Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     800533
Filing Accepted:  1/12/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
CARSON   First Name   TIFFANY
Street Address * 8716 TANTALLON CIRCLE
City, State Zip * TAMPA, FL 33647
Email Address * CARSONKEN1@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   CARSON   First Name   TIFFANY
Policy # * HOH649370 Claim #* H010026047
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* NIPPS First Name * ROBERT Initial L
Street Address* 203 FORT WADE RD. SUITE 260
City, State Zip* PONTE VEDRA , FL 32081
Email Address * RNIPPS@WOOLSEYMORCOM.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 14407
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* MILTON DUENAS (FLA. ADJ. LIC. #E137273)
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Wrongful claim denial
Other : Unfair claim settlement practices
Other : Unreasonable investigation
Other : Failure to act on claim
Other : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information
Other : Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures
Other : Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured
Other : Misrepresenting facts to the insured
Other : Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims
Other : Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information
Other : Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla
Other : Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the i
Other : Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of
Other : Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat
Other : Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura
* 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)(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)(3)(e) Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed.
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.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g) Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h) Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary.
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.

624.155(1)(a)(1) – violating 626.9541(1)(i) 626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i) -- unfair claim settlement practices. SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGE A – DWELLING and COVERAGE B – OTHER STRUCTURES We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. **** [A]ny any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. **** B. Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage C caused a peril listed below unless the loss is excluded in SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS . . . 2. Windstorm Or Hail. **** COVERAGE D – Loss of Use We will pay the additional expenses you incur from a covered loss, but no more than the limit of liability shown for Coverage D in the Declarations for the following: 1. Additional living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living when a loss covered under this Section makes that part of the “residence premises” where you reside not fit to live in. Payment will be for the shortest time required to repair or replace the damage or, if you permanently relocate, the shortest time required for your household to settle elsewhere. 2. If civil authority prohibits you from use of the “residence premises” as a result of direct damage to neighboring premises by a Peril Insured Against in this policy, we cover the Additional Living Expenses as provided under 1. above for no more than two weeks. The periods of time for expenses described above are not limited by the expiration of this policy. We do not cover loss or expense due to cancellation of a lease or agreement. **** ADDITIONAL COVERAGES 1. Debris Removal. We will pay your reasonable expense for the removal of: a. Debris of covered property if a Peril Insured Against that applies to the damaged property causes the loss; or b. Ash, dust or particles from a volcanic eruption that has caused direct loss to a building or property contained in a building. This expense is included in the limit of liability that applies to the damaged property. If the amount to be paid for the actual damage to the property plus the debris removal expense is more than the limit of liability for the damaged property, an additional 5% of that limit of liability is available for debris removal expense. We will also pay your reasonable expense, up to $500, for the removal from the "residence premises" of: a. Your tree(s) felled by the peril of Windstorm or Hail; b. Your tree(s) felled by the peril of Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet; or c. A neighbor's tree(s) felled by a Peril Insured Against under Coverage C; provided the tree(s) damages a covered structure. The $500 limit is the most we will pay in any one loss regardless of the number of fallen trees. 2. Reasonable Emergency Measures a. We will pay up to the greater of $3,000 or 1% of your Coverage A limit of liability for the reasonable costs incurred by you for necessary measures taken solely to protect covered property from further damage, when the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against. b. We will not pay more than the amount in a. above, unless we provide you approval within 48 hours of your request to us to exceed the limit in a. above. In such circumstance, we will pay only up to the additional amount for the measures we authorize. c. If we fail to respond to you within 48 hours of your request to us and the damage or loss is caused by a Peril Insured Against, you may exceed the amount in a. above only up to the cost incurred by you for the reasonable emergency measures necessary to protect the covered property from further damage. **** 3. Trees, Shrubs and Other Plants. We cover trees, shrubs, plants or lawns, on the "residence premises," for loss caused by the following Perils Insured Against: Fire or lightning, Explosion, Riot or civil commotion, Aircraft, Vehicles not owned or operated by a resident of the "residence premises," Vandalism or malicious mischief or Theft. We will pay up to 5% of the limit of liability that applies to the dwelling for all trees, shrubs, plants or lawns. No more than $500 of this limit will be available for any one tree, shrub or plant. We do