Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     798172
Filing Accepted:  12/24/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
RIEU   First Name   TIMOTHY
Street Address * 15891 CAPTIVA DRIVE
City, State Zip * CAPTIVA, FL 33924
Email Address * TJR964@AOL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   RIEU   First Name   TIMOTHY
Policy # * OICF0008192-02 Claim #* 22FLDFV0008606
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KELLAM First Name * CHRISTOPHER Initial W
Street Address* 759 PARKWAY STREET, SUITE 202
City, State Zip* JUPITER , FLORIDA 33477
Email Address * CKELLAM@KELLERSWAN.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* OCTAVIO BERMUDEZ
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)(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.

114. The specific policy language is found in policy number OICF0008192-02, DP 00 03 07 88 Dwelling Property 3 - Special Form as amended by OIC DP 09 SP 06 18 Special Provisions – Florida, Conditions subsection 12 within the “Our Option” provision (cited in Insurer’s 11.10.2022 letter, incorporated herein)
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

* This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by section 624.155, Florida Statutes. *This Civil Remedy Notice is intended to comply with all requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes and Florida law interpreting same. If Insurer takes the position that it cannot respond to this Notice because information is missing, Complainant requests that Insurer advise Complainant immediately so that reasonable, substantive issues can be addressed. 1. Complainant Name: Timothy Rieu 2. Complainant Street Address: 15891 Captiva Drive 3. Complainant City, State, Zip: Captiva, Florida 33924 4. Complainant Email Address: tjr964@aol.com 5. Complainant Type: Insured 6. Insured Name: Timothy Rieu 7. Insured Policy #: OICF0008192-02 8. Insured Claim #: 22FLDFV0008606 9. Attorney Name: Christopher Kellam 10. Attorney Street Address: 759 Parkway Street, suite 202 11. Attorney City, State, Zip: Jupiter, Florida 33477 12. Attorney Email Address: ckellam@kellerswan.com 13. Violation Insurer Type: Authorized Insurer 14. Violation Insurer Name: Olympus Insurance Company 15. Violation Type of Insurance: Residential Property & Casualty 16. Violation Insurer Street Address: P.O. Box 33117 17. Violation Insurer City, State, Zip: Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33420 18. Person representing insurer: Octavio Bermudez 19. Reasons for Notice: Claim Delay, Unfair Trade Practice Facts and Circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation: A. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP. 1. Insurer and Insured. 2. Insured paid Insurer annual premium to insure the covered property, which includes a dwelling. 3. Premium pays for, among other coverages, Coverage A – Dwelling. 4. Premium includes inspecting the dwelling for any claim. 5. Insurer has a duty to determine extent of all loss, damage, and coverage – under each type of coverage applicable to a claim. 6. Insurer has duty to provide complete information with regard to any claim. 7. Insurer cannot injure, defraud, or deceive Insured with regard to any claim. 8. Insurer has a duty to act in good faith at all times. B. INSURER’S CLAIMS EXPERIENCE. 9. Insurer has been insuring dwellings for years. 10. Insurer has had hundreds of hurricane claims in the past. 11. Insurer has a team of consulting experts to help it determine extent of loss and damage with regard to any claim; e.g., roofers, engineers, contractors, etc. 12. Insurer knows dwellings located near the coastline are at risk of damage in Florida due to hurricanes. 13. Insurer knows that dwellings located near the coastline are often used as rental properties. 14. Insurer knows that, when a dwelling is damaged by hurricane, the structural integrity of the dwelling (roof, windows, doors) is compromised. 15. Insurer knows that subsequent weather events, even those not as severe as the loss event, can cause damage because of the compromised roof. 16. Insurer knows this will continue until dwelling is repaired. 17. Insurer knows that a roof cannot be repaired when a loss causes sufficient damage to compromise the entire system; the roof must be replaced. 18. Insurer knows that water leaking to the interior, when sitting over time, causes continuous damage including mold. 19. Insurer knows that a dwelling cannot be used as a rental property when damaged by a hurricane. C. INSURED’S HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE POLICY. 20. Insurer issued to Insured a Dwelling Property 3 policy. 21. All loss is covered unless expressly excluded. 22. There is coverage for this loss. D. INSURED DWELLING. 23. Insurer knew the following information in this section D when issuing the policy, at each renewal, and prior to the loss. 24. Roofing system consisted of primary insulation, cover board, underlayment (underlying primary moisture barrier), and surfacing. 25. Dwelling had an uncompromised roofing system with aluminum surface material. 26. Roofing system was and is required to comply with applicable Florida building and safety codes. 27. Uncompromised roofing system protected Insured’s dwelling from all weather. 28. When wind and rain events occurred, the uncompromised roofing system was waterproof because of the layered construction. 29. When roofing system was compromised by the subject loss event and failed, the roof ceased to function as designed and required. 