Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     799757
Filing Accepted:  1/7/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
DURAN   First Name   ADAM
Street Address * 267 BELLE GROVE LANE
City, State Zip * ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411
Email Address * BIGAUDE@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   DURAN   First Name   ADAM
Policy # * 702112 Claim #* 012296
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* KRAPF First Name * GRANT Initial W
Street Address* 2790 SUNSET POINT RD
City, State Zip* CLEARWATER , FL 33759
Email Address * GRANT@KRAPFLEGAL.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   VYRD INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 17153
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* RICKIE KUBIAK, TODD CANTRELL, REBECCA WELLS, CHRISTOPHER GAPSTUR, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL FROM, OR AGENT OF, VYRD INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct
Other : Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured
Other : Looking for ways to delay full recovery to the Insured
Other : Failing to properly investigate the Insured's loss
Other : Failing to provide the Insured with the full benefits awarded under the contract of insurance in a t
Other : Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made
Other : Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly
Other : Shifting the burden of insuring the loss to the Insured
Other : Intentionally misstating the terms, conditions, and benefits of the insurance policy to the insured
Other : Failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims
Other : Making material misrepresentations
* 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)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b).
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Reference to specific policy language: The violations alleged are statutorily based and do not rely on any specific policy language. "It is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention." Westside EKG Assocs. v. Found. Health, 932 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), aff'd, 944 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2006).
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

VYRD Insurance Company (the "Insurer") has committed the following in handling the Insured's claim: 1) failing to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2) placing the financial interest of Insurer before that of the Insured; 3) looking for ways to deny benefit payments and otherwise "low ball" or "stone wall" claims; 4) not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 5) not attempting in good faith to settle claims; 6) conducting inadequate investigations; 7) failing to employ policies and procedures to conduct adequate investigations; and 8) denying a claim which it knew or should have known the policy and Florida law provided coverage for. On or about September 28, 2022, while the subject policy was in full force and effect, the Insured's property was severely damaged by Hurricane Ian. The areas impacted include but are not limited to the roofing system, entry/dining room, hallway, laundry room, garage, office, office closet, kitchen, living room, bedroom, master bedroom, and master bathroom. The Insured timely submitted a claim on September 16, 2024, to the Insurer for hurricane damage and the ensuing damage therefrom. Thereafter, the Insurer assigned claim number 012296 to the loss and sent a field adjuster and engineer to inspect the property on September 23, 2024. Then in a letter dated November 5, 2024, the Insurer notified the Insured that it was denying coverage for the loss. This coverage decision is incorrect. Denying coverage for the damage was wrongful as the damages are covered under the policy. Given the denial, the Insured's disagreement with the coverage decision, and the scope and nature of the damage resulting from Hurricane Ian, the Insured retained a public adjuster. After assessing the damage and the true scope of repairs, the public adjuster produced an estimate identifying $145,405.68 in covered damage to the dwelling. The foregoing estimate, photographs, and a letter of representation from the public adjuster were sent to the Insurer. Upon receiving notice of the loss, the Insurer had the duty to provide the full benefits under the policy. This includes providing the Insured with a proper investigation and the funds necessary to return the home to its pre-loss condition. However, when the Insurer conducted its inspections of the insured property, the Insurer's representatives failed to conduct a thorough and adequate investigation, or the representatives intentionally ignored the damage observed and failed to make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after investigating. As a result, the Insurer breached the policy by failing to fully indemnify the Insured for the covered loss. The Insurer misrepresented the loss and wrongfully denied coverage for the damage sustained to the Insured's property. According to the claims determination letter, the Insurer's engineer observed damage to the property but attributed the cause of this damage to causes excluded under the policy. However, the Insurer knows or should know that when independent perils converge and no single cause can be considered the sole or proximate cause, it is appropriate to apply the concurring cause doctrine. Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016). The concurring cause doctrine states that coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause. Id. at 698. A covered peril that meets with an uncovered peril may still provide for coverage under a policy when the covered peril triggered the events that eventually led to the loss. Id. at 697. The Insurer intentionally ignored covered damage to deny the reported loss and wrongfully fail to pay the Insured. