Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     797932
Filing Accepted:  12/23/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
HINKLE   First Name   JEFFREY
Street Address * 1436 CHAFFIN LANE
City, State Zip * PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33953
Email Address * SMERILLO@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   HINKLE   First Name   JEFFREY
Policy # * IFH 6045075-01 Claim #* CFL200124094
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KIMMEL First Name * GINA Initial
Street Address* 20 N. ORANGE AVE STE 1600
City, State Zip* ORLANDO , FLORIDA 32801
Email Address * SMERILLO@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CYPRESS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10953
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JACQULINE MOORE
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
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)(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)(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)(4) Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 60 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 factors beyond the control of the insurer as defined in s. 627.70131(5).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST A. Coverage A – Dwelling And Coverage B – Other Structures 1. We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. Section I – Condition C. Loss Settlement d. We will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete. Once actual repair or replacement is complete, we will settle the loss as noted in 2.a. and b. above
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

On or about September 28, 2022, Insured, Jeffrey Hinkle’s (“Insured”) home belonging to Complainant was damaged during the policy period as a result of Hurricane Ian and warnings from the National Weather Service for potential damage. Insured filed a claim to his Insurer, Cypress Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Insurer”). Despite having extensive knowledge of the foregoing information, Insurer has failed to adjust the claim in a manner favorable to the Insured, despite having the opportunity to inspect the damaged property and there being sufficient evidence of damage. This systematic underpayment and/or denial of claims is believed to be a business practice of this insured. Insurer investigated the claim, inspected the property, and rendered an erroneous claims decision. As a result of Insurer’s insufficient payment, Insured provided Insurer with notice to re-open and/or supplement the claim and a copy of an itemized supporting estimate of damages and photographs. Insured also advised of its amenability to attend a pre-suit DFS Mediation. Accordingly, Insured filed a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation based upon a supporting estimate of damage. In response, Insurer relayed a settlement offer which amounted to less than what is necessary to restore the property its pre-loss condition. Bad faith discovery will likely reveal that it is a business practice of Insurer to treat insureds who are unrepresented at the time of making a claim, or through the initial claim adjustment process, unfairly. Those insureds regularly receive a calculated denial of the claim and/or low ball offers until after counsel is retained on the insured’s behalf. Further, Bad faith discovery will also likely reveal Insurer has a team of individuals it pays to conduct inspections and prepare reports and estimates that attempt to deny claims, and limit or minimize coverage for the insured’s loss. Insurer’s reliance on these estimates and reports benefits the Insurer as they are biased by not addressing the full scope or cost of the loss and the appropriate coverage. To cure this violation, insurer should agree, in writing, to completely bring the property to its pre-loss condition pursuant to the damage estimate provided during discovery, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and applicable Florida law. As a result, if the Insurer pays the damages alleged herein, any further claims for additional insurance proceeds will be submitted to the Insurer pursuant to the policy's loss settlement provision. This payment is exclusive of Insured’s claims for statutory attorney fees, costs, and interest pursuant to Florida law. This matter and Insurer’s business practices with respect to loss adjustment and claims handling should be investigated further by the Office of the Insurance Consumer Advocate.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
gthomas@forthepeople.com 01-08-2025 Insureds hereby notify the Department and all interested parties that the issues presented in the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations have been resolved. Insureds hereby request the Department to take no further action other than to mark the file as resolved and close it.
WPratt@gspalaw.com 01-07-2025 January 7, 2025 Via Electronic Posting to the DFS Website Department of Financial Services Civil Remedy Notice, Department 200 East Gaines Street, 5th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 RE: Insured: Jeffrey M Hinkle II Claim No.: CFL200124094 Policy No.: IFH 6045075 01 84 Date of Loss: September 28, 2022 Our File No.: CYP.48123 DFS Accepted: December 23, 2024 DFS Number: 797932 Dear Sir/Madam: This correspondence shall serve as the formal response of Cypress Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Cypress”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”) that was accepted by the Department of Financial Services (“Department”) on December 23, 2024. The Notice was submitted to the Department by Gina Kimmel, Esq, on behalf of the Complainant/Insured, Jeffrey M Hinkle II, in connection with a claim for loss submitted to Cypress. Initially, Cypress asserts that there are technical deficiencies in the Notice submitted to the Department. Moreover, the Notice submitted by the Insured and accepted by the Department fails to comply with the notice requirements of Florida Statute §624.155, and should be rejected by the Department. Cypress contends that the Notice filed by the Insureds is deficient as a matter of law as it fails to comply with Fla. Stat. §624.155. See 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 526 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 § 624.155(3)(b), Fla. Stat., 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. In addition to the criteria cited above, the Florida legislature created “Form DFS-10-363”, which is a Civil Remedy Notice form that lays out an additional fifteen (15) requirements: 1. Complainant’s Name; 2. Complainant’s Address; 3. Complainant’s email address; 4. Complainant type (Insured or otherwise) 5. Insured’s Name; 6. Insurance Policy Number; 7. Insurance Claim Number; 8. Attorney’s Name; 9. Attorney’s Address; 10. Attorney’s email Address; 11. Type of Insurer (authorized or otherwise) 12. Name of Insurer; 13. Address of Insurer; 14. Type of Insurance (Commercial Property & casualty or otherwise); and 15. Reason for Notice Similar to the five (5) criteria specifically listed in Fla. Stat. § 624.155, the fifteen (15) additional items required by the Department of Financial Services must be correctly stated with specificity in order to satisfy a condition precedent to bringing an action under Fla. Stat. § 624.155. See, Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 20-CV-14013, 2020 WL 3038576, at * 3-4 (holding that the plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was deficient as a matter of law because