Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     800908
Filing Accepted:  1/14/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
GIRARD   First Name   CAREN & GARY
Street Address * 8 PAGODA CT W
City, State Zip * HOMOSASSA, FL 34446
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   GIRARD   First Name   CAREN & GARY
Policy # * OIC30053583-04 Claim #* 24FLHOV0014662
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* MULLINAX First Name * MATTHEW Initial
Street Address* 908 W HORATIO ST
City, State Zip* TAMPA , FL 33606
Email Address * MATT@MAKRISMULLINAX.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* LATONYA STROTHERS
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Claim Delay
Unsatisfactory Settlement Offer
Unfair Trade Practice
* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.
 
624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
626.9541(1)(i)(2) A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
626.9541(1)(i)(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)(j) Altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report without: (I) Providing a detailed explanation as to why any change that has the effect of reducing the estimate of the loss was made; and (II) Including on the report or as an addendum to the report a detailed list of all changes made to the report and the identity of the person who ordered each change; or (III) Retaining all versions of the report, and including within each such version, for each change made within such version of the report, the identity of each person who made or ordered such change;
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

THE PERILS INSURED AGAINST SECTION. THE LOSS PAYMENT PROVISION. THE LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISION. THE POLICY PROVISIONS CITED IN OLYMPUS INSURNCE COMPANY’S (“OLYMPUS”) LETTER DATED APRIL 12, 2024. ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY WHICH OLYMPUS BELIEVES LIMIT OR PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE INSUREDS’ LOSS.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

OLYMPUS SOLD A POLICY OF INSURANCE TO THE ABOVE INSUREDS FOR THEIR HOME, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT FROM JUNE 20, 2023 THROUGH JUNE 20, 2024. ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 4, 2024, WHILE THE POLICY WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUSTAINED A COVERED LOSS TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE CAUSE OF LOSS INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WIND AND HAIL, CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR. THIS RESULTED IN DAMAGE TO THE INSUREDS’ HOME WHICH THE POLICY PROVIDES COVERAGE FOR. THE INSUREDS PROVIDED TIMELY NOTICE OF THE LOSS TO OLYMPUS AND OLYMPUS ASSIGNED CLAIM NUMBER 24FLHOV0014662 TO THE CLAIM. OLYMPUS INSPECTED, ADJUSTED, AND IMPROPERLY DENIED THE CLAIM. DESPITE THERE BEING EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE FROM WIND AND HAIL, OLYMPUS DENIED COVERAGE FOR THE LOSS AND MADE NO PAYMENT. THE INSUREDS RETAINED THEIR OWN PROFESSIONALS, WHO DOCUMENTED THE LOSS, PHOTOGRAPHED, AND PREPARED A DETAILED ESTIMATE THAT AMOUNT TO $35,538.06 TO RESTORE THE DAMAGE AND RETURN THE INSURED PROPERTY TO ITS PRELOSS CONDITION. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO OLYMPUS WITH A PROOF OF LOSS, BUT STILL OLYMPUS REFUSED TO PROPERLY INDEMNIFY THE INSURED. THE FOLLOWING IS ALLEGED UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF. THESE ACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND OTHERS THAT OCCURRED IN THIS CLAIM, AMOUNT TO A FAILURE TO ADJUST THE INSUREDS’ CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH. OLYMPUS’ REFUSAL TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND FAILURE TO PAY THE INSUREDS FOR THE DAMAGE AND COVERED LOSS UNDER THE POLICY ISSUED BY OLYMPUS EXHIBITS BAD FAITH. FURTHER, OLYMPUS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS LOSS SETTLEMENT PROVISION. RATHER THAN ISSUING THE PROPER PAYMENT OR ATTEMPTING TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH ITS INSUREDS, OLYMPUS DENIED THE CLAIM. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, OLYMPUS PERFORMS THE SUBJECT ACTIONS AS A BUSINESS PRACTICE, INCLUDING DELAYING THE CLAIM AND DENYING THE CLAIM IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE ITS INSUREDS FROM PURSUING THE CLAIM TO THE DETRIMENT OF ITS INSUREDS TO INCREASE FINANCIAL PROFITS. IN THE EVENT OLYMPUS BELIEVES THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE LACKS INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR OLYMPUS TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS NOTICE, OR THAT IT LACKS REQUIRED SPECIFICS IN ANY WAY, OLYMPUS SHOULD CONTACT THE FILER OF THIS NOTICE DIRECTLY AND ALERT THEM TO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PRIOR TO ANY FORMAL RESPONSE. THIS NOTICE IS FILED AND GIVEN TO OLYMPUS TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE CIVIL REMEDY THAT SECTION 624.155 AUTHORIZES. TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, OLYMPUS MUST: (1). ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSUREDS’ LOSS; (2). PAY IN THE PROPER AMOUNT NECESSARY TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO ITS PRELOSS CONDITIONS, WHICH THE INSURED BELIEVES TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE INSUREDS’ PUBLIC ADJUSTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,538.06, FOR THE DURATION OF THE SIXTY-DAY CURE PERIOD; (3). PAY STATUTORY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID CONTRACT DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE LOSS TO THE PRESENT TIME PURSUANT TO F.S. §627.70131, AND PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS INCURRED. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE: OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY VIA EMAIL TO: LSTROTHERS@OIGFL.COM ATTN: LATONYA STROTHERS, CLAIMS ADJUSTER W746410
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
jbello@wallenkelley.com 07-30-2025 July 30, 2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Bldg., 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Complainants: Caren Girard and Gary Girard Address: 8 Pagoda Ct W, Homosassa, Fl 34446 Insureds: Caren Girard and Gary Girard Policy #: OIC30053583-04 Claim: 24FLHOV0014662 Attorney: Matthew Mullinax, Esq. Attorney Address: 908 W Horatio St, Tampa, FL 33606 Attorney Email: MATT@MAKRISMULLINAX.COM DOI File: 800908 Filing Date: 1/14/2025 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as the supplemental response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (“Olympus”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice No. 800908, filed on behalf of Caren Girard and Gary Girard (the “Complainants”) which was accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on January 14, 2025. This response is specifically in regard to Claim 24FLHOV0014662. The Insureds are Caren Girard and Gary Girard (“Insureds”). The property located at 908 W Horatio St, Tampa, FL 33606 (hereafter the “Property”) was insured by Olympus under policy OIC30053583-04 with the effective dates of that policy being June 20, 2023, through June 20, 2024. Statement of Facts This matter arises from an alleged wind and/or hail event at the Insureds’ Citrus County residence. Olympus denies the allegations in this Purported Notice and further asserts that this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. I. Claim 24FLHOV0014662 Olympus was provided first notice of this claim on or about February 4, 2024. Olympus immediately assigned claim number 24FLHOV0014662 and a Claim Examiner to the file. Olympus additionally sent the Insureds a claim acknowledgement letter, the homeowner’s bill of rights and a requested sworn proof of loss. Soon thereafter, Olympus inspected the Insureds’ Property. Olympus communicated with its Insureds and/or their representatives, reviewed the information provided by its Insureds, reviewed all information received through its investigation, inspected the property, and tendered a coverage determination. In short, Olympus complied with all its obligations under the Policy, acted in good faith at all times, and denies the spurious and factually incorrect allegations in this Civil Remedy Notice. II. Nature of the Complainants’ Civil Remedy Complaint The Purported Notice names Olympus and alleges the following statutory violations: (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 towards its insured, (2) 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, (3) 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, (4) failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (5) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (6) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (7) 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 offer of a compromise or settlement; (8) denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations; (9) failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims; (10) altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons and deficiencies discussed below. Florida Statute 624.155 requires a Claimant to provide the Insurer 60 days, written notice of the violation as a condition precedent of commencing a “bad faith” action. Florida Statute 624.155(3) requires the following five (5) pieces of information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that the Civil Remedy Notice shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the department may require. The Florida Supreme Court has held that section 624.155, Florida Statutes must be “strictly construed.” Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied with all statutory provisions. III. Civil Remedy Notice Deficiencies i. First Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, it includes false and conclusory allegations, incorrect facts, and fails to explain how a thorough investigation and coverage determination, pursuant to the Policy and its terms is a violation of Florida law. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This Purported Notice is also fatally deficient in that it fails to provide any specific facts as to how Olympus violated any of the listed Florida Statutes identified by the Insureds in the Notice. Rather, it is apparent that the Purported Notice simply disagrees with Olympus’ coverage determination but fails to provide a single fact as to why that determination was improper, incorrect, or in bad faith. Thus, the Purported Notice fails to provide any actual specificity as to the Complaints’ allegations and is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). ii. Second Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3) requires that the CRN list the name of any individual involved in the violation. While the Purported Notice lists a single name, it does not specify the individual’s involvement or what facts and circumstances surrounding their actions resulted in the alleged violations. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). iii. Third Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires the Civil Remedy Notice to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. A third-party claimant is not required to reference specific policy language, absent receipt of a copy of the Policy. However, the Claimants in this Purported Notice are not third-party claimants, therefore the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. The Purported Notice does not. Rather it states a brief, general Policy topics, without citing to actual Policy language. Indeed, the Purported Notice generally states “ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY WHICH OLYMPUS BELIEVES LIMIT OR PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE INSUREDS’ LOSS.” However, the Purported Notice does not reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, nor any specific policy language in support of the very allegations of the Purported Notice, including allegations claiming that Olympus did not attempt in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured, failed 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, made material misrepresentation 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, failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims, 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 offer of a compromise or settlement, denied claims without conducting reasonable investigations, failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and amended or altered an insurance adjuster’s report.. Hence, it is clear that the Claimants’ allegations include policy-related violations, and as such it must cite the policy language that is relevant to such violations. It does not. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). Florida courts have weighed in on this requirement, finding that "[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds'] casual 'reference' to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice." Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021 at 879 (citing 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). Id. But, the court continued, "the Legislature included 'specific' or a variant not once but twice in the statute." Id. As a result, the insureds' listing of whole sections of the insurance policy "appear[ed] to lack specificity." Id. In Julien, the insured cited numerous statutory violations and listed nearly every provision in the Policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the Civil Remedy Notice failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Much the same as in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to state with any real degree of specificity the policy language at issue. iv. Fourth Deficiency: The Purported Notice is fatally deficient as it does not supply the necessary information that would allow Olympus to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, the Florida Supreme Court stated that the alleged statutory violations may be cured by payment of the “contractual amount due the Insured” within 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. Not only is the Purported Notice invalid and fatally deficient, but it fails to provide a specific cure amount. Instead, the Purported Notice makes vague demands for monies. The notice further vaguely demand that Olympus “(1). admit full coverage for the insureds’ loss; (2). pay in the proper amount necessary to restore the property to its preloss conditions, which the insured believes to be in accordance with the estimate prepared by the insureds’ public adjuster in the amount of $35,538.06, for the duration of the sixty-day cure period; (3). pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contract damages from the date of the loss to the present time pursuant to §627.70131, and pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred.” but fails to inform Olympus as to what total amount and specific actions the Claimants would accept as a “cure.” The Complainants have failed to provide a proper “final cure” request in such that they failed to list the FINAL amount for all damages, failed to list an amount for interest, and have categorically failed to explain how Olympus can, “admit full coverage for the Insureds’ loss” when it is not covered loss under their policy of insurance. Thus, the insurer would be unable to cure the alleged violation. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). IV. Settlement The parties agreed to settlement of the instant matter and Olympus sent and subsequently received a general release which included the allegations of this Civil Remedy Notice. Moreover, in this release Olympus specifically did not admit any liability, bad faith, or the allegations contained within this CRN. Accordingly, all allegations contained within this Civil Remedy are now resolved and/or moot. V. Conclusion Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Olympus denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it violated the insurance policy or Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Furthermore, Olympus asserts this Purported Notice is factually inaccurate, misrepresents the facts of the claim and fails to comply with Florida Statute 624.155. Further, by this response, Olympus neither waves, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, Olympus hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. Finally, it should be noted that this matter was subsequently resolved via a general release. Accordingly, all matters related to this Civil Remedy Notice have now been fully resolved. Sincerely, Jessica Bello, Esq. On Behalf of Olympus Insurance Company
jbello@wallenkelley.com 03-12-2025 March 12, 2025 Florida Department of Financial Services Consumer Assistance/Civil Remedy Section Larson Bldg., 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0322 Complainants: Caren Girard and Gary Girard Address: 8 Pagoda Ct W, Homosassa, Fl 34446 Insureds: Caren Girard and Gary Girard Policy #: OIC30053583-04 Claim: 24FLHOV0014662 Attorney: Matthew Mullinax, Esq. Attorney Address: 908 W Horatio St, Tampa, FL 33606 Attorney Email: MATT@MAKRISMULLINAX.COM DOI File: 800908 Filing Date: 1/14/2025 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as the response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (“Olympus”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice No. 800908, filed on behalf of Caren Girard and Gary Girard (the “Complainants”) which was accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on January 14, 2025. This response is specifically in regard to Claim 24FLHOV0014662. The Insureds are Caren Girard and Gary Girard (“Insureds”). The property located at 908 W Horatio St, Tampa, FL 33606 (hereafter the “Property”) was insured by Olympus under policy OIC30053583-04 with the effective dates of that policy being June 20, 2023, through June 20, 2024. Statement of Facts This matter arises from an alleged wind and/or hail event at the Insureds’ Citrus County residence. Olympus denies the allegations in this Purported Notice and further asserts that this Purported Notice fails to comply with Florida law and is fatally deficient. I. Claim 24FLHOV0014662 Olympus was provided first notice of this claim on or about February 4, 2024. Olympus immediately assigned claim number 24FLHOV0014662 and a Claim Examiner to the file. Olympus additionally sent the Insureds a claim acknowledgement letter, the homeowner’s bill of rights and a requested sworn proof of loss. Soon thereafter, Olympus inspected the Insureds’ Property. Olympus communicated with its Insureds and/or their representatives, reviewed the information provided by its Insureds, reviewed all information received through its investigation, inspected the property, and tendered a coverage determination. In short, Olympus complied with all its obligations under the Policy, acted in good faith at all times, and denies the spurious and factually incorrect allegations in this Civil Remedy Notice. II. Nature of the Complainants’ Civil Remedy Complaint The Purported Notice names Olympus and alleges the following statutory violations: (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 towards its insured, (2) 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, (3) 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, (4) failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; (5) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (6) failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; (7) 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 offer of a compromise or settlement; (8) denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations; (9) failing to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims; (10) altering or amending an insurance adjuster’s report. The Purported Notice is a legal nullity for the reasons and deficiencies discussed below. Florida Statute 624.155 requires a Claimant to provide the Insurer 60 days, written notice of the violation as a condition precedent of commencing a “bad faith” action. Florida Statute 624.155(3) requires the following five (5) pieces of information: 1. The statutory provision, including the specific language of the statute, which the authorized insurer allegedly violated; 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation; 3. The name of any individual involved in the violation; 4. Reference to specific policy language that is relevant to the violation, if any. If the person bringing the civil action is a third party claimant, she or he shall not be required to reference the specific policy language if the authorized insurer has not provided a copy of the policy to the third party claimant pursuant to written request; and 5. A statement that the notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by this section. The statute also provides that the Civil Remedy Notice shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the department may require. The Florida Supreme Court has held that section 624.155, Florida Statutes must be “strictly construed.” Talat Enter., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283 (Fla. 2000). Strict construction is appropriate as “this statute is in derogation of the common law.” Id. Accordingly, such an interpretation would mean that statutory bad faith cases cannot proceed unless the claimant has specifically complied with all statutory provisions. III. Civil Remedy Notice Deficiencies i. First Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Civil Remedy Notice state with specificity the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation. The Purported Notice does not supply facts or circumstances that explain the allegations. Rather, it includes false and conclusory allegations, incorrect facts, and fails to explain how a thorough investigation and coverage determination, pursuant to the Policy and its terms is a violation of Florida law. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This Purported Notice is also fatally deficient in that it fails to provide any specific facts as to how Olympus violated any of the listed Florida Statutes identified by the Insureds in the Notice. Rather, it is apparent that the Purported Notice simply disagrees with Olympus’ coverage determination but fails to provide a single fact as to why that determination was improper, incorrect, or in bad faith. Thus, the Purported Notice fails to provide any actual specificity as to the Complaints’ allegations and is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(2), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). ii. Second Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3) requires that the CRN list the name of any individual involved in the violation. While the Purported Notice lists a single name, it does not specify the individual’s involvement or what facts and circumstances surrounding their actions resulted in the alleged violations. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). iii. Third Deficiency: Section 624.155(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, requires the Civil Remedy Notice to reference specific policy language that is relevant to the violation. A third-party claimant is not required to reference specific policy language, absent receipt of a copy of the Policy. However, the Claimants in this Purported Notice are not third-party claimants, therefore the Purported Notice must include specific language from the subject policy that is relevant to the alleged violations. The Purported Notice does not. Rather it states a brief, general Policy topics, without citing to actual Policy language. Indeed, the Purported Notice generally states “ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY WHICH OLYMPUS BELIEVES LIMIT OR PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THE INSUREDS’ LOSS.” However, the Purported Notice does not reference specific policy language relevant to the alleged violation, nor any specific policy language in support of the very allegations of the Purported Notice, including allegations claiming that Olympus did not attempt in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured, failed 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, made material misrepresentation 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, failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims, misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, failed to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims, 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 offer of a compromise or settlement, denied claims without conducting reasonable investigations, failed to affirm or deny full or partial coverage of claims, and amended or altered an insurance adjuster’s report.. Hence, it is clear that the Claimants’ allegations include policy-related violations, and as such it must cite the policy language that is relevant to such violations. It does not. Thus, the Purported Notice is invalid for noncompliance with Section 624.155(3)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). Florida courts have weighed in on this requirement, finding that "[i]f the statute contained no specificity requirement, [then] the [insureds'] casual 'reference' to the entire insurance policy undoubtedly would suffice." Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875, 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021 at 879 (citing 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). Id. But, the court continued, "the Legislature included 'specific' or a variant not once but twice in the statute." Id. As a result, the insureds' listing of whole sections of the insurance policy "appear[ed] to lack specificity." Id. In Julien, the insured cited numerous statutory violations and listed nearly every provision in the Policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the Civil Remedy Notice failed to specify the statutory and policy provisions at issue. Much the same as in Julien, the Purported Notice fails to state with any real degree of specificity the policy language at issue. iv. Fourth Deficiency: The Purported Notice is fatally deficient as it does not supply the necessary information that would allow Olympus to “cure” the alleged violations, as required by Florida law. In Talat, 753 So. 2d 1278, the Florida Supreme Court stated that the alleged statutory violations may be cured by payment of the “contractual amount due the Insured” within 60 days following the acceptance of a valid notice. Not only is the Purported Notice invalid and fatally deficient, but it fails to provide a specific cure amount. Instead, the Purported Notice makes vague demands for monies. The notice further vaguely demand that Olympus “(1). admit full coverage for the insureds’ loss; (2). pay in the proper amount necessary to restore the property to its preloss conditions, which the insured believes to be in accordance with the estimate prepared by the insureds’ public adjuster in the amount of $35,538.06, for the duration of the sixty-day cure period; (3). pay statutory interest on the amount of unpaid contract damages from the date of the loss to the present time pursuant to §627.70131, and pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred.” but fails to inform Olympus as to what total amount and specific actions the Claimants would accept as a “cure.” The Complainants have failed to provide a proper “final cure” request in such that they failed to list the FINAL amount for all damages, failed to list an amount for interest, and have categorically failed to explain how Olympus can, “admit full coverage for the Insureds’ loss” when it is not covered loss under their policy of insurance. Thus, the insurer would be unable to cure the alleged violation. This deficiency applies to all allegations in the Purported Notice as Claimant’s Purported Notice, including but not limited to claim denial, claim delay, unsatisfactory settlement offer and unfair trade practice, supposedly in violation of Sections 624.155(1)(b)(1), 624.155(1)(b)(3), 626.9541(1)(i)(2), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(e), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(j). IV. Conclusion Notwithstanding the deficiencies in, and the invalidity of, the Purported Notice, Olympus denies any wrongdoing. It specifically denies that it violated the insurance policy or Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Purported Notice. Furthermore, Olympus asserts this Purported Notice is factually inaccurate, misrepresents the facts of the claim and fails to comply with Florida Statute 624.155. Further, by this response, Olympus neither waves, nor is estopped, from asserting any and all rights it may have in law, or, under the terms of the policy. In fact, Olympus hereby again, expressly, and specifically, reserves all of its rights, without exception or limitation. Sincerely, Jessica Bello, Esq. On Behalf of Olympus Insurance Company
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

Before submitting a Notice using this system, please verify that all text has been entered correctly and completely. Once the Notice has been submitted, the text cannot be changed or deleted.




DFS-10-363
Rev. 10/14/2008