Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     801148
Filing Accepted:  1/15/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
MALARNEY   First Name   JOSEPH
Street Address * 1 WATER CLUB WAY, UNIT #601
City, State Zip * NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33408
Email Address * JOSEPHMALARNEY@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   MALARNEY   First Name   JOSEPH
Policy # * OLCF0018299 Claim #* 24FLDFV0015715
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* FERTEL First Name * JORDAN Initial
Street Address* 151 N NOBB HILL RD, #404
City, State Zip* PLANTATION , FL 33324
Email Address * JORDAN@KCGLAW.INFO
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 12954
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SABRINA BROWN, LATONYA STROTHER & CLAIMS DEPARTMENT
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Delay
Claim Denial
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)(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)(f) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured of the basis in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Duties After Loss - Loss Settlement Provision
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

January 13, 2025 Olympus Insurance Company Attention: Sabrina Brown, Latonya Strother & Claims Department 8375 Dix Ellis Trail, Suite #300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Sent via DFS website RE: Client : JOSEPH MALARNEY & CHRISTINE CARONA Insured : JOSEPH MALARNEY & CHRISTINE CARONA Policy # : OLCF0018299-00 Claim # : 24FLDFV0015715 Property Address : 1 Water Club Way, Unit #601, North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Dear Olympus Insurance Company: Please find enclosed our Civil Remedy Notice that has been filed. Below is a summary of the statutory violations to be alleged and a summary of the facts of the bad faith actions taken by the insurance company. As discussed in greater detail in the notice, the carrier has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim 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 its interests. Furthermore, the carrier is required to properly investigate and adjust claims and cannot place that burden upon the insured. This was made clear by the appellate court and the Florida Supreme Court in Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (“The Legislature has clearly chosen to impose on the insurance companies a duty to use good faith and fair dealing in processing and litigating the claims of their insureds…”). All statutory provisions alleged to have been 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)(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. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer's violation as you understand them at this time: The Insurance Company has failed to properly investigate, adjust, settle and pay the Insured’s claim. Instead, the Insurance Company, as part of a general business practice and due to a failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims, has willfully, wantonly and maliciously, and in reckless disregard for the rights of its Insured, has intentionally refused to make payment on the Insureds’ claim, resulting in an unreasonable payment delay and/or effective denial of portions of the Insured’s claim. The Insured has a Homeowners Policy with the Insurance Company, which covers all fortuitous losses by the Insured unless the loss is specifically excluded. On or about August 19, 2024, a leak caused damages to the Insured’s property. Specifically, as it relates to bad faith, during the investigation of this claim, the Insurance Company’s adjuster, Sabrina Brown, failed to act promptly upon communications with respect to the claim in violation of Florida Statutes § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c). In multiple occasions (October 25, 2024, November 4, 2024, November 5, 2024, November 11, 2024, November 26, 2024, December 3, 2024, and December 9, 2024), the Insured’s public adjuster emailed and called Sabrina Brown to discuss the claim, and its resolution, without receiving a response. It wasn’t until the Insured’s public adjuster informed Sabrina Brown that the Insurance Company failed to make a coverage within the 30 days and that they were almost at 60 days with no decision that the Insurance Company informed the Insured that they were denying his claim. After that, radio silence from Sabrina Brown and the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company even 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 this claim in violation of Florida Statutes § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). What’s worse is that the Insurance Company cannot 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 this claim because its own investigation does not support it. The Insurance Company hired an engineer to investigate the cause of loss for this claim and the engineer concluded that he could not recreate the cause of the leak as it had been cleared by the time he went to inspect the property. Given that the Insurance Company’s engineer cannot confirm nor recreate the cause of loss for this claim, the Insurance Company’s decision to deny this claim violated Florida Statutes § 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)(d), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f). To date, the Insurance Company has failed and refused to pay the Insureds for the total amount of damages the Insureds suffered and paid for. As a result of the insurance company’s conduct, the Insureds have suffered financial hardship as they have had to spend over $18,000.00 of their own money on the repairs that the Insurance Company should have paid for. In addition, and also as a result of the insurance company’s conduct, the Insureds have suffered, and continues to suffer, further consequential damages due to the insurance company’s improper delay/denial of the covered insurance claim. It is clear that the carrier is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct; failing to pay a claim clearly owed; not adjusting the claim and evaluating the loss properly, promptly and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the claimant; failing to implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims and placing the company’s interests before the claimant’s interests; not training, supervising or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made; refusing to pay the full amount owed to the claimant despite the fact that the