not cover property grown for "business" purposes. This coverage is additional insurance. **** “Fungi”, Mold, Wet or Dry Rot, Or Bacteria a. We will pay up to the amount stated in the Declarations for Limit of Liability for “Fungi” Coverage for: (1) The total of all loss payable under Section I – Property Coverages caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria; (2) The cost to remove “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria from property covered under Section I – Property Coverages. (3) The cost to tear out and replace any part of the building or other covered property as needed to gain access to the “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria. b. The coverage described in a. only applies when such loss or costs are a result of a Peril Insured Against that occurs during the policy period and only if all reasonable means were used to save and preserve the property from further damage at and after the time the Peril Insured Against occurred. c. We will pay up to $1,000 for the cost of testing of air or property to confirm the absence, presence or level of “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria performed prior to, during or after removal, repair, restoration or replacement. The cost of such testing will be provided only to the extent that there is a reason to believe that there is the presence of “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria or that the presence of “fungi”, mold, wet or dry rot, or bacteria is in dispute by us and you. Also refer to: Coverage A provision, coverage B provision, coverage C provision, coverage D provision, all additional coverages provisions, all coverages provided by endorsement or rider, the declarations page, loss payment or settlement provision, duties in event of loss policy provision, all terms and conditions of section I of the insurance policy, the insurance policy definitions section, the insurance policy‘s exclusion of coverage provisions, all insurance policy provisions that provide coverage to the insured property, and all policy provisions.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“HERITAGE”) has committed the following in handling the insured’s claim: 1) failure to pay benefits owed; 2) failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 3) placing the financial interest of the insurer before that of the policy holder and claimant; 4) failure to properly train, evaluate, and manage adjusters retained to represent the policies and procedures of HERITAGE; 5) looking for ways to delay benefit payments and otherwise “low ball” or “stone wall” claims; 6) looking for ways to deny the insured’s claim; 7) looking for ways to reduce recovery to the insured; 8) failure to perform a reasonable investigation; 9) misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to its insured; 10) misrepresenting insurance policy provisions to the insured; 11) HERITAGE has failed and refused to acknowledge coverage and promptly pay the benefits due and owed to the insured; 12) the reasons for this may be attributed to improper training, supervision, and/or motivation of outside adjusters and claims supervisors to promptly and fairly adjust and pay full benefits available to the insured. The insurer may have failed to adopt proper standards of investigation and adjustment of losses or is otherwise not implementing those standards because a proper investigation and full and prompt payment for the loss is not occurring. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust. HERITAGE has breached this duty by its adjustment of the insured’s claim of loss. HERITAGE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in violations as set forth above. HERITAGE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insured’s insurance claim for damages. Despite the insured’s timely notification to HERITAGE of their insurance claim, HERITAGE has failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing to the insured under the policy of insurance. HERITAGE has failed to promptly settle the insured’s insurance claim, when the obligation to settle the claim had become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance, in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. Despite the insured’s pleas otherwise, HERITAGE has failed and refused to acknowledge its obligation to tender all insurance proceed monies due and owing the insured or assist the insured in mitigation of the damages. In exchange for a premium paid by the insured, HERITAGE issued the subject insurance policy which provided coverage for the insured property from November 30, 2023 through November 30, 2024 for “risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property.” As such, the subject all-risk Policy contains coverage for all direct physical losses to the insured property unless the loss is specifically and unambiguously excluded from coverage by the Policy. On or about September 5, 2024, the insured property suffered a windstorm loss, and the insured immediately submitted a claim to HERITAGE for property damage, i.e., storm and wind damages to the insured property. Hence, the insured suffered a substantial loss regarding the real property and continue to suffer such loss. Having suffered such substantial damage, the insured promptly notified HERITAGE of the loss in an effort to mitigate the current damage and prevent the exacerbation of any additional losses. The desired result did not follow. HERITAGE since being presented the Insured’s claim has misrepresented policy provisions to avoid paying the insured what they are owed under the policy. Ultimately, HERITAGE has failed and refused to properly settle the insured’s claim in good faith. The insured have requested that HERITAGE conduct an investigation, admit coverage, and pay damages; HERITAGE has failed and refused to do so. In short, HERITAGE has failed to handle its insured’s claim in good faith in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), and 626.9541(1)(i). Based upon HERITAGE’s investigation and property inspection, which confirmed windstorm damages, HERITAGE nevertheless sent correspondence to the insured dated February 3, 2023 (signed by HERITGE’s adjuster, Milton Duenas - Fla. Adj. Lic. #E137273) and communicated its unequivocal denial of the claim. In regard to insurance contracts, a specific refusal to pay a claim is the breach which triggers the cause of action. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 892 (Fla. 2003); Donovan v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 574 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (finding that a breach of contract takes place at the moment the insurance company refuses to pay a claim). Therefore, HERITAGE breached the Policy. Moreover, HERITAGE’s argued exclusions and/or limitations to coverage are devoid of anti-concurrent causation language. Thus, “coverage may exist where an insured risk constitutes a concurrent cause of the loss even when it is not the prime or efficient cause.” Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694, 699 (Fla. 2016). In addition, under the Policy, any ensuing loss to property not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. Hence, there are a myriad of coverages under the Policy that would provide coverage for the loss. Nevertheless, HERITAGE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing for the loss. Therefore, HERITAGE breached the Policy. Questioning the propriety of HERITAGE’s coverage denial, and given the extensive nature of the physical damage, the insureds retained a loss consultant, Coastal Claims (“COASTAL”), to perform an investigation and damage evaluation in accordance with industry standards and Florida law. Based on its investigation, COASTAL determined that a windstorm on or about September 5, 2024, caused damage to the exterior of the insured property (particularly the roof warranting its replacement). Moreover, COASTAL determined that at least $65,715.25 worth of repairs would be required to return the property to its pre-loss condition as a result of the windstorm loss. Nevertheless, HERITAGE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, HERITAGE breached the Policy. Thereafter, the insureds sent correspondence to HERITAGE enclosing their sworn statement in proof of loss, the supporting COASTAL report outlining the cause, scope, and cost of the loss along with other supporting documents, and requested HERITAGE to reconsider its coverage denial. Nevertheless, HERITAGE failed and refused to acknowledge the covered loss and pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy. Therefore, HERITAGE breached the Policy. As such, HERITAGE’s coverage denial is a blatant misrepresentation of the available coverages under the Policy in direct violation of Fla. Stats. 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(a)(1), and 626.9541(1)(i)(2) and is nothing more than a mere pretext to wrongfully deny and delay this claim. As a result, HERITAGE has materially misrepresented the coverages under the subject policy to the insured for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of the insured’s claim on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, the subject policy in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 626.9541(1)(i)(2). Further, HERITAGE is in violation of Florida statutes §§ 626.9541(1)(a)(1), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), and 626.9541(1)(a)(1) by misrepresenting pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; and also in violation of Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) by denying the insured’s claim without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In summary, the insured’s loss is clearly covered by the terms of the policy of insurance with HERITAGE. However, HERITAGE chose to deny coverage for the insured’s loss. Despite clear evidence that the damages were covered and caused by a covered peril, the claim was denied. To date, HERITAGE continues to deny the insured and its insured full indemnity for the claim. While HERITAGE refuses to honor this claim, a jury in Hillsborough County will likely do what HERITAGE has refused; exercise the benefit of doubt in favor of the insured in finding full coverage for this loss. Indeed, the insured will undoubtedly meet the burden of proof at trial, under the HERITAGE all-risk policy, to show that, while HERITAGE provided insurance coverage, damage occurred to the insured property. See Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). With the data presented within the HERITAGE’s investigation and COASTAL’s investigation, HERITAGE’s burden to demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that all the physical damage to the insured property was caused solely by excluded perils under the policy and not in combination with a covered peril has not and cannot be met. See Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016). Despite clear indicators of covered damage, HERITAGE nevertheless inexplicably denied the insured’s claim. As of today, HERITAGE has failed and refused to inform the insured of their rights under the policy of insurance and Florida statutes, has improperly delayed the insured’s claim, has wrongfully denied the insured’s claim, and has failed and refused to adequately indemnify the insured for the loss and defiantly continues to do so. Indeed, from the time of receiving the claim, HERITAGE has purposely and maliciously delayed in adjusting the subject claim in an effort to either avoid paying the claim altogether or, at the very least, avoid paying the full extent of the loss. Notably, under Florida law, “[t]he filing of a lawsuit does not extinguish the insurer’s obligations under the policy to adjust and pay the claim.” Tristar Lodging, Inc. V. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2006). To date, the insured has made a good faith effort to comply with all of the requirements under the subject policy of insurance, and it is only fair that HERITAGE do the same. Yet, that is not the case. The insured feels that the insured property is a valuable asset, and, by continuously delaying the proper handling of this claim, HERITAGE is putting the insured property at risk. As a responsible property owner, the insured purchased insurance to protect the property, paid all of the premiums, and has kept up to date with the responsibilities under the policy. Yet, when the insured needed to rely on the insurance because of this unforeseen loss, HERITAGE turned its back and delayed and wrongfully denied coverage that the insured is rightfully owed. Ultimately, HERITAGE has failed and refused to properly investigate the loss. The insured has requested that HERITAGE admit coverage and pay damages, HERITAGE has failed and refused to do so, and continues to refuse to fully indemnify the insured for the loss and pay the amounts necessary to properly repair the insured’s property, despite knowing it is required to do so. In short, HERITAGE has failed to handle its insured’s claim in good faith. In Florida, the work of adjusting insurance claims engages the public trust; HERITAGE has breached this duty by its insufficient adjustment of the insured’s claim. HERITAGE has failed to create and implement adequate guidelines for proper investigation to evaluate claims handling and for training and supervision of employees resulting in statutory violations set forth above. HERITAGE has failed and/or refused to thoroughly, accurately, and completely investigate and evaluate the insured’s insurance claim for damages. Florida statute § 624.02 defines insurance as a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another or pay or allow a specified amount or a determinable benefit upon determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that the insured may mitigate their damages to put them back into the position they were prior to loss as quickly as possible. HERITAGE breached this duty. The actions taken by HERITAGE in the handling / adjustment of the insured’s claim were willful, wanton, and with complete disregard for the rights of its insured and occur with such a frequency as to indicate a general business practice and are in violation of Fla. Stat. 624.155 and 626.9541. HERITAGE’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Claim delay 2. Wrongful claim denial 3. Unfair trade practice 4. Unfair claim settlement practices 5. Unreasonable investigation 6. Failure to act on claim 7. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information 8. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures 9. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured 10. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured 11. Misrepresenting facts to the insured 12. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims 13. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information 14. Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. 15. 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. 16. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 17. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. 18. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insurance policies within 90 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 an act of God, prevented by the impossibility of performance, or due to actions by the insured or claimant that constitute fraud, lack of cooperation, or intentional misrepresentation regarding the claim for which benefits are owed. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this civil remedy notice, HERITAGE must: (1): Admit full coverage for the insured’s loss; (2): Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy; (3): Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contract damages from the date of loss to the present time pursuant to Florida statute 627.70131; and (4): Pay the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.428 and/or § 626.9373. A copy of this form submitted to the FDFS has been emailed and/or uploaded and also printed out and mailed to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this civil remedy notice: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company PO Box 20947 Tampa, FL 33622 claims@heritagepci.com aparker@heritagepci.com
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
ncarlisle@heritagepci.com 03-10-2025 March 10, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Florida Department of Insurance Civil Remedy Section 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Complainant: TIFFANY CARSON Insured: TIFFANY CARSON Insurer: Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company DFS File No.: 800533 Claim No: H010026047 Policy No.: HOH649370 Dear Madam and/or Sir: Please allow this correspondence to serve as Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Heritage”) official response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (“Notice”), Filing Number 800533, filed on behalf of Heritage’s insured TIFFANY CARSON (“Complainant”). The Notice was accepted by the Department on January 12, 2025. While Heritage welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Notice filed concerning this claim, it responds to it specifically denying each and every allegation contained in the Notice. Heritage believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation document provisions as promulgated in Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. The Notice fails to inform Heritage whether it had been given to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. History of Claim For clarification, Heritage provides a brief history of the claim: Subject to its terms, endorsements, limitations, exclusions, and conditions, the Complainant was issued Policy HOH649370 (“Policy”) for the property at 8716 TANTALLON CIRCLE, TAMPA, FL 33647 (“Property”). The Policy of Insurance applies to direct physical loss of or damage to covered property at the premises described in the Declarations of the Policy or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss as described in the Policy. Heritage received Complainant’s first notice of loss on September 27, 2024, claiming damages, one day after Hurricane Helene made landfall in Florida. However, this loss was reportedly from a windstorm which occurred three weeks earlier, on September 5, 2024. In Good Faith, Heritage promptly assigned claim number H010026047. On the same day the loss was reported, Heritage issued its acknowledgment letter and Bill of Rights to the Complainant. Moving forward, Heritage’s representative coordinated an inspection of the damage to the Property caused by the alleged windstorm. Complainant requested the inspection to occur on October 2, 2024, and the on-site inspection documented the interior and