the email address listed for the Complainant was the attorney’s email address); Mathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins, Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (holding that the correct policy number, one of the above listed requirements promulgated by the Florida Department of Financial Services, must be on a Civil Remedy Notice for it to be valid because Fla. Stat. § 624.155 requires a Civil Remedy Notice to have the information required by the Florida Department of Financial Services). To put it simply, a CRN is defective as a matter of law if any of the twenty (20) mandatory items cited above are missing or otherwise incorrect. With respect to the statutory requirement to set forth with specificity the “facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation,” the Notice fails to allege any specific conduct on the part of Cypress that would violate any policy provision or statute. The Notice contains conjecture and supposition as opposed to any facts supporting the conclusory allegations. A written notice which is vague and “shotgun” in nature or is written in general terms fails to satisfy the specificity requirement of the statute. See Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 580 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; 316, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 2d at 1193; see also Rousso, 2010 WL 7367059 at *3-6; Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 1627276 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Second, the Notice fails to satisfy Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4) in that it fails to reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation with any degree of specificity. In particular, the Notice only cites to the Loss Settlement Provision of the policy at issue without specifically delineating what was violated. The Insured also fails to provide factual specificity for any purported violations of the policy at issue. As such, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the specificity requirement of Fla. Stat. § 624.155(3)(b)(4). Third, the Notice fails with respect to its requirement to specify how Cypress may “cure” the alleged violations. The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide a carrier with one last opportunity to “cure” the alleged violations. In this instance, the only real “cure” that the Notice is seeking is full payment of a random sum unilaterally determined by Plaintiff, not even specifically defined in the Notice more than by stating: “ . . . pursuant to the damage estimate provided during discovery, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and applicable Florida law.” The purpose of a Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer an opportunity to “cure” the alleged wrongdoing. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000). The Notice does not serve this purpose. Specifically, the Notice does not provide a proper means whereby Cypress can “cure” the alleged defects, short of paying additional benefits which are not due and owing. This failure to provide a proper opportunity to cure renders the Notice improper. Longpoint Condominium Associations v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2005 WL 131580 (N.D. Fla. June 2, 2005). Moreover, the method for curing the violations alleged in a civil remedy notice are not determined by the insured. In Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court accepted and quoted the reasoning of the court below in its opinion which stated in relevant part, as follows: Section 624.155 does not impose on an insurer the obligation to pay whatever the insured demands. Section 624.155(2)(d) would have no effect or purpose under such an interpretation. The law does not support such an expansive and illogical reading of Fla. Stat. Ann. §624.155(2)(d). To cure an alleged violation and to avoid a civil action, an insurer must pay the claim . . . before the sixty days expire. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282 citing Talat Enterprises Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 777-778 (M.D. Fla. 1996). In addition, the Notice seeks remedies that are “extra-contractual”. A demand for a cure is properly limited to the four corners of the policy and thus the extra-contractual demands render the Notice insufficient on its face. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a Civil Remedy Notice is invalid if the curative action demands more than the payment of contractual benefits under the insurer’s policy. See, Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Subsequent to Talat, Florida courts, and federal courts applying Florida law, reaffirmed the rule articulated in Talat. See, Do v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 1:17-CV-23041-JLK, 2019 WL 331295, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding that a plaintiff’s Civil Remedy Notice was invalid as a matter of law because the curative actions demanded did not concern payment of contractual benefits owned under the insurer’s policy). Here, Cypress properly adjusted the claim, accepted coverage, and indemnified the claim albeit below the policy’s windstorm deductible, for the undisputed damages. The Insured has produced no evidence that the Insured is entitled to the damages demanded. Cypress asserts it has been diligent in responding to the Insured’s requests and investigating the claim. The subject policy of insurance, governing statutes, and case law only permit submission of a claim and payment for covered losses. While an insurance company is required to settle claims that should be settled, it is not required to settle claims that are legitimately contested. Florida law continually affirms the principle that an insurer has the right to investigate claims presented for payment. An insurance company is expressly afforded an opportunity to evaluate its rights and liabilities. After reviewing the Civil Remedy Notice, Cypress conducted a thorough review of its handling of the Insured’s claim. Cypress denies that it violated any statutes, administrative code provisions, or ethical rules or obligations in connection with its investigation and handling of the Insured’s claim. Notwithstanding, Cypress remains committed to resolving this matter. As outlined above, the alleged statutory violations and factual allegations set forth in the Notice are devoid and without merit. Cypress has abided by the policy and the coverage determination was made in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties Again, Cypress has handled the claim in accordance with the insurance contract and all statutory and regulatory requirements. Cypress responded to and handled this claim with diligence and with due regard for the interests of the Insured, and has at all times acted fairly in the administration of the claim and has treated the Insured with honesty and has done so in compliance with the policy of insurance and Florida law. Cypress Property and Casualty Insurance Company has attempted to fully and adequately respond to the Insured’s allegations alleged in the Notice filed with the Department. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should the Department have any questions with regard to this response. Very truly yours, GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. /s/ Wayne M. Pratt Wayne M. Pratt For the Firm CRN Response cc: Gina Kimmel, Esq., Via email to GKimmel@forthepeople.com Cypress Property and Casualty Insurance 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