30. The covered property was used by Insured as a rental property. 31. Insured regularly maintained the coverage property because of its continued use as a rental property. 32. Insurer has no evidence of roof, window, door, or interior water damage existing prior to the subject loss. E. INSURER’S NOTICE. 33. Insurer knows year home was built. 34. Insurer knows when policy is issued the age of the dwelling. 35. Insurer knows when policy is issued the condition of the dwelling. 36. Insurer was aware of all relevant underwriting materials. 37. Insurer knows a weather event, namely Hurricane Ian, occurred while the subject policy was in force and effect. 38. Insurer knows that, subsequent to Hurricane Ian, Insured’ roof, windows, doors, and dwelling interior were damaged and suffered a loss. F. TYPICAL HURRICANE CLAIM. 39. Insurer knows that hurricane-force winds can and do damage Florida dwellings. 40. Insurer knows the damaged roof will leak causing further damage, and will continue to deteriorate until repaired or replaced. 41. Symptoms may include, among others: (a) damaged roof materials; (b) water damage; (c) leaking water to interior; (d) bad smell; (e) roaches, flies or rodents; or (f) other water leak problems (“symptoms”). 42. Symptoms will continue until the dwelling is repaired. 43. Insurer knows that, until repaired, a rental property is not livable until repairs are completed. 44. Insurer knows that hurricanes cause such extensive damage that Insured are unable to complete repairs without policy benefits. 45. Insured must make emergency mitigation efforts. 46. However, Insurer relies on a lengthy, complicate insurance policy that Insured may not fully understand. 47. Insurer delays investigation and resolution of the claim so that insureds feel that they must accept lower policy benefits payments just to move forward. 48. Insured is forced to threaten the filing of a lawsuit by submitting Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. G. INSURED’S CLAIM. 49. Insured notified Insurer that he had dwelling damage caused by Hurricane Ian. 50. Insured submitted to Insurer photographs, documentation, and information acquired soon after the storm passed. 51. Insured’s photographs included those showing damage to the roof and to the interior of the dwelling. 52. Insurer knows that the claimed damage did not exist prior to the hurricane striking Insured’s dwelling. 53. Insurer knows that the dwelling is not livable until hurricane-related damage is repaired. 54. Insurer was required to determine the extent of all loss, damage, and coverage. 55. Insurer had a duty to pay or deny the claim within 90 days. 56. Insurer knew the symptoms of damage caused by a hurricane. 57. Insurer has had every opportunity to diagnose the cause of the symptoms. 58. In the meantime, Insured’s dwelling remained uninhabitable. 59. Insurer has known that Insured were not able to rent the covered property following Hurricane Ian. H. INSURER’S INSPECTION. 60. Insurer inspected the dwelling. 61. Purpose of inspection was to determine extent of loss, damage, and coverage. 62. Insurer had a team of consulting experts available for the inspection. 63. Insurer was not limited to one inspection. 64. Insurer knew that a failed roof and window system would trigger coverage or indemnity payments under policy for the following: (a) tear-out; (b) roof replacement; (c) post tear out repairs; (d) rental; and (e) moving and storage during any repairs (“indemnity payments”). I. INSURER’S RESPONSE TO INSURED’S CLAIM. 65. On 11.10.2022, Insurer selected the Option to repair or replace Insured’s roof. 66. Insurer selected contractor “Baldwin” to replace the roof. 67. However, Insurer’s contractor would not replace all the gutters, soffit, and fascia. 68. Insurer’s original roof cover material selection was a different material than covered the roof at the time of Hurricane Ian. 69. Insurer’s original roof cover material selection was not designed for use in proximity to bodies of salt water, as with Insured’s dwelling. 70. Insurer’s original roof cover material selection was not of like kind and quality to the material covering the roof at the time of the loss. 71. Insurer then changed contractors to Neumann Construction & Roofing LLC. 72. Insurer’s again approved roof cover material selection that was a different material than covered the roof at the time of Hurricane Ian. 73. Insurer than approved a like kind and quality aluminum roof cover material. 74. Insured met with Insurer’s contractor to complete the paperwork necessary to start the re-roof process. 75. Insured then did not hear from Insurer’s contractor for a number of weeks. 76. Insured then learned form Insurer’s contractor, without any notice from Insurer, that the re-roof Option would not move forward. 77. To date, Insurer knows that Insured cannot complete the remaining repairs until the roof is replaced. 78. To date, Insured continues to lose rental money because the dwelling is not rentable. 79. Insurer has yet to correct this failure. 80. Insurer failed to provide complete information regarding the extent of the loss; e.g., partial disclosure of material information is misleading. 81. Insurer’s intent was to injure, defraud, or deceive Insured. 82. Insurer failed to act in Insured’ best interest. 83. Insurer refused to acknowledge the complete extent of loss and damage. 84. Insurer’s response to Insured’s claim and its actions are made in bad faith. 85. Insured submitted a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, Notice Number 170974. 