damages are covered under the policy; looking for ways to delay full recovery or any recovery to the claimant; and refusing to provide coverage for the claimant’s loss in a timely manner. The carrier’s actions are in violation of Florida Statutes § 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)(d), and 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(f), as well as Section I- Perils Insured Against, subsection 1, providing coverage for direct loss to property unless the damage was caused solely by an excluded or excepted cause of loss. Therefore, to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, the carrier must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $141,803.47; 2) Pay the Claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs as they have been forced to retain counsel; and 3) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made. A copy of this letter and filed form submitted to the DFS has been sent to the carrier. Sincerely, Karl C. Gonzalez Karl C. Gonzalez, Esq. Attorney at Law Enclosed: Civil Remedy Notice Filing
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
hzelinger@bressler.com 01-31-2025 Via U.S. Mail, Certified Mail and E-mail: JORDAN@KCGLAW.INFO Jordan Fertel, Esq. KCG Law, PLLC 151 N Nobb Hill Rd., #404 Plantation, FL 33324 Complainant(s): Joseph Malarney Policy #: OICF0018299-01 (listed as OLCF0018299) Claim #: 24FLDFV0015715 DFS Filing #: 801148 Dear Mr. Fertel: Please accept this response on behalf of Olympus Insurance Company (hereinafter “Olympus”) to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (hereinafter “CRN”) No. 801148, filed on behalf of Joseph Malarney (hereinafter, the “Complainant” or the “Insured”), and accepted by the Florida Department of Financial Services on January 15, 2025. The Civil Remedy Notice (“CRN”) alleges that Olympus violated the following statutes: • 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. • 624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, whent the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage. • 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(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)(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 or for the offer of a compromise settlement. Please accept this as Olympus’ response to the above-referenced CRN filed with the Department of Financial Services by the Complainant, Joseph Malarney. To summarize the below, Olympus hereby denies any allegation of not attempting to settle claims in good faith when it could and should have done so; failing to promptly settle claims when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear; failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims; misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims; denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information; and failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation in writing to the insured for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement; and states that it has at all times handled and adjusted the Complainant’s claim with utmost good faith. Simply put, Olympus denies any acts or omission that could be construed or found to be deemed bad faith and/or a violation of Florida Statutes § 624.155 and § 626.9541, whether expressly stated in the Civil Remedy Notice or implied. Any and all allegations of bad faith are hereby denied and rejected in their entirety by Olympus. Beyond Olympus’ adamant belief that it acted with the utmost good faith, the CRN is deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. As an initial matter, Olympus denies and rejects the instant CRN as it fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155. The CRN is therefore deficient and fails to preserve any and all claims for statutory bad faith under Florida Law. Florida Statute § 624.155 requires a complainant to file with the Department of Financial Services a Civil Remedy Notice which shall be “on a form provided by the [Department] and shall state with specificity…such other information as the Department may require.” The Department created a CRN form, Form DFS-10-363, which lays out 15 requirements, including in part, the Complainant’s e-mail address, Complainant type, claim number, attorney’s name, attorney’s address, attorney’s e-mail address, type of insurer, the person with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and the reason for notice. According to § 624.155, these mandates are required by the Department, and they must be stated with specificity. The instant CRN fails to provide the specificity required by § 624.155 and fails to comply with the form requirements as a whole. Therefore, the instant CRN is facially deficient. See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). The CRN is initially deficient in that it fails list additional insured Christine Carona as a Complainant and therefore fails to protect the rights and interest of same. Furthermore, the instant CRN filing makes an error so significant as to warrant immediate dismissal of the CRN and no further analysis necessary. Specifically, the instant CRN includes the incorrect Policy #, therefore rendering the entire CRN deficient and invalid. The Complainant listed “OLCF0018299” when prompted to provide the relevant policy number. This policy does not exist anywhere in Olympus’ files for any policy issued by Olympus. Whether the Complainant purposefully included a false policy number or made a typo, the Complainant’s failure to comply with the requisite baseline form requirements is insufficient under Florida law to support any action for bad faith against Olympus without speculation on its part. Due to this intentional withholding of mandated information, the CRN is facially deficient as it fails to comply with the form requirements set forth in Florida Statute §624.155, and specifically § 624.155(3)(b)(3). See Bay v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 4D19-3332, 2020 WL 6154256 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 21, 2020). Furthermore, the CRN’s attempt to identify the specific policy language relevant to the violation is woefully deficient. “Courts have found that listing whole sections of the insurance policy constitutes insufficient specificity.” See Fox v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., No. 8:16-CV-3254-T-23MAP, 2017 WL 1541294 at *2 and Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).” When prompted to reference the policy language that is relevant to the alleged violation, the Complainant makes absolutely no effort to provide the relevant policy language. Instead, the Complainant provides its own interpretation of the Complainant’s position and the policy language associated with same. The Complainant, however, entirely fails respond to the Department’s prompt, again dismissing the mandated information needed to submit a valid CRN against an insurer. The Complainant actually fails to provide any policy language at all, and instead generically lists the names of entire sections contained within the policy. The Complainant writes, “Duties After Loss – Loss Settlement Provision.” It is unclear what the Complainant is referring to when listing these sections without any actual language contained within the subject insurance policy. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Julien v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company No. 4D19-2763 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Failure to provide specific reference to any relevant policy language is direct and clear noncompliance with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155, and therefore renders the CRN deficient on its face as to form and substance. For these reasons alone, the CRN fails at its inception. Additionally, the CRN fails to provide a complete description relating to the facts and/or circumstances which give rise to the alleged statutory violations, thus, prejudicing Olympus from providing any meaningful or complete response. In summary, the CRN is hardly more than a recitation of a number of Florida statutory provisions, with minimal factual allegations in support of the conclusory statutory recitations. A Civil Remedy Notice must state the facts and circumstances that give rise to an alleged violation with specificity sufficient to allow an insurer to cure the alleged violation within the sixty-day statutory period. Lane v. Westfield Insurance Company, 862 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The instant CRN therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute § 624.155(3), which requires that a CRN of insurer violation “state with specificity,” inter alia, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation and the “specific” language of the subject insurance policy that is relevant to the violation. The CRN fails to specify what was lacking in Olympus’ investigation and fails to specify facts which support that its investigation was unfair or merits additional steps. To Olympus’ knowledge, the instant claim for insurance benefits has been adjusted properly. Generally, the CRN lacks the requisite facts and/or specificity, as ruled on numerous times and cited to throughout this Response, to put Olympus on notice as to the allegations against it. Moreover, the few facts that are stated in the CRN are contrary to the facts of the underlying claim or are at best misleading. The Complainant actually just copied its letter sent to our office into the section of the CRN which seeks “[d]escribe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer’s violation as you understand them at this time.” The CRN states that “Please find enclosed our [CRN] that has been filed. Below is a summary of the statutory violations to be alleged and a summary of the facts of the bad faith actions taken by [Olympus]. As discussed in greater detail in the [CRN], [Olympus] has not attempted in good faith to settle the claimant’s claim…” However, in addition to this blurb being copied and pasted from a separate correspondence between the parties into the CRN, these statements are false and meritless. Also, the CRN claims that, “[Olympus] has failed to properly investigate, adjust, settle and pay the Insured’s claim. Instead, [Olympus], as part of a general business practice and due to a failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims, has willfully, wantonly and maliciously, and in reckless disregard for the rights of its Insured, has refused to make payment on the Insureds’ claim…” Again, this statement is untrue and unfounded. Rather, Olympus received notice of the insured Complainant’s claim on September 13, 2024, approximately one month after the purported date of loss. Olympus then inspected the property and continues to adjust the claim based upon the available information. The Complainant has provided no facts or evidence to support these allegations in support of the instant CRN or in any other context throughout the entirety of their claim. Olympus has promptly and thoroughly investigated the subject claim throughout the claims process and has worked to reach a coverage determination based upon its complete understanding of the facts. It is the Complainant who is not complying with the policy’s terms and who is continuing to make unsupported allegations in an attempt to deceive Olympus to issue unwarranted payments and/or additional benefits. The subject CRN makes egregious and baseless allegations, claiming “[Olympus] hired an engineer to investigate the cause of loss for this claim and the engineer concluded that he could not recreate the cause of the leak as it had been cleared by the time he went to inspect the property. Given that [Olympus]’s engineer cannot confirm nor recreate the cause of the loss for this claim, [Olympus]’s decision to deny this claim violated Florida Statutes…,” and “It is clear that [Olympus] is not treating the claimant with good faith claims conduct…” These are serious blanket allegations made without one scintilla of factual evidence in support of any of such claims. Interestingly, the Complainant’s biased description of the facts is entirely wrong. Olympus inspected the property with an independent leak detector and loss consultant, and not an engineer. It was then concluded that: “The inspection identified water damage primarily localized in the kitchen cabinet adjacent toe kicks, likely due to the previously reported obstruction in the main drain line between the 5th and 6th floors. This resulted in water backing up and subsequently leaking out of the kitchen sink drain lines, migrating to the reported affected areas. The reported obstruction was cleared by a plumber prior to our inspection which prevented us from being able to recreate the leakage.” Contrary to the Complainant’s version of the facts, the leak detector was able to determine the cause although he could not physically recreate the leak. This information, and the leak detection diagnostic report in its entirety, was provided to the Complainant’s public adjuster via e-mail correspondence dated December 11, 2024. The facts indicate that Olympus diligently investigated the subject loss even after it was reported late, repeatedly and routinely communicated with the insured Complainant, and acted accordingly based upon the facts it discovered throughout its investigation of the claim and according to the terms of the insurance contract which provides rights to both the Complainant as well as the insurer for scenarios just like this one. Olympus’ investigation of the subject claim has been swift and routine: Olympus received a claim for damages, Olympus sent qualified representatives to inspect the property, Olympus reviewed the representative’s observations and/or conclusions and has continued to seek additional information to properly adjust the loss. The Complainant’s cure demand is indiscernible and as such Olympus is not given a fair opportunity to cure the CRN. The CRN states: “… [t]o cure the defects outlined in this [CRN], [Olympus] must: 1) Pay the complete covered loss in the amount of $141,803.47; 2) Pay the Claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs as they’ve been forced to retain counsel; and 3) Pay the statutory interest on the amount of unpaid damages from the date of loss to the date payment is finally made.” This is the functional equivalent of “Pay me everything I’ve asked for.” Rousso v. Liberty Surplis Ins. Co., 2010 WL 736059, *5 (S.D. Fla. 2010). “Insurers are not required to pay any amount demanded by their insureds to avoid a bad-faith claim.” Id. (citing 316, Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1194 (N.D. Fla. 2008)). However, regardless of its legitimacy, the CRN itself contains a cure in the form of an admission of liability and Olympus cannot even begin to attempt to cure the instant CRN on such unclear terms. In addition to demanding “everything I’ve asked for,” the cure is unclear as to what it’s asking for beyond the stated monetary amount. In addition to falsely claiming that the Complainant was forced to retain counsel, the cure provides no basis for Olympus to even attempt to calculate what it seeks when demanding several unclear payments and reimbursements to both the insured Complainant as well as their attorneys, and then some unknown amount of interest purportedly owed on top of those indeterminate payments. Rather, the cure demand is merely an attempt to deceive Olympus into issuing some ambiguous payment rather than defending itself against a threat of bad faith when no bad faith is remotely existent anywhere throughout the instant claim. Given the cure, Olympus affirmatively asserts that the CRN is deficient. Since no other distinct basis for a cure has been set forth by the Civil Remedy Notice, Olympus was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to purge any alleged violations. See Kafie v. NorthWestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (“In order to demonstrate good faith, ‘[t]he insurer must investigate the facts, [and] give fair consideration to a settlement offer that is not unreasonable under the facts…’”). Based on the facts provided, it is impossible for Olympus to satisfy the Complainant without significantly prejudicing itself, and therefore the CRN fails to provide a true and feasible cure method. Accordingly, the CRN does not provide the contemplated and mandated notice of alleged bad faith that is required as a condition precedent to any civil claim for bad faith pursuant to Florida Statute § 624.155. Similarly, for these reasons, the CRN fails. As outlined above, contrary to the allegations made by the CRN, Olympus sufficiently and diligently investigated the loss. Olympus maintains that it has acted fairly and honestly toward the Complainant, and any other person having an interest in the subject policy or assisting the Complainant in connection with the instant claim. Olympus consistently and promptly communicated with the Complainant and/or their agents throughout all stages of the investigation and conducted a thorough investigation in good faith. Despite the multiple deficiencies contained in the CRN, Olympus has now attempted to cure same by issuing payment for undisputed damages in the amount of $37,673.55. as well as for statutory interest in the amount of $1,343.77 on January 28, 2025. Furthermore, Olympus believes the CRN is premature as the Complainant’s CRN contains additional information which was not previously submitted include the alleged amount of damages of $141,803.47 for which no estimate has ever been submitted to substantiate this claimed amount. The receipt of this information warrants additional investigation and Olympus requires the documentation to substantiate the claimed damages for further review and analysis. Outside of the estimate for damages to substantiate the claimed damages, Olympus has yet to receive an executed sworn proof of loss which was initially requested on September 13, 2024 via the claims acknowledgment letter. Also, Olympus has not received any documentation regarding alleged repairs to the kitchen plumbing which allegedly resolved the leak issue. In order to further its investigation of the subject loss, Olympus has requested an engineer inspection which is pending at this time to further analyze the alleged damages and any need for additional repairs and in order to complete a proper and thorough investigation. To the extent that the instant CRN is intended to address any other facts or circumstances which purport to establish additional coverage for the reported losses, the CRN provides insufficient identification of any such facts or circumstances and therefore prevents Olympus from addressing any other aspect herein. Notwithstanding, Olympus believes that the above facts demonstrate beyond dispute that it has at all times acted in good faith with regard to its investigation of the subject claim, and further believes that the facts provided to date fail to establish that it has not adjusted the reported loss in accordance with the express terms, provisions, limitations and exclusions contained within the policy. If we can provide any additional information, or be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Marcelo A. Fiallos _ Marcelo A. Fiallos, Esq.
Acknowledgement
* The submitter hereby states that this notice is given in order to perfect the rights of the person(s) damaged to pursue civil remedies authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

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




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