Civil Remedy Filing

Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations

Filing Number: 802897

Filing Accepted: 1/22/2025

Print Filing

Complainant

Last/Business Name *

JONES

First Name

BELINDA

Street Address *

4154 YUCATAN CIRCLE

City, State Zip *

PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33948

Email Address *

PBJJONES47@GMAIL.COM

Complainant Type: *

Insured

Last/Business Name*		JONES		First Name		BELINDA
Policy # *		12-1057681-03		Claim #*		12-3009480-22

Attorney

Attorney is Applicable

Last Name*	ADAMS First Name * JOHN Initial W
Street Address*		1074 BLOOMINGDALE AVE
City, State Zip*		VALRICO , FL 33596
Email Address *		JADAMS@ADAMSLAWASSOCIATION.COM

Violation

Insurer Type *		Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer

Insurer Name
Insurer Name*		TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer Name*
Street Address*
City, State Zip*		,
NAIC Company Code 15885

Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* SEAN BARNETT, VALENCIA REED, CHRISTOPHER HESTILOW, KENNIA DESTIMA
Type of Insurance * Residential Property & Casualty

Reason for Notice *

	Claim Delay
	Unfair Trade Practice
	Other : Failure to provide coverage for a covered loss
	Other : Failure to investigate claim in consultation with the insured
	Other : Failure to issue all payments due and owing
	Other : Failure to address concerns of health and safety at the insured property
	Other : Unfair Settlement Offer

* Statutory provision(s) which the insurer allegedly violated.

	624.155(1)(b)(1)		Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
	626.9541(1)(i)(2)		A material misrepresentation made to an insured or any other person having an interest in the proceeds payable under such contract or policy, for the purpose and with the intent of effecting settlement of such claims, loss, or damage under such contract or policy on less favorable terms than those provided in, and contemplated by, such contract or policy.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a)		Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b)		Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c)		Failing to acknowledge and act promptly upon communications with respect to claims.
	626.9541(1)(i)(3)(g)		Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim.

* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Reason for Notice: Claim Delay Unfair Trade Practice Other: Failure to provide coverage for a covered loss Other: Failure to investigate claim in consultation with the insured Other: Failure to issue all payments due and owing Other: Failure to address concerns of health and safety at the insured property Other: Unfair Settlement Offer PURSUANT TO SECTION 624.155, F.S. please indicate 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; 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) -- Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. 626.9541(1)(i) -- Unfair claim settlement practices. 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)(g) -- Failing to promptly notify the insured of any additional information necessary for the processing of a claim. 627.70131 -- (5)(a) Within 90 days after an insurer receives notice of a property insurance claim from a policyholder, the insurer shall pay or deny such claim or a portion of the claim unless the failure to pay such claim or a portion of the claim is caused by factors beyond the control of the insurer which reasonably prevent such payment. 626.9541(1)(a)(1) -- Misrepresenting the terms of an insurance policy. 626.9541(1)(i)(2) -- Making a 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. 69B-220.201(3)(B)(2) -- An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract 69B-220.201(3)(C) -- An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. 69B-220.201(3)(D) -- An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation 69B-220.201(3)(E) -- An adjuster shall handle every adjustment and settlement with honesty and integrity, and allow a fair adjustment or settlement to all parties 69B-220.201(3)(F) -- An adjuster, upon undertaking the handling of a claim, shall act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim 69B-220.201(3)(G) -- An adjuster shall promptly report to the department any conduct by any licensed insurance representative of this state which violates any provision of the insurance code or department rule or order. Reference to specific policy language… THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATIONS INCLUDES ALL APPLICABLE POLICY COVERAGES, VALUATION PROVISIONS, AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY. SEE: SECTION I COVERAGES; COVERAGE “A” (DWELLING); COVERAGE “C” (PERSONAL PROPERTY); COVERAGE “D” (LOSS OF USE) THE DECLARATIONS PAGE; LOSS PAYMENT AND SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS; DUTIES IN EVENT OF LOSS POLICY PROVISIONS; ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY; AND ALL ENDORSEMENTS TO THE POLICY, INCLUDING ALL FLORIDA ENDORSEMENTS

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

FACTS OF THE CASE: THIS IS THE SECOND CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE FILED IN AN ATTEMPT TO PLEA FOR THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF THIS CLAIM. TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING IN INTERACTIONS WITH THE CLAIM: 1) FAILURE TO ACT IN DUE DILIGENCE AND GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE CLAIMS; 2) PLACING THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF INSURER BEFORE THAT OF POLICY HOLDERS AND CLAIMANTS; 3) FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, EVALUATE, AND MANAGE ADJUSTERS RETAINED TO REPRESENT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF TYPTAP INSURANCE; (4) LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DELAY BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND OTHERWISE OR “STONE WALL” CLAIMS; (5) 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 PARTIES WITH AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. (6) MAKING MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS OF FLORIDA LAW TO THE INSUREDS. 7) UNSATISFACTORY SETTLEMENT OFFER. ULTIMATELY, THE INSURER FAILED TO ADOPT PROPER STANDARDS OF INVESTIGATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OR IS OTHERWISE NOT IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE A PROPER ADHERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 624, 626 AND 627 IS NOT OCCURRING. ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2022, THE INSURED’S HOME WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED BY SUSTAINED WINDS OF 155 MILES PER HOUR BY HURRICANE IAN AND THE INSURED SUFFERED A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS REGARDING THEIR REAL PROPERTY AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. THEREAFTER THE INSURED CALLED TYPTAP INSURANCE TO REPORT THE CLAIM FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY AND REQUEST MUCH NEEDED HELP AND DIRECTION AFTER THE INSURED’S LIFE HAD BEEN TURNED UPSIDE DOWN. TYPTAP INSURANCE INVESTIGATED THE CLAIM, ENGAGED AN INSURANCE CLAIMS ADJUSTER. TYPTAP INSURANCE’S ADJUSTER OR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, INTERVIEWED THE INSUREDS BY TAKING STATEMENTS, AND VISITED AND INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CARRIER NOR THEIR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR ENGAGED ANY ENGINEERS TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION AT THE PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. ADDITIONALLY, UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CARRIER NOR THEIR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR PRODUCED ANY REPORT AND HAS ADMITTED IT HAS NOT RENDERED A COVERAGE DECISION. AFTER OVER TWