information required to adjust the loss and evaluate the claim as a whole, including the claim for business interruption/business income. Presently, the administrator remains without all of the necessary documentation and information to complete the adjustment of the business income claim as the Insured has failed to submit all of the requested documentation and has failed to submit for the requested Examination Under Oath. The Insured and their representatives are aware that they have not submitted all of the necessary information but have refused to withdraw the instant CRN. The fact that the Insured has not complied with the policy and that the administrator does not have all of the necessary documentation and information renders this CRN premature and invalid as a matter of law. The instant CRN was filed because the Insured claims the administrator failed to accurately adjust the business income claim. The administrator is without the necessary information to complete the adjustment of the business income claim and as a result, the CRN fails. To that end, the Insured claims that additional business interruption proceeds are due because the units were under maintenance and repairs through August of 2024. Apart from the mitigation performed by ServPro and a repair to unit 1024, the administrator has not been provided with specific information about the scope and extent of repairs and maintenance to the units and how it specifically relates to the direct physical loss that was reported. To ultimately obtain this information, the administrator has issued numerous requests for information and has requested the Examination Under Oath of the Insured. Additionally, there is substantial information to support the period of restoration set forth by the administrator, ending on May 21, 2024. The administrator was previously informed by the Manager of the storage facility, Extra Space Storage, that the storage facility resumed operations on May 21, 2024. Specifically, on October 8, 2024, administrator representative Laura Bucher contacted Extra Space and asked when the facility was able to accept new renters. On October 8, 2024, Yanley Cowley, from Extra Space, responded and stated “May 21.” This demonstrates that the period of restoration set forth by the administrator was done so in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances. The Insured continues to claim that additional proceeds are owed for business interruption because at least one unit remained under repair, thus triggering business interruption coverage. This flies in the face of the policy for multiple reasons. The policy pays business income due to actual loss from the necessary suspension of operations. Extra Space, the manager for the storage facility, already advised that the facility was renting units on May 21, 2024. However, a complete reading of the policy demonstrates that the Insured must not look at the period of restoration in a vacuum, but first must establish a direct physical loss that led to the necessary suspension of operations. The policy states: f. Business Income (1) Business Income (a) We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your “operations” during the “period of restoration”. The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss. With respect to loss of or damage to personal property in the open or personal property in a vehicle, the described premises include the area within 100 feet of the site at which the describe premises are located. With respect to the requirements set forth in the preceding paragraph, if you occupy only part of the site at which the described premises are located, your premises means: (i) The portion of the building which you rent, lease or occupy; and (ii) Any area within the building or on the site at which the described premises are located, if that area services, or is used to gain access to, the described premises. The Insured has attempted to ignore the above provision and rely solely on the “period of restoration” language stating that the period of restoration does not end until the damaged property has been repaired. The Insured’s reading of the policy is flawed as business income loss is only triggered when there is an actual loss due to the necessary suspension of operations. This has not been established by the Insured. There are concerns as to the degree of the “suspension of operations” and whether it was reasonable or necessary or unreasonably delayed by the Insured. A reading of the policy makes clear that the insured only gets to the period of restoration if, per the business income policy language above, there has been a necessary suspension of operations. The carrier and the administrator properly adjusted this loss based on the representations of Extra Space that the Insured Location resumed operations on May 21, 2024. Additionally, during on-site inspections on May 3, 2024, May 10, 2024, May 15, 2024, June 11, 2024, July 25, 2024 and September 24, 2024, the storage facility appeared to be open and operable. This information was provided to administrator by building consultant Jimmy Williams. As a preliminary matter, the Insured engaged the services of ServPro to conduct mitigation of the loss and they were subsequently terminated prior to cleaning the soot that was identified by a hygienist and paid for by administrator. The Insured was repeatedly informed that the carrier/the administrator would not be compensating the Insured for any costs associated with delays or inaction on behalf of the Insured. This was communicated to the Insured in email on June 4, 2024. On June 5, 2024, the administrator again informed the Insured that “[e]very day that goes by, that there’s a delay in getting this process started, additional equipment charges are being incurred as well as loss of income. As a reminder, delays caused by inaction will not be covered by the insurance policy.” Further delays and increased expenses may have also been caused by the failure of the Insured to open the storage units immediately after the loss. Furthermore, the claim that the Insured is entitled to business income loss through August 2024 because one unit was still being repaired is undermined by the language contained within the policy. The policy specifically contemplates situations where only a section of the storage space is under renovation. The policy states: BUSINESSOWNERS BP 07 12 0702 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Businessowners Coverage Form is amended as follows: A. The following is added to Paragraph A.2. Property Not Covered of Section I – Property: i. Property belonging to your “customer”(s). B. The following is added to Paragraph A.5.f. Additional Coverages Business Income of Section I - Property: (5) Accrued Rental Charges We will pay for the loss of accrued rental or lease charges for storage spaces rendered unrentable because of covered loss. C. If the Employee Dishonesty Optional Coverage is shown as applicable in the Declarations, Paragraph G.3.a of Section I – Property is replaced by the following: (3) Employee Dishonesty a. We will pay for direct loss of or damage to Business Personal Property, “money” and “securities” and personal property of your “customers” resulting from dishonest acts committed by any or your “employees” acting alone or in collusion with other persons (except you or your partner) with the manifest intent to: (1) Cause you to sustain loss or damage; and also (2) Obtain financial benefit (other than salaries, commissions, fees, bonuses, promotions, awards, profit sharing, pensions or other employee benefits earned in the normal course of employment) for: (a) Any employee; or (b) Any other person or organization D. Our obligation under this coverage applies only to the amount of damages in excess of any deductible amount stated in the Declarations as applicable to this coverage. E. The following are added to Paragraph A. Coverages of Section II – Liability: 3. Customer’s Goods Legal Liability a. We will pay for those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “property damage” to which this insurance applies, caused by an “occurrence” to a “customer’s property (or the property of others for which such “customer” is liable) only while at the insured’s self storage facilities. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against and “suit” seeking damages for “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply. We may, at our discretion, investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result. But: (1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited as described in Paragraph D – Liability And Medical Expenses Limits Of Insurance in Section II – Liability; and (2) Our right and duty to defend end when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements or medical expenses. b. This insurance applies only to “property damage” that takes place in the “coverage territory” and occurs during the policy period. As stated above, the carrier will pay loss of rent or lease charges for storage spaces that are rendered unrentable because of a covered loss. To be clear, the Insured has not sufficiently demonstrated or pled that there was a loss of rent from May of 2024 through August of 2024 in unit 1024. Nor has the Insured established that there was a suspension of business operations through that period. Above and beyond the policy interpretation, the carrier, through the administrator, has been requesting documentation to evaluate the maintenance and repairs undertaken at the Insured Location but the Insured has failed to submit all of the requested documentation. The extent of documents submitted related to repairs and maintenance consists of one invoice to replace a roll up door of unit 1024. The failure to submit documents reflecting the actual maintenance and repairs makes it impossible to address or re-evaluate the claim by the Insured. This was substantiated by the Insured’s own accountant. Specifically, on February 11, 2025, the administrator and the attorneys met with the Insured’s accountant, Neil Burrell. During that meeting, Mr. Burrell conceded that he did not have the invoices or documents related to the “maintenance and repairs.” While all parties agreed the documentation would be necessary, the Insured’s representatives advised that they were having a difficult time getting the documents from Extra Space Storage and that the client was just the owner and “not the management company.” The representatives repeated over and over again that they could only produce the documents in their possession, completely ignoring the master services agreement (“MSA”) between Preferred and Extra Space Storage, that required Extra Space to make documents available for review upon the owner’s request. The MSA between Preferred and Extra Space contains a provision stating: (i) Records. Manager shall maintain at its principal office or at the Property a system of office records, books and accounts relating to the Property. Owner and other parties designated by Owner shall have, at reasonable times during Manager’s normal business hours and upon prior written notice, access to such records, accounts and books and to all vouchers, files and all other materials pertaining to the Property. Manager reserves the right to maintain copies of any records relating to the management of the Property. The failure to produce the requested documentation is unexplainable, prejudicial, concealment of relevant information and has completely obstructed the carrier’s ability to investigate this claim. The carrier and the administrator affirmatively state that it acted in good faith as it relates to every aspect of the investigation and adjustment of the claim. On May 31, 2024, the carrier made a net payment in the amount of $112,962.55, including a $100,000 advance to address mitigation at the property. On June 21, 2024, the carrier made a net payment of $264,644.26. As it relates to the business income claim, the carrier, through the administrator, evaluated the claim at $24,119 and made net payments reflecting same. At the conclusion of these payments, the administrator stated “[t]o the extent that the Extra Space is disputing the loss of income payout, please submit all supporting docs to show additional business income loss was incurred within five (5) days. The requested documentation was not submitted. The Insured still not has appeared for the requested Examination Under Oath, notwithstanding the prior request and the fact that the Examination Under Oath was scheduled for February 11, 2025 and February 14, 2025. The claim that the carrier acted in bad faith is undermined by the Insured’s non-compliance. The Insured’s claim that the carrier engaged in delays is inaccurate based on the facts contained herein. It should also be noted that the Insured’s initial Sworn Proof of Loss Statement submitted on July 3, 2024, did not even include a claim of loss of business income. Based on the premature nature of this CRN and the non-compliance by the Insured, the cure demand is improper as the carrier has not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, the carrier, through the administrator, sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss, including the claim for business income. The carrier and the administrator maintain that each has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. The administrator consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainant and/or their public adjuster and/or other agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents the administrator and the carrier from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, the carrier and the administrator believe that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim, and further believe that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Hope C. Zelinger _ Hope C. Zelinger, Esq.
ysalim@cmslawgroup.com 02-14-2025 The parties have agreed that the Insurance Company, Vantage Risk Specialty Insurance Company, shall respond to this Civil Remedy Notice, bearing Filing Number 797350, within three days after the Insured submits to its Examination Under Oath.
ysalim@cmslawgroup.com 02-14-2025 The parties have agreed that the Insurance Company shall respond to the CRN within three days after the Insured submits to its EUO.
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