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interests of the Insurer over those of the Insured and to delay and frustrate the Insured's ability to have his claim adjusted promptly to begin restoring his property. Additionally, although there was interior water damage the adjuster did not use a moisture meter. A moisture meter can be purchased online from Amazon for around $40 before tax. The Insurer could purchase a moisture meter and assess thousands of properties with one meter. Instead, the Insurer would rather place its financial interests over those of the Insured by failing to provide the adjuster with the necessary tools to correctly inspect the loss. As a result of the inadequate investigation and surrounding circumstances it is apparent that Insurer significantly underestimated the scope of the loss to the Insured's property. Insurer and its adjuster have colluded to misrepresent the true scope of damages to the insured property and the true replacement costs of the damages. This is an underhanded attempt to place the financial interest of Insurer over those of the Insured, to delay the Insured's claim, and to delay the Insured in restoring his property to its pre-loss condition. The conduct outlined above is done within the Insurer's routine course of the business. There may be further wrongful conduct which has not been made known to the Insured at this moment. Certain conduct or actions may be discovered throughout discovery or cannot be verified without a review of the Insurer's claim file and standards and procedures for the adjustment and investigation of claims. In short, the Insurer is not acting with due regard for the Insured's interests or safety. In Florida the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. The Insurer has breached this trust and its duty to the Insured. The Insurer and its agents conducted cursory and inadequate investigations and wrongfully denied coverage for a loss that should have been covered under the subject policy. Moreover, the Insurer has engaged in bad faith practices designed to delay claims and prevent the Insured from recovering what is rightfully owed under the subject policy of insurance. The Insurer's actions and inactions have continued to frustrate and delay the resolution of the Insured claim. The Insurer's actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim denial 2. Claim delay 3. Not treating the Insured with good faith claims conduct 4. Looking for way to reduce recovery to the Insured 5. Looking for ways to deny recovery to the Insured 6. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 7. Not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company's interests before the Insured's' interests 8. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the health and safety of the Insured 9. Shifting the burden of investigating onto the Insured 10. Conducting inadequate investigations 11. Making material misrepresentations Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer must: (1). Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss. (2). Tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been sent via e-mail to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of the civil remedy notice. Please e-mail any response to this civil remedy notice to badfaith@krapflegal.com. Via Electronic Mail: VYRD Insurance Company 2540 Executive Circle Ste 100, Dept # 25106 Tallahassee, FL 32301-5015 support@vyrd.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
kferry@camboferry.com 02-21-2025 February 21, 2025 VIA E-MAIL Adam Duran & Carly Duran c/o Grant W. Krapf, Esq. Krapf Legal P.A. 2790 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, Florida 33579 grant@krapflegal.com Re: Matter: Adam Duran & Carly Duran v. VYRD Insurance Company Date of Loss: Reported as September 27, 2022 Claim Number: 012296 Policy Number: 702112 DFS Filing Number: 799757 Dear Mr. Krapf: As you know, my firm represents VYRD Insurance Company (“VYRD”) with respect to the above matter. This correspondence constitutes VYRD’s response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“CRN”) with filing number 799757 you filed on behalf of Adam Duran & Carly Duran. As an initial matter, please note that the CRN names only Adam Duran as the complainant, however, the subject policy was issued to both Adam Duran and Carly Duran. The Notice is void because it is legally invalid. Beyond that, the allegations in the Notice have no merit. I. The Civil Remedy Notice is legally invalid. The filing of a valid Civil Remedy Notice is a condition precedent to an action brought pursuant to section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Because the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Id. “[A]ny statute in derogation of the common law requires strict compliance with its provisions by one seeking to avail himself of its benefits.” Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Devs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1986). Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, requires a civil remedy notice to provide specific information to put the insurer on notice of the alleged violation. Additionally, a civil remedy notice must be “specific enough to provide insurers notice of the wrongdoing so the insurer can cure the same within sixty days.” Valenti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 8:04CV1615T-30TGW, 2006 WL 1627276, at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the Notice is invalid because it does not contain all of the information required by section 624.155. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Also, it is invalid because it lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice to VYRD of the alleged wrongdoing, as discussed below. First, the CRN fails to reference the specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation as required by Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4, the CRN must cite to the specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violations. The CRN contains no policy language or policy provisions whatsoever, but instead states “it is an accepted principle of law that when parties contract upon a matter which is the subject of statutory regulation, the parties are presumed to have entered into their agreement with reference to such statute, which becomes a part of the contract, unless the contract discloses a contrary intention.” Therefore, the CRN does not in any way reference the specific policy language alleged to have been violated. In turn, this prevents VYRD from addressing any issues regarding the policy the Complainant alleges to have been violated, which is the underlying purpose of Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. The CRN, therefore, is statutorily deficient because it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §624.155(3)(b)4. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Second, the CRN does not provide any specific supporting facts and merely makes conclusory statements. No specific facts identifying what, if anything, VYRD did or failed to do with regard to the claim were provided. Instead, the allegations are mere self-serving and conclusory statements without substance or relation to any alleged violation. This undermines the purpose of the CRN requirement preventing VYRD from investigating and resolving any of the alleged violations. The failure to provide any specific supporting facts for the allegations renders the CRN invalid. Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Third, the Notice is invalid because it does not list a specific cure for the alleged violations. In Talat, the Florida Supreme Court said that to “cure” a Notice, an insurer must pay the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy.” However, the Notice here states “tender full benefits owed to the Insured under the insurance contract.” No cure amount of any kind is provided and VYRD is left to guess what would be required to “cure” the alleged violations. It is improper for a civil remedy notice to not contain a cure, therefore the CRN is invalid. Talat, 753 So. 2d at 1282–83; see also Francois v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 01-CV-8070, 2002 WL 33760405, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 2002) aff'd, 49 Fed. Appx. 290 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the CRN does not list VYRD’s address. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Pin-Pon Corp., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Finally, the boilerplate CRN lacks sufficient specificity to provide notice of the alleged bad-faith conduct. The CRN lists six (6) different statutes which VYRD allegedly violated. However, the CRN fails to provide any relevant facts supporting the alleged violations or relating these alleged violations to the six (6) cited statutes. Because the Civil Remedy Notice fails to identify any specific statutes or any facts to support why the Insureds believe VYRD violated the statutes, VYRD is unable to properly respond and the Notice is invalid and should be rejected and returned. Because the CRN fails to comply with the information requirements promulgated by the Department of Financial Services, it is legally invalid. See Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 500 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 4D19-2763 (September 23, 2020); Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7760 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Again, in serving this response, VYRD reserves all rights under Florida law to be served with a properly completed and statutorily compliant CRN. As the CRN fails to strictly comply with the requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes, it is legally insufficient and should be rejected. II. The Civil Remedy Notice Lacks Merit The Notice also lacks merit. The subject claim was reported by the Insured’s Public Adjuster, Pro Claims Public Adjusting, on September 16, 2024, with a reported date of loss of September 27, 2022, for alleged wind damage as a result of Hurricane Ian at the subject property located at 267 Belle Grove Ln., Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411. Notably, the subject claim was reported seven hundred and nineteen (719) days after the alleged date of loss. On September 16, 2024, VYRD’s adjuster spoke with the public adjuster in order to confirm the date of loss and additionally sent out a claim acknowledgement letter to the Insured’s acknowledging receipt of their reported claim. On the same date, the insured signed their public adjusting contract with Pro Claims Public Adjusting. On September 17, 2024, VYRD’s adjuster spoke with the Public Adjuster and advised that an engineer would be utilized in order to inspect the Insured’s property and claimed damages. The Public Adjuster advised that he would be sending in an estimate of the claimed damages as well as advised that no mitigation work had been completed at the property. Additionally, during this call, VYRD’s adjuster advised the Public Adjuster that a recorded statement of the Insured would need to be completed. On September 18, 2024, VYRD’s desk adjuster Todd Cantrell sent to the Insured a reservation of rights letter as well as a request for information letter, requesting, among other things, a signed sworn proof of loss, estimate for the claimed damages, and a recorded statement. The letter explained the basis for the reservation of rights and advised it was questionable whether prompt notice of the claim was provided, whether the property was protected from further damage, and whether the Insured had shown the damaged property and the condition it was in at the time of loss as required by the policy. On September 23, 2024, VYRD, through an independent field adjuster and professional engineer, inspected the subject property with the Insured, Adam Duran, in attendance. The inspection revealed that the