exterior conditions of the property and the Insured was present for the inspection. However, the Insured’s representative refused to attend the inspection. After conducting a reasonable investigation based upon available information, on October 23, 2024, Heritage advised Complainant that it could not extend coverage under the policy. The damage caused was precluded from coverage by the subject policy. Heritage promptly provided 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 the claim. In accordance with its obligations under §627.70131, Fla. Stat., a letter including a written explanation of the coverage decision was sent to Complainant on October 23, 2024, which included pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. On November 4, 2024, Heritage received notice that Complainant disputed the coverage decision. After reviewing the information sent in dispute, Heritage stood on its coverage determination. On January 12, 2025, Woolsey Morcom Attorneys at Law, on behalf of the Complainant, filed this Notice, to which Heritage now submits its response. On January 17, 2025, Heritage received a request to mediate from the Department of Financial Services. That mediation went forward on January 31, 2025, and unfortunately, ended in impasse. Heritage continues its attempts to resolve the claim. As previously stated, Heritage has adjusted the subject claim at all times in accordance with the insurance policy and Florida Statute. To date, Heritage has not received any information that would alter its understanding of the loss or coverage. Alleged Reasons for the Notice In accordance with Fla. Stat. §624.155, the Civil Remedy Notice requires the Complainant, “to indicate all statutory provisions alleged to have been violated.” The Notice alleges the reasons for the Notice are the following: Claim Delay The Notice fails to state instances of “claim delay" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unfair Trade Practice The Notice fails to state instances of “unfair trade" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Wrongful Claim Denial The Notice fails to state instances of “wrongful claim denial" practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unfair Claim Settlement Practices The Insureds fail to state who, how and when instances of “unfair claim settlement” practice was made. therefore it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Unreasonable investigation The Notice fails to state instances of “unreasonable investigation” claim practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failure to act on claim The Notice fails to state instances of the “failure to act on claim” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based on available information” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “failure to maintain proper complaint handling procedures” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “Misrepresenting the insurance policy provisions to the insured” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “Misrepresenting Florida statutory provisions to the insured” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Misrepresenting facts to the insured The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “misrepresenting facts to the insured” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “failure to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged “denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information” practice occurred; therefore, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dolla The Notice fails to state instances of when or how the alleged failure occurred; Furthermore, the “Reason for Notice” is not a complete thought, so it is unclear what this alleged “Reason” is, much less, how it is supported here. At the very least, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the i The Notice fails to state instances of the alleged failure occurred; Furthermore, the “Reason for Notice” is not a complete thought, so it is unclear what this alleged “Reason” is, much less, how it is supported here. At the very least, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of The Notice fails to state instances of when or how the alleged failure occurred; Furthermore, the “Reason for Notice” is not a complete thought, so it is unclear what this alleged “Reason” is, much less, how it is supported here. At the very least, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such informat The Notice fails to state instances of when or how the alleged failure occurred; Furthermore, the “Reason for Notice” is not a complete thought, so it is unclear what this alleged “Reason” is, much less, how it is supported here. At the very least, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Failing to pay undisputed amounts of partial or full benefits owed under first-party property insura The Notice fails to state instances of when or how the alleged failure occurred; Furthermore, the “Reason for Notice” is not a complete thought, so it is unclear what this alleged “Reason” is, much less, how it is supported here. At the very least, it lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Alleged Violations of Statutory Provisions Further, the Notice filed in this matter alleges Heritage violated the following statutory provisions: • §624.155(1)(b)(1): Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Complainant and with due regard for his or her interests. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. • §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. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Nowhere in the notice does it state when Heritage paid under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage, nor does it state who did it. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times promptly settled claims. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. • 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 Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state what the material misrepresentation was, or who made the material misrepresentation. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly in its representations 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. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a): Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Nowhere in the notice does it state what the alleged standards for proper investigations are that Heritage failed to adopt or implement, and/or who failed to adopt and implement the standards. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, upholding and implementing standards for the proper investigation of claims. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b): Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Nowhere in the notice does it state what the pertinent facts or policy provisions which were allegedly misrepresented, and who made the misrepresentations. Furthermore, Florida courts have found that listing nearly all policy provisions on the notice did not satisfy the statute. Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65123, 2017 WL 1541294, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Apr. 28, 2017). Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly in its representation of pertinent facts and insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Notably, however, in their Complaint, Complainant relies on establishing concurring loss doctrine citing Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694, 697 (Fla. 2016), which considers policy language. The representative of Complainant should know however, that, in Florida, “Parties may contract around the concurrent cause doctrine with an anti-concurrent cause provision.” See Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So. 3d 486, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Paulucci v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1319-20 (M.D. Fla. 2002); Wallach v. Rosenberg, 527 So. 2d 1386, 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “When the insurer explicitly avoids the application of the concurring-cause doctrine with an anti-concurrent cause provision, the plain language of the policy precludes recovery.” See Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Czelusniak, 305 So. 3d 717, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). The subject policy, which was provided to Complainant’s representative prior to the date of this Notice, and which Complainant either attempts to misrepresent, or, at the very least, fails to consider, states in part, “1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” The representative of the Complainant should know that policy language was considered in Sebo, and in this case, the subject policy language specifically excludes concurring cause doctrine, distinguishing itself from Sebo. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c): Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has always promptly acknowledged communications and acted promptly with respect to the claim. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received and obtained do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d): Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. Response: The Insureds fail to state how and when a claim denial was made without conducting a reasonable investigation based on available information. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, and conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information. Furthermore, Heritage made a proper coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e): Failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, or failing to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Response: The Complainant fails to state of how and when Heritage failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, or as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage or failed to provide a written statement that the claims is being investigated, upon written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly and has not failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and, as to partial coverage, the dollar amount or extent of coverage, nor failed to provide a written statement that the claim is being investigated, upon the written request of the insured within 30 days after proof-of-loss statements have been completed. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §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. Response: The Notice fails to specifically identify instances where Heritage failed “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. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, promptly providing a reasonable explanation in writing to Complainant of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the denial. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this allegation is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g): Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, promptly notifying the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainants’ claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(h): Failing to clearly explain the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information is necessary. Response: The Notice does not provide any specifics by way of when and how Heritage committed this violation and therefore fails to comply with the specificity required. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute §624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Regardless, Heritage denies the allegations contained herein. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly, clearly explaining the nature of the requested information and the reasons why such information was necessary Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §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) Response: The Notice fails to state how and when the instances of failing to pay undisputed amounts occurred. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §624.155(1)(a)(1) – violating 626.9541(1)(i) Response: The Notice fails to state how and when the instances of violating 626.9541(1)(i) occurred. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination and payment of an undisputed amount in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. §626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. Response: The Notice fails to state how and when the instances of misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy occurred. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination and payment of an undisputed amount in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. • §626.9541(1)(i) -- unfair claim settlement practices Response: The Notice fails to state how and when the instances of unfair claim settlement practices occurred. Therefore, it lacks a factual basis to support this allegation and lacks the specificity required by Florida Statute 624.155 and thus does not put Heritage on the requisite notice. Accordingly, and as indicated by the facts stated above, Heritage has at all times acted fairly and honestly. Further, Heritage has conducted a reasonable investigation based on available information and made a coverage determination and payment of an undisputed amount in reference to Complainant’s claim based upon the information and documentation obtained and/or received by Heritage during its investigation of the claim and the subject policy. The documentation and information received do not support a covered loss as demanded by Complainant. Therefore, this is an unsupported, sweeping allegation and is without merit. Request to Reject Notice Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(2) requires the Complainant to “describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation” to enable the insurer to investigate and resolve the claim. Contrary to the requirement set forth in the statute, this Notice contains overbroad and incorrect allegations, which stem only from the Complainant’s opinions regarding the value of their own claim and, therefore, the Complainant’s opinions regarding Heritage’s adjustment of this claim. Florida Statute §624.155(3)(b)(4) requires the Complainant to refer to specific policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, if any. Moreover, the Notice contains a list of violations that Heritage has allegedly committed but fails to provide an adequate basis in support of those allegations and, on that basis alone, fails to satisfy the basic requirements of an otherwise proper Notice. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Fla. Stat. §§ 624.155 and 626.9541. Strict construction of §624.155 demands a specificity level of compliance with the requisite provision of information to the Department and the insurer. See id; See also Marques v. Heritage Property & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 56 2020 CA 000805, 2021 WL 3473940, at 2 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 02, 2021). As such, the Notice does not comply with Florida law and is legally insufficient. Furthermore, the Complainant’s Notice seeks cures for the alleged defects. However, the “cures” sought are improper pursuant to Florida Case law. Specifically, the case of Talat Enterprises, Inc., v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2000), provides that the scope of what can be “cured” is limited to the alleged non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. Talat also commented that “[i]t naturally follows that for there to be a ‘cure,’ what had to be ‘cured’ is the non-payment of the contractual amount due the Complainant. In the context of a first-party insurance claim, the contractual amount due to the Complainant is the amount owed pursuant to the express terms and conditions of the policy after all of the conditions precedent of the insurance policy in respect to payment are fulfilled....” As a result, only the demanded “cures” relating to the payment for covered damages are proper and legal. The cures demanded in the Notice are to, “Admit full coverage for the Insured's loss”; “Tender all insurance monies due and owing to the insured for the loss under the subject Policy”; “Pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contract damages from the date of loss to the present time pursuant to Florida statute 627.70131”; and, “Pay the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute § 627.428 and/or § 626.937. However, it is unclear what specific amount the Complainant is seeking. If Heritage pays an unspecified amount for the damage, it is unclear if this would be sufficient to cure this demand. The purpose of the Civil Remedy Notice is to provide the insurer notice of the issue its Complainants have with the claim and what it is seeking to remedy that issue. However, it is important to note that Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their Complainants to avoid a bad-faith claim. Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328, at *14-15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). Similarly to Rousso, the Notice reflects a “shotgun-blast effort to hit a lot of targets with a single salvo. This approach is contrary to the purpose of the statute.” The Notice must reflect a good-faith effort to inform Heritage of how it has fallen short of its obligations under the policy and what it can do to fix its shortcomings. Thus, the Notice is insufficient as a matter of law. Under §624.155, Heritage is entitled not only to a clear proposed solution, but also more and accurate details about how Heritage fell short of its obligations to provide coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance agreement. As such, the Notice is deficient, and the Complainant has failed to comply with several conditions precedent to bringing a claim under §624.155. In closing, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company believes that the Notice should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services due to its failure to comply with Florida Statute §624.155 and Florida Case law. Moreover, regardless of the rejection, Heritage denies all allegations contained in the Notice and submits there are no violations. While this response is meant to be comprehensive, Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s response above is based upon the limited information provided in the Notice and the information we have to date. If the Complainant feels that Heritage does not have all the facts, please inform Heritage immediately. Sincerely, /s/ Tamara Schweinsberg Tamara Schweinsberg, Esq. Senior Claims Counsel Heritage Property & Casualty Insurance Co. Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation Response
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