Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     798532
Filing Accepted:  12/27/2024
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
OTERO   First Name   HIPOLITO
Street Address * 5104 BIG STAND LN
City, State Zip * WIMAUMA, FL 33598
Email Address * GTORRES@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   OTERO   First Name   HIPOLITO
Policy # * 000988858890 Claim #* 0757044300
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* TORRES First Name * GISELLE Initial M
Street Address* 350 N. LAKE DESTINY ROAD
City, State Zip* MAITLAND , FLORIDA 32751
Email Address * GTORRES@ITSABOUTJUSTICE.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 10835
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Other : Appraisal after Suit Filed
Claim Denial
* 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)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(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.

The following policy provisions are relevant to this civil remedy notice. Section I - Your Property: Coverage A Dwelling Protection Section I - Losses We Cover Under Coverages A, B and C Section I - Conditions: Our Settlement of Loss […] We will settle any covered loss with you unless another payee is named in the policy or is legally entitled to receive payment. We will settle within 20 days after the amount of loss ins finally determined. […]
 
* 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 May 14, 2024, Hipolito Otero (“Insured”) suffered a covered loss at his residence located at 5104 Big Stand Lane, Wimauma, FL 33598 caused by a storm event. Prior to the loss, Castle Key Indemnity Company (“Castle Key”) issued a homeowner’s insurance policy (Policy # 000988858890) for the Insured’s property. The policy was in full force and effect on the date of loss and Castle Key was timely notified of the claim. After providing prompt notice of the loss, the Insured fully cooperated with Castle Key’s adjustment of the claim, including making his home available for inspection and providing documents requested. After completing its investigation, Castle Key accepted coverage for the loss. However, Castle Key failed to tender the full amount owed to actually complete the necessary repairs. After being served with the Insured’s lawsuit, Castle Key immediately responded by demanding that the court abate litigation and compel appraisal. Prior to the Insured filing suit, Castle Key made no meaningful attempts to resolve the dispute or settle the claim, nor did it ever request appraisal with the Insured. It was only in response to the Insured’s lawsuit that Castle Key sought to resolve the dispute of through appraisal. It has become a pattern and practice of Castle Key to deny full payment of claims without conducting a reasonable investigation. Castle Key routinely refuses to pay claims in full when it has the ability to do so, but instead waits to see if its insureds file suit and, only then, does Castle Key demand appraisal of the claim. As a general business practice, Castle Key intentionally delays resolution of its claims and leaves claimants with no choice but to pursue legal action or be underpaid for their damages. Furthermore, Castle Key knows that the relatively small amount in dispute makes the appraisal process cost prohibitive to the claimant because each party bears the expense of its own appraiser. Castle Key’s strategy to underpay claims and then demand appraisal if suit is filed is evidence that it does not act fairly or honestly towards its insureds and their assignees during the adjustment process and that Castle Key has failed to implement proper standards for the investigation and handling of its claims. To remedy this CRN, Castle Key must immediately tender the full remaining amount of insurance benefits owed to the Insured for its services rendered in the amount of $26,041.43. The payment should be tendered to the Insured’s attorney, Giselle M. Torres, Esq. at 350 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300, Maitland, FL 32751.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
tim.mchaffie@allstate.com 02-24-2025 This letter is Castle Key Indemnity Company’s (“Castle Key”) response to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notice. This response is provided on behalf of Castle Key and all of its employees, agents, officers and affiliates. Castle Key reserves all rights and defenses associated with the filing’s invalidity and comments below. Castle Key at all times during the handling of this claim acted fairly and honestly toward its insured. Castle Key fully and fairly considered information regarding the matters at hand and fully observed its contractual, statutory and administrative obligations. Castle Key has carefully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the alleged violations charged and believes they are completely without merit. Castle Key wholly denies any and all allegations of wrong-doing, claim delay, claim denial, unfair claims handling, improper investigation, misrepresentation or bad faith in connection with the above claim. Additionally, the CRN is defective and either does not sufficiently state the circumstances at hand or does so inaccurately. Accordingly, the CRN should be rejected. Complainant’s CRN violates the requirements set forth in the Florida courts’ jurisprudence for civil remedy notices. It fails to meet even the most basic requirements of the statute. Accordingly, Castle Key respectfully requests the Department return the CRN and insist the Complainant provide the specific facts required for civil remedy notices. See Section 624.155(3)(c), Florida Statutes. These requirements arise from the provisions of Section 624.155(3)(a) & (b), Florida Statutes. In interpreting this statute, courts have emphasized the importance of filing specific civil remedy notices. The civil remedy notice is “crucial to the procedural integrity of an action” under the statute. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F. Supp.2d 1328, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 1998). “It is, without a doubt, a condition that must be satisfied in order for one to perfect the right to sue under the statute.” Id. Thus, the CRN cannot be “vague and ‘shotgun’ in nature,” rather than “the type of specific notice required by the statute that would allow [the insurer] an opportunity to cure.” Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Because it is in derogation of the common law, Section 624.155(1)(b), Florida statutes must be strictly construed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 2000) (citing Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 285 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To perfect the right to sue under the statute, the insured must specifically notify the insured of any and all alleged violations claimed. Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 952 F.Supp. 773, 776 (M.D. Fla. 1996). Ultimately, conclusory allegations without facts fail to perfect a statutory bad faith claim. Merely alleging the bare minimum allegations is insufficient pursuant to Florida courts’ interpretations of Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Complainant’ notice fails the requirements for a valid civil remedy notice under Florida Statutes. Section 624.155 which mandates the Complainant to provide specific facts and circumstances of the alleged violations. This would necessarily include specific facts regarding the method of the investigation, the reasons the investigation was improper or otherwise inadequate, the reasons why this alleged inadequacy is due to the failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, and the facts supporting these conclusions. Castle Key strenuously denies all allegations in Complainant’s filing and would further state that the Notice is facially deficient with respect to these allegations in that it cites the statutory violations but does not provide sufficient specificity as to how Castle Key’s conduct violated these statutes. In large part, the Notice appears to be nothing more than boilerplate and conclusory allegations that have no specific application to the governing facts or law of this claim. Florida law does not allow a Complainant, without providing any facts, to allege that the insurer’s only option to avoid bad faith is paying whatever the Complainant’s demands. 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008). The Complainant’s CRN violates the specificity requirement and thus Complainant failed to satisfy the condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith action. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark American Insurance Company, LEXIS 100072 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Castle Key notes the CRN fails to reference the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violations or set forth facts in support of each of the alleged violations. This information is required to be included and be correct on the statutory Civil Remedy Notice form. Further, the filing inexplicably contains multiple unsubstantiated allegations regarding Castle Key’s handling of the subject claim. These allegations are neither supported by facts within the four-corner of the filing nor by Castle Key’s handling of the claim. Castle Key extended coverage, promptly investigated and fairly adjusted the claim pursuant to the policy of insurance – there is now a disagreement as to the amount of loss. Castle Key would like this opportunity to set forth an accurate factual background and accounting of the subject claim. On May 31, 2024, a claim for damages to the insured residence was reported to Castle Key. Castle Key promptly began efforts to investigate and adjust the claim – timely issuing payment to the insured for the covered loss. Complainant is seeking indemnification for damages which far exceeds the amount of loss determined by Castle Key. The underlying claim arises from a disagreement as to the amount of loss and is appropriate for appraisal as set forth in the policy of insurance. Accordingly, Castle Key invoked the appraisal provision of the policy of insurance to resolve the value-rated dispute and timely named its appraiser. Similarly, Complainant (by way of their attorney) designated its appraiser and the subject claim has been moved into appraisal to make a determination of the amount of loss as provided in the policy of insurance. Conclusion The Civil Remedy Notice is invalid for the reasons set forth above. No evidence has been produced to substantiate the CRN’s allegations. Castle Key has fulfilled its duties as provided under the terms and conditions of the policy. Based on the foregoing, Castle Key renews its denial of all allegations of wrong-doing; claim delay; claim denial; unfair claims handling; improper investigation; misrepresentation; and/or bad faith in connection with the above claim. Castle Key reserves all of its rights. If Complainant or their counsel have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Castle Key at our office for a further response. Sincerely, CASTLE KEY INDEMNITY COMPANY Prepared by Tim McHaffie, Esq.
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