86. Insurer failed to complete the Option selection. 87. On 11.18.2024, Insurer deposed Insured. 88. Insurer has thus far provided no explanation for its failure to follow through on its Option selection. 89. To help Insurer evaluate this civil remedy notice of insurer violation, please review the allegations under insured’s Complaint, written discovery responses, and deposition testimony which are adopted herein. J. INSURER’S GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICE & BAD FAITH. 90. An insurer’s general business practice includes pre-suit, litigation, mediation, or appraisal. 91. This case is an example of Insurer’s general business practice. 92. Insurer demands to utilize a contractor of its choosing to replace its insureds’ roofs within 90 days. 627.70131(5)(a), F.S. 93. Insurer selects this Option to save money. 94. Insurer then fails to complete the Option. 95. Insurer fails to write the policy clearly for insured to understand; e.g., when reading the policy, endorsements, amendments or changes you have to be a lawyer that specializes in reading insurance policies to understand what it says and even then sometimes the lawyers disagree. 96. Insurer fails to provide complete and accurate information to its insured. 97. Insurer ignores, denies, and fails to identify, all loss, damage and coverage. 98. Insurer’s intent is to injure, defraud, or deceive insured. 817.234(7)(b), F.S. 99. Insured retain an attorney to procure complete payment of the loss covered under the policy. 100. Insured submit a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. 101. Insurer responds to the Notice with a demand to continue the claim negotiation process without clear indication of what will be covered and paid. 102. Insured serves Insurer with a lawsuit from breach of the homeowner’s insurance contract. 103. Insurer takes this course of action as a general business practice. 104. When an insured is forced to file suit for breach of the policy, Insurer denies allegations in response to the complaint that should be admitted, it asserts affirmative defenses without a factual or legal basis, it objects and fails to answer discovery during the litigation and otherwise obstructs the process to force the insured to settle for less than their loss and damages. 105. Insurer’s actions are unfair, deceptive, intentional, and otherwise in made bad faith and violate all applicable statutes which include, but are not limited to, the statutory provisions cited under this civil remedy notice. 106. These practices are designed to obstruct the claim process and force the insured to settle for less than their loss and damages. 107. This general business practice significantly decreases Insurer’s loss payments. K. STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH THE INSURER ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED 108. Insurer violated section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes: 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. 109. Brief summary of section 624.155(1)(b)(1) violation – Insurer acknowledged coverage under this claim and initially invoked its option to repair or replace. Insurer and Insured moved forward with the process as regards replacing the roof by utilizing Olympus Elite Repair Program and Neumann Construction & Roofing LLC. Insurer initially chose a different vendor with whom Insured met to complete the roof replacement process. Insured then changed vendors to Neumann. Insured cooperated with Insurer’s vendor and signed all paperwork necessary to complete the re-roof work. Insurer recently, without notice to Insured, stopped the replacement process. 110. Insurer violated section 624.155(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes: 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. 111. Brief summary of section 624.155(1)(b)(3) violation – Insurer acknowledged coverage under this claim and initially invoked its option to repair or replace. Insurer and Insured moved forward with the process as regards replacing the roof by utilizing Olympus Elite Repair Program and Neumann Construction & Roofing LLC. Insurer initially chose a different vendor with whom Insured met to complete the roof replacement process. Insured then changed vendors to Neumann. Insured cooperated with Insurer’s vendor and signed all paperwork necessary to complete the re-roof work. Insurer recently, without notice to Insured, stopped the replacement process. 112. Insurer violated section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), Florida Statutes: 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. 113. Brief summary of section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f) violation – In addition to the above, Insurer failed to explain its reason for not completing the re-roof process through the Olympus Elite Repair Program. L. REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC POLICY LANGUAGE 114. The specific policy language is found in policy number OICF0008192-02, DP 00 03 07 88 Dwelling Property 3 - Special Form as amended by OIC DP 09 SP 06 18 Special Provisions – Florida, Conditions subsection 12 within the “Our Option” provision (cited in Insurer’s 11.10.2022 letter, incorporated herein). M. MEASURE OF CURE 115. Insurer can cure its violations and avoid a bad faith action with respect to Coverage A, as regards the Option to repair or replace the Insured’s roof. 116. Please timely complete replacement of the roof pursuant to the conditions already agreed. 