Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797398
Filing Accepted:  12/18/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
BARBARA MINIHAN AND KENNETH MINIHAN   First Name  
Street Address * 220 ISLE DRIVE
City, State Zip * ST. PETE BEACH, FL 33706
Email Address * BGMINI16@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   BARBARA MINIHAN AND KENNETH MINIHAN   First Name  
Policy # * 1507-2400-4527 Claim #* FL24-0138794-K524
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MESSINGER First Name * MAX Initial
Street Address* 925 FEDERAL HWY
City, State Zip* BOCA RATON , FL 33432
Email Address * MMESSINGER@KPATTORNEY.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10861
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* VANESSA VEGA
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Loss settlement provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

The carrier was put on notice of the insured’s Hurricane Milton claim. Heath Koji inspected the property on behalf of the carrier and has knowledge of the claim. The carrier initially attempted to low-ball the claim by claiming the damages were under deductible. Subsequently, the insured prepared a loss package in the amount of $79,171.42 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. Whereas, the carrier wrongfully represented the damages to the insured’s property to be below the policy deductible. Additionally, the carrier did not appropriately address the need for the replacement of the insured’s, allegedly relying on the wrongful findings of a representative who it is believed was instructed to look for any signs of damage that could be attributed to any causes of loss excluded under the policy and to disregard any evidence of wind damage to the roof for the purpose of wrongfully low-balling the claim as a whole. The insured has complied with all of the carrier’s requests to date and the carrier has still failed to treat this claim with good faith. This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insured. About seventy days have passed since the original date of loss. The carrier has still refused to pay the fully covered amount owed under the policy. The carrier is aware of damage sustained by the insured’s property and has not taken any meaningful ensuing action. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the insureds with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay K PAT TORNE Y.COM a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the insureds; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims by its adjusters and placing the company’s interests before the insureds’ interests; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the insureds despite the fact that the carrier has been on notice of the damages and looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the insureds, when a reasonable carrier in a similar position would have tendered a full payment in accordance with both the policy language and statutory requirements. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§ 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days. All the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1.) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $79,171.42, less any prior payments and less any applicable policy deductible; and 2.) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the FDFS has been sent to the carrier. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Rebecca Barrett at (561)-892-9746 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Max Messinger Attorney at Law
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jr0405@universalproperty.com 02-05-2025 February 5, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Florida Department of Financial Services Bureau of Consumer Assistance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0322 Re: DFS File No.: 797398 Filing Date: 12/18/2024 Complainant: Barbara Minihan and Kenneth Minihan Insured: Barbara Minihan and Kenneth Minihan Policy No.: 1507-2400-4527 Claim No.: FL24-0138794-K524 Dear Sir/Madam: Please allow this to serve as Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Universal”) formal response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice (“Notice”) filed by attorney, Max Messinger, on behalf of Complainants, Barbara Minihan and Kenneth Minihan (also referenced as “Insureds”). The Notice alleges violations of Sections 624.155 and 626.9541, Florida Statutes. Universal specifically denies the allegations contained in the Notice. Additionally, Universal denies that it violated these or any statutes, Florida law or policy provisions regarding the claim adjudication of this matter. With that said, Universal asserts that the Notice fails to comply with the specific notice and information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions, Section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law. The Notice is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 7367059, (S. D. Fla. 2010); Heritage Corp. of South Fla. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). Pursuant to Section 624.155(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Notice “shall state with specificity” the following information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. the name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any...; 5. a statement that the Notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. Moreover, the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) created form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements that the Complainant(s) must respond to with specificity. The Florida Supreme Court holds that Section 624.155, Florida Statutes “must be strictly construed.” Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. When interpreting a statute in derogation of the common law, “[a] court will presume that such a statute was not intended to alter the common law other than as clearly and plainly specified in the statute.” Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger, 712 So. 2d 389, 393 (Fla. 1998). Such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the Complainant(s) specifically complied with all statutory requirements. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). To begin, the Notice fails to meet the requirement of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, on several grounds. First, the Notice fails to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations. In order to comply with the requirements of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, the Complainant(s) must name the individual(s) involved with specificity as it relates to the purported violation(s) to allow Universal to properly investigate the allegations. The Notice lacks the requisite specificity as required by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Here, the Notice states “Vanessa Vega,” without more. The Complainants fail to specify what, if anything, Ms. Vega is knowledgeable about and/or what if anything Ms. Vega did or failed to do regarding the claim at issue. Therefore, the Notice does not have the requisite specificity as to what, if anything, this individual has knowledge of and/or how the individual relates to any allegation in the Notice. The failure to provide the requisite specificity precludes Universal from taking any corrective action and potentially curing any purported allegation. Specificity as to a person’s knowledge within Universal is of particular importance because the Complainants allege Universal “[m]isrepresent[ed] pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.” The Notice, however, fails to include the requisite specificity as to whom made any misrepresentations or when any of these misrepresentations occurred or what was misrepresented. Accordingly, the Complainants’ Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat., because it fails to reference any specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Instead, the Notice only states, “Loss settlement provision.” The Notice provides no guidance or explanation, such that Universal is left to wonder when, how or by whom this policy provision title was violated. Therefore, it is unclear what, if any, policy language pertains to any allegation. General, vague, or overbroad references to a policy provision title does not satisfy the specificity required by Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(4), Fla. Stat. As such, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. See generally Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Third, regarding the requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to specify sufficient facts that would put Universal on notice that it violated any policy provision or statute. The Complainants list two (2) reasons for filing the Notice: “Claim Delay,” and “Unfair Trade Practice.” However, the Complainants’ boilerplate allegations in the “Reasons for Notice” section have no factual support anywhere in the Notice. The Notice also asserts general allegations consisting of inaccurate, boilerplate and conclusory statements in lieu of specifying facts to support its allegations. For example, the Notice states in part “the insured prepared a loss package in the amount of $79,171.42 needed to restore the property back to its pre-loss condition. … This intentional delay with the claim has led to direct prejudice of the insured.” The Complainants fail to assert any facts to support these conclusory statements. Further, there are no facts to support that the amount claimed by the Complainants is what is owed for the claim at issue, let alone a single fact to support that there has been any delay. As will be explained below, Universal investigated the loss and rendered a coverage determination pursuant to the policy and within the requisite statutory period. The Complainants also allege “[t]he carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes §§624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a); 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss; and the loss payment provision under Section I- Conditions requiring payment of a claim within 90 days.” However, the Complainants fail to specify any facts or examples to support the above referenced boilerplate statutory violations and alleged violation of the Policy. Further, the Notice does not specify any facts regarding any misrepresentations made by Universal, does not identify the person or persons who made such misrepresentations, nor does it identify to whom any misrepresentations were made. As to the Complainants’ general reference to an alleged violation of the Policy “requiring payment of a claim within 90 days,” Universal asserts as phrased, this is misleading, and Universal relies on the actual Policy language itself. Further, there are no facts asserted to support this allegation. In addition, the Notice states “[a]ll the aforementioned are part of what appears to be an ongoing pattern and practice of behavior of the carrier that it demonstrates a wanton and reckless disregard for the insureds’ rights and a pattern and practice of bad faith claims practices to its insureds across the state of Florida.” The Complainants fail to specify facts to support these conclusory and speculative allegations. The Complainants do not specify any facts concerning when, how or whom, violated the Insureds’ rights. The Complainants are required to specify the facts and circumstances giving rise to the alleged violation strictly related to the Complainants’ allegations, not conjecture or speculation of the carrier’s business practices. It is evident that the statement of facts falls short of the specificity required by Sec. 624.155, Fla. Stat. As a result, the Complainants fail to comply with Sec. 624.155(3)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. In summary, as outlined above, the Complainants fail to respond to each of the fields set forth on the DFS Form with the requisite specificity including, but not limited to, failing to satisfy the requirement to identify the person or persons representing the insurer most responsible for or knowledgeable of the facts giving rise to the allegations, failing to allege any specific conduct on the part of Universal that would violate any policy provision or statute, and failing to reference specific policy language relevant to any alleged violation. Therefore, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 311 So.3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice is deficient as a matter of law. Nonetheless, and without waiving the above-referenced deficiencies, the following shall provide you with Universal’s response to the Notice. On October 25, 2024, Universal was notified by the Insureds’ public adjuster, DDavis & Associates Inc, that the insured location was damaged on October 8, 2024. Universal inspected the property and documented any visible damage. Universal, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy, advised the Insureds that the damage observed to the roofing system was not covered as it was due to wear and tear. Additionally, Universal advised that the interior dwelling property damage, as estimated, fell below the applicable deductible. At no time has Universal breached any duty to its Insureds. An Insurer is not required to pay whatever amount an insured demands. While an insurance carrier is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations set forth in the Notice are devoid of factual support and are without merit. Thus, the Notice is legally deficient and fails to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a bad faith action. Universal has complied with all policy provisions and applicable Florida law regarding the adjudication of this claim. We trust that the foregoing is sufficient to advise you of Universal’s position with regard to this matter and fully responds to the Notice filed by the Complainants. Sincerely, /s/ Jonathan Rodriguez Jonathan Rodriguez, Esq. Associate General Counsel
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