Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 802625

Filing Accepted: 1/21/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

STIRLING BLACK INVESTMENTS LLC

First Name

Street Address *

5353 CAPE LEYTE DRIVE

City, State Zip *

SARASOTA, FL 34242

Email Address *

CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		STIRLING BLACK INVESTMENTS LLC		First Name
Policy # *		HCPC-DP3-647052-2		Claim #*		944802

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	KUHN First Name * CLAYTON Initial
Street Address*		2110 WEST PLATT STREET
City, State Zip*		TAMPA , FLORIDA 33606
Email Address *		CLAY@THEKRFIRM.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 12944

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* ANY AND ALL PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLAIMS HANDLING FROM HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	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.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)		Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)		Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d)		Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information.

* 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 POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE LOSS PAYMENT AND COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF POLICY NUMBER HCPC-DP3-647052-2, INCLUDING THE DECLARATIONS PAGE AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGES A, B, C, AND D. ADDITIONALLY, ANY SECTIONS RELIED UPON BY THE INSURER IN ITS DENIAL TO FULLY PAY THE CLAIM, INCLUDING THE DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF LOSS PROVISIONS AND THE POLICY'S EXCLUSION OF COVERAGE PROVISIONS.

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

Stirling Black Investments LLC (hereinafter “Insured”) is insured with an all-risks policy issued by Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Carrier”). On or about September 26, 2024, Insured’s home located at 5353 Cape Leyte Drive, Sarasota, Florida 34242 sustained significant damage as a result of a windstorm event. Specifically, Hurricane Helene created multiple damages to the facet of the concrete tile roof, including but not limited to, cracked, displaced, and missing tiles. The Loss was covered under Insured’ Policy issued by Carrier. Insured promptly reported the claim and fully cooperated with all requests for inspections. Carrier assigned Claim No. 944802 to the loss. The Insured has fully cooperated with Carrier’s investigation of the claim, including providing all requested documentation and complying with all post-loss policy conditions. Specifically, the Insured, with assistance from their public adjuster, submitted an estimate for $102,472.39, which was a fair and reasonable assessment for the repair/replacement of damages. After reporting the claim, Carrier retained an unqualified and biased field adjuster, Steven Winalis Sr., to adjust the loss. This adjuster had a financial incentive to adjust the loss in a manner that would minimize Carrier’s losses. This adjuster performed a mere cursory inspection of the property on November 20, 2024. Instead of adjusting the claim fairly, honestly, in good faith, and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, this adjuster made a conscious effort to ignore evidence of covered losses to the property. Worse still, Carrier failed to retain qualified experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. Despite Insured providing Carrier with a detailed estimate, Carrier failed to pay Insured the amount necessary to repair/replace the damaged property, less the applicable deductible. Instead, Carrier gave Insured a lowball estimate that failed to encompass all covered damages. The carrier only offered to pay $0.00, after applicable deductible of $12,022.00, a gross underpayment for all the damage associated with this claim. Under the circumstances surrounding this claim, had Carrier acted fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests, Carrier could and should have attempted in good faith to settle this claim. Carrier did not and, instead, dishonestly, and unfairly placed its own interests well ahead of those of the Insured. In doing so, Carrier violated Section 624.155(1)(b)(1), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Carrier’s use of unqualified and biased adjusters, and failure to retain experts necessary to identify the repairs necessary to restore the property to its pre-loss condition, evidence Carrier’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation based upon available information. In denying full coverage for this claim without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information, Carrier has violated Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d), Florida Statutes. By representing to Insured that the Policy does not afford full coverage for this loss, Carrier is misrepresenting pertinent facts and/or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue, in violation of Section 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b), Florida Statutes. When applying the facts present here to Florida law, it is clear that Carrier is acting in bad faith. 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 based on determinable contingencies. Inherent is the fact that payment must be made timely and promptly so that insureds may mitigate their damages and be put back into the position they were in prior to the loss as quickly as possible. Carrier has breached this duty by refusing to properly and timely adjust the loss. Moreover, Section 69B-220.201 of the Florida Administrative Code defines Carrier’s adjusters conduct here as an unfair claims settlement practice. Specifically, Section 69B-220.201(3) provides that “[a]n adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured” and that “[a]n adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation.” As detailed above, Carrier’s investigation and adjustment of this claim was done in a manner prejudicial to Insured, was incomplete, and lacked truthful and unbiased reports of the facts. Carrier has more than enough information and is still refusing to accept coverage for the Insured’s claim. This continued and repeated reckless claim delay and denial of coverage will result in a significant punitive damage award if a bad faith lawsuit is filed. Carrier can cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice and avoid a lawsuit for bad faith by immediately accepting full coverage under the subject insurance policy for this claim and by paying Insured’s estimate of damages $102,472.39, less applicable deductible and prior payments, which is the reasonable amount of the covered loss pursuant to the policy. A copy of this form has been submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services who has transmitted the same to the following parties providing them notice of the filing of this Civil Remedy Notice: Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc.

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
david.terry@thekrfirm.com		02-05-2026		Parties have reached settlement on the matter.
Legal@hcpci.com		03-18-2025		This is Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s (“HCPCI”) response to the Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed by attorney Clayton Kuhn on behalf of Stirling Black Investments LLC (“Insured”). HCPCI reviewed this CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. HCPCI handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. HCPCI denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, HCPCI acted in good faith, fairly and honestly toward the Insured and with due regard for the Insured’s interests. Otherwise, the CRN is deficient. Generally, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, CRNs must identify and set forth statutory provisions insurers allegedly violated in handling insureds’ insurance claims along with specific, relevant insurance contract language and facts and circumstances. The foregoing provides insurers with notice of alleged statutory violations AND the opportunity to cure such alleged violations. Instead of complying with Florida Statutes, Section 624.155, the Insured’s attorney in the CRN contained an inaccurate recitation of the facts, failed to reference specific, relevant insurance policy language; cited irrelevant statutes; and relied on inaccurate and conclusory statements. The Insured’s laundry list of inapplicable statutes is insufficient. Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). Furthermore, the Insured’s attorney filed a lawsuit based on the claim shortly after the filing of this CRN. Regardless of the fact there were no violations in this case, any action by HCPCI to cure violations alleged in the CRN could have been used against HCPCI in the lawsuit. The foregoing shows abuse by the Insured and the Insured’s attorney of the CRN and legal processes. Also and generally, the CRN constitutes an abuse of the CRN process, contravenes the purpose of CRNs, which is to promote resolution of issues in insurance claims. The CRN must be rejected, and it cannot serve as the basis of any action against HCPCI. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, HCPCI will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence HCPCI provided regarding the claim.

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