117. To be clear, Complainant is aware that Insurer agreed to utilize Neumann Construction & Roofing LLC to replace the damaged roof with like-kind-and-quality (aluminum roof with warranty) pursuant to the Olympus Elite Repair Program. 118. Note that this Civil Remedy Notice specifically relates only those damages under Coverage A of the subject Policy specifically addressed by Insurer’s previously invoked Option to repair or replace the Insured’s roof; Complainant reserves his right to pursue remaining damages under Coverage A as well as damages under Coverage C and Coverage D. 119. Second, Insurer must admit Complainant’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined by settlement or by a determination of the Court in which Complainant’s action is pending.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ckellam@foryourrights.com 02-20-2025 Because of Insurer's actions, the insured Property is now subject to a foreclosure action: Lee County case 36-2024-CA-008110-A001CH.
jsausner@bressler.com 02-17-2025 Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (hereinafter “Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 798172, filed on behalf of Timoth Rieu, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on December 24, 2024. The CRN alleges that Olympus 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. • 624.155(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)(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. Please accept this as Olympus’s response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, Timothy Rieu. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to promptly settle claims when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the policy coverage, 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, and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainants’ claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Olympus denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Olympus. The CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of Florida statutory provisions, with minimal factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to the violation. The CRN fails to specify what was lacking in Olympus’s investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was unfair or merits additional steps. To Olympus’s knowledge, the instant claim for insurance benefits has been adjusted and/or repaired properly. The CRN further lacks any specificity, facts, or rationale which indicate that Olympus’s coverage determination should have been different as the CRN in general complains about the Insured’s roof, however, Olympus opened coverage for a full roof replacement with replacement of the soffits, fascia, and gutters. Olympus timely and properly invoked its option to repair for the these items and as described below, any delay in the completion of the work was due to the Insured’s failure to comply with the option to repair process. With that being said, generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this response, to put Olympus on notice as to the allegations against it. As a matter of background, on October 6, 2022, Olympus first received notice of the subject claim as having occurred on September 28, 2022. Despite the island being closed to road traffic, on October 18, 2022, independent field adjuster, Preston Boyles, took a boat to the island to inspect the property. Prior to his inspection, the Insured already hired Quality Restoration to perform mitigation and demolition to the property and the floors and walls were removed to the first two floors of this three story property. Mr. Boyles completed a thorough inspection of the property including the roof, exterior, and interior of the property. Thereafter, on November 10, 2022, Olympus issued correspondence to the Insured notifying him that it was invoking its option to replace his roof, soffits, fascia, and gutters. Under the policy, Olympus has 30-days from its first inspection to choose to elect its option to repair or replace damaged property. Olympus timely and property invoked its option to replace the roof, gutters, soffit, and fascia within the 30-day period on November 10, 2022. On November 15, 2022, Olympus reinspected the property with licensed professional engineer, Stephanie Cleary, from Grindley Williams Engineering. Ms. Cleary completed a thorough reinspection of the subject property including to the roof, exterior, and interior. At her inspection, Ms. Cleary identified damage from storm surge to the boat dock, boat lift, and garage doors. Additionally, minor repairable damage was observed to the exterior cladding of the property. There was also interior water damage through non-peril created openings to the second and third stories. Moreover, Ms. Cleary identified a substantial amount of damage to the property that was not related to Hurricane Ian and was instead long-term wear and tear and maintenance-related issued. The roof was not leaking and there was no damage to the property from water intrusion from the roof. On January 18, 2023, Olympus issued a coverage letter opening additional coverage for the Insured’s claim with a partial denial. Olympus opened additional coverage for $150,320.42 under Coverage A for interior damage from wind-driven rain. Moreover, Olympus opened coverage for $72,000 under Coverage D. Olympus also denied coverage for several areas of the property that engineer Cleary concluded were unrelated to Hurricane Ian and not covered under the policy. In its January 18, 2023 correspondence, Olympus stated that it would absorb the Insured’s hurricane deductible and Olympus reiterated its election of its option to replace the roof and roof-related items. On January 30, 2023, Olympus notified the Insured that it selected a contractor to complete the work and an estimate and scope sheet for the work was provided to the Insured. Thereafter, on February 1, 2023, Olympus received a letter of representation from a public adjuster, Beach Front Claims Consultants. On February 9, 2023, Olympus followed up with the Insured to select the color for the materials and sign the work authorization documents so the work could proceed. On February 17, 2023, Olympus reinspected the property with Rescom Insurance Solutions. Olympus issued a formal Request for Information Letter to the Insured on April 27, 2023 and requested information relating to the roof’s original warranty and the original roof purchase documents. On June 5, 2023, Olympus e-mailed the Insured’s public adjuster and notified the public adjuster that Olympus was still pending the Insured’s color selection, signed documents, and that Olympus still wanted to proceed with its option to repair even if the Insured did not have his roof warranty documents available. On July 25, 2023, Olympus made an additional payment under Coverage A to the Insured in the amount of $63,921.73. On August 1, 2023, Olympus received a letter of representation from attorney Daphne Miller. Shortly thereafter, on August 8, 2023, Olympus received an estimate from Beachfront Claims which included a full re-roof. On October 25, 2023, Olympus’s spoke with the Insured’s attorney, Daphne Miller, Ms. Miller informed Olympus that she wished to place option to repair on hold and that the Insured is not moving forward with option to repair at that time. On February 5, 2024, the Insured submitted a Notice of Intent to Litigate with a demand of $1,539,699.36 which included pricing for a full re-roof, soffit, facia, and gutters. At this time, the option to repair process was still ongoing, however, the work had not commenced as the Insured had not signed the work authorization documents needed. Shortly thereafter, on March 13, 2024, the Insured filed a lawsuit against Olympus for breach of contract. Notably, during the litigation, Olympus offered the Insured the chance to cooperate with its option to repair process again and the Insured accepted. As of this writing, a permit has been pulled for the work and Nuemann Construction is in the process of completing a full re-roof with gutters, soffit, and facia. The option to repair contractor and Insured have also agreed on a mutually acceptable warranty for the work. Olympus asserts that any delay in the process was due to the Insured’s failure to timely cooperate with the process. The Complainants’ cure demand is indiscernible and as such Olympus is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. The CRN states: “… Insurer can cure its violations and avoid a bad faith action with respect to Coverage A, as regards the Option to repair or replace the Insureds roof.” 1) Please timely complete replacement of the roof pursuant to the conditions already agreed. 2) To be clear, Complainant is aware that Insured agreed to utilize Neumann Construction & Roofing LLC to replace the damaged roof with link-kind-and-quality (aluminum roof with warranty) pursuant to the Olympus Elite Repair Program. 3) Note that this Civil Remedy Notice specifically relates only those damages Under Coverage A of the subject policy specifically addressed by Insurer’s previously invoked Option to repair or replace the damaged roof; Complainant reserves its right to pursue remaining damages under Coverage A as well as damages under Coverage C and Coverage D. 4) Second, Insurer must admit Complainant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be determined by settlement or by determination of the Court in which Complainant’s action is pending.” This is the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). In addition to demanding “everything I’ve asked for,” the cure is unclear as to what it’s asking for beyond replacement of the Insured’s roof and a vague demand for attorneys’ fees and costs. The cure provides no basis for Olympus to even attempt to calculate what it seeks when demanding several unclear payments and reimbursements to the insured Complainants. Rather, the cure demand is merely an attempt to deceive Olympus into issuing some ambiguous payment rather than defending itself against a threat of bad faith when no bad faith is remotely existent anywhere throughout the instant claim. Given the cure, Olympus affirmatively asserts that the CRN is deficient. Since no other distinct basis for a cure has been set forth by the Civil Remedy Notice, Olympus was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts…’”). Based on the facts provided, it is impossible for Olympus to satisfy the Complainants without significantly prejudicing itself, and therefore the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Similarly, for these reasons, the CRN fails. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainants in connection with the instant claim. Olympus consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainants and/or their 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 Olympus from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Olympus believes 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 believes 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.
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