concrete tile roof covering was absent from damage caused by wind on or about September 28, 2022. The conditions evidenced were the result of foot loading, installation/repairs to the roof, normal aging and weathering, thermal cycling processes, and/or lack of maintenance of the roof covering. Further, no evidence of any peril created openings were observed at the property. Mr. Duran advised the engineer that he had made two roof repairs after the date of loss and that he observed the claimed damages within a year of the date of loss of September 27, 2022. Further, the Insured advised the field adjuster that patchwork repairs had been made to the interior over the preceding two years. On October 4, 2022, VYRD received an email from Leak Warriors attaching mitigation documentation including a direction to pay executed by the Insured on September 18, 2024 and an invoice for purported mitigation in the garage totaling an alleged $5,473.02. On October 8, 2022, the Insured, Adam Duran’s, recorded statement was taken. The Insured stated that he noticed damage after the passage of Hurricane Ian in the form of water leaks through the ceiling. The Insured made repairs to roof prior to reporting the claim to VYRD, and that the Insured had observed additional leaks The Insured noted several repairs prior to reporting the claim to VYRD including pulling out roof tiles, replacing decking, replacing tiles, and adding new underlayment. As for the interior, the Insured cleaned up the ceiling stains in the garage and put strips of plywood in their place. The Insured was unsure if he took any photos of the damages prior to the repairs being made. On October 15, 2024, VYRD received an email from the Insured’s public adjuster, Pro Claims Public Adjusting, attaching an Estimate. The estimate totaled $145,405.68 and included repairs to the exterior and interior of the property including replacement of the roof. The photographs provided with the estimate reflected an inspection date of September 27, 2024, and did not provide any new information to support the claim. In fact, the photographs show the same indications of foot loading, installation/repairs to the roof, normal aging and weathering, thermal cycling processes, and/or lack of maintenance of the roof covering observed during VYRD’s inspection of the property. Further, the estimate included an alleged $40,832.42 in claimed damages to the interior of the property and included repairs to nearly every room of the property. The estimate also included a roof replacement at an alleged cost of $85,028.66 representing a per roofing square price of $2,465.31, far out of line with the reasonable and accepted market rate for a tile roof replacement. On October 19, 2024, VYRD acknowledged receipt of the Public Adjuster’s estimate via email. On the same day, VYRD also received an email from Leak Warrior attaching an invoice for tarping totaling an alleged $20,336.64. On October 22, 2024, VYRD received an email from Leak Warrior attaching mold remediation documentation including an invoice totaling an alleged $13,236.11 for remediation in the garage. On October 23, 2024, VYRD received the engineering report from Envista Forensics. Pursuant to Envista Forensics inspection and investigation, the following conclusions were made: • The concrete tile roof covering was absent from damage caused by wind on or about September 28, 2022. The conditions evidenced were the result of foot loading, installation/repairs to the roof, normal aging and weathering, thermal cycling processes, and/or lack of maintenance of the roof covering. • The specific causes for interior damages are summarized as follows: o The stains observed at the ceiling panels and drip stains on the wall within the garage were consistent with water infiltration due to ineffective underlayment/flashing and/or age-related deterioration of materials at the roof surface, roof Valley C/E, roof Hip C/D, the flashing junctions between roof Slope C and the offsets below Slope A, as well as the intersection of the gable end and hip between Slopes C and D. These conditions were not the result of wind, or a storm created opening on or about September 28, 2022. o The ceiling stains and/or cracks observed within the office, middle bedroom, master bedroom, and living room as well as the wall finish distortion and peeling observed at the wall within the middle bedroom were consistent with water infiltration due to ineffective underlayment and/or age-related deterioration of materials at the roof surface and slopes above these rooms. These conditions were not the result of wind, or a storm created opening on or about September 28, 2022. o The wall and ceiling cracks observed within the master bedroom were consistent with variations in humidity and temperature within the residence that caused expansion and contraction of the ceiling and wall materials and led to separation along joints/seams. These conditions were not the result of wind, or a storm created opening on or about September 28, 2022. On November 5, 2024, VYRD sent the Insured a denial letter. The denial letter cited to the conclusions of Envista Forensics and advised that VYRD’s investigation has been irreparably prejudiced by their failure to comply with the post loss duties, including the late reporting of the claim and the failure to show the damaged property due to repairs made to the property prior to the subject claim being reported. The letter goes on to advise that the subject policy does not cover damages as a result of foot loading, installation/repairs to the roof, normal aging and weathering, thermal cycling processes, and/or lack of maintenance of the roof covering. The letter further advised that coverage for the interior was also denied as no peril created opening was identified and that coverage for the invoices submitted by Leak Warrior were also denied based on the complete denial of the Insureds’ claim. On November 25, 2024, VYRD received an email from Krapf Legal attaching a letter of representation and a copy of the Pro Claims Public Adjusting Contract signed on September 16, 2024. No new information was provided. On December 10, 2024, VYRD’s desk adjuster Rickie Kubiak sent an acknowledgment letter to Krapf Legal. Enclosed in the email was the 9/16/2024 Claim Acknowledgment letter, the 9/18/2024 Reservation of Rights letter, the 11/5/2024 Denial Letter, Envista Forensics Report, Loss Run Statement, and a copy of the subject policy. On December 26, 2024, VYRD received a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation claiming $152,906.00 in damages. No new information was provided. On January 7, 2025, VYRD received the subject CRN. The CRN provides scant factual information and contains several factually inaccurate statements. For example, the CRN alleges that the subject loss occurred “on or about September 28, 2022” however, the clear evidence revealed by VYRDs investigation of the subject claim shows that the damages are long term in nature and did not occur on or about the reported date of loss. Further, the CRN completely ignores the field adjuster inspection and engineer inspections performed both of which also support the denial of the subject claim. The CRN then alleges that the concurrent cause doctrine is somehow applicable to the subject claim despite one of the applicable exclusions for long-term repeated seepage and leakage being included in Section I – Exclusions under the policy which contains applicable anti-concurrent causation language. Moreover, the concurrent cause doctrine is only applicable in cases where two independent causes of loss converge and act in concert so that no single cause could be considered the sole or proximate cause, which is not the case here. As such, this allegation is misplaced and factually inaccurate. No evidence to support any of the allegations contained within the CRN has been provided and VYRD specifically denies all allegations. Further, the CRN alleges violations of the below statutory provisions: - Florida Statute §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. o VYRD specifically denies this allegation. As noted, no specific information to support this allegation was provided. Further VYRD’s thorough investigation of the subject claim confirmed that there were no covered damages to the property. - Florida Statute §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. o VYRD specifically denies this allegation. As noted, no specific information to support his allegation was provided. Further, VYRD did not misrepresent any facts or policy provisions with regard to the subject claim. The investigation of the subject claim revealed no covered damages and the claim was properly denied. - Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) - Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. o VYRD specifically denies this allegation. As noted, no specific information to support this allegation was provided. Further, VYRD’s thorough investigation of the subject claim confirmed that there were no covered damages to the property. - Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) - Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. o VYRD specifically denies this allegation. As noted, no specific information to support his allegation was provided. Further, VYRD did not misrepresent any facts or policy provisions with regard to the subject claim. The investigation of the subject claim revealed no covered damages and the claim was properly denied. - Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) - Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. o VYRD specifically denies this allegation. As noted, no specific information to support his allegation was provided. Further, VYRD’s thorough investigation of the subject claim confirmed that there were no covered damages to the property. - Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(i) Failing to pay personal injury protection insurance claims within the time periods required by s. 627.736(4)(b). o VYRD specifically denies this allegation. VYRD is a home and commercial property insurance carrier and this claim involves damage to a residential property, there are no personal injury protection benefits owed. On January 8, 2025, VYRD sent its response to the Notice of Intent to counsel for the Insured. The response advised that the subject claim was denied pursuant to the November 5, 2024, denial letter. The response further notes that the notice of intent is defective because: o The Notice does not state with specificity the alleged acts or omissions of VYRD giving rise to the Notice and instead states only, “Underpayment/Non-Payment of Claim – Insured Intends to Begin Repairs.” o The Notice states it is being provided following alleged acts or omissions by the insurer other than the denial of coverage, however, coverage for the subject claim was denied. o The Notice does not list a Claimant Type. On January 15, 2025, the undersigned sent correspondence to counsel for the Insured acknowledging the subject CRN and requesting additional information necessary for a proper evaluation of the CRN and allegations made. No response was received. On February 5, 2025, the undersigned sent a follow-up letter to counsel for the Insured regarding the outstanding request for information communicated in the January 15, 2025, letter and advising that no responsive documents had been received. Again, no response was received. In light of VYRD’s investigation, coverage was properly denied for the subject claim, pursuant to the terms, conditions, exclusions, limits and deductible of the subject policy. Accordingly, VYRD denies any and all allegations of bad faith in connection with the claim submitted by Adam Duran & Carly Duran. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Warmest regards, Cambo Ferry, PLLC /s/ Curtis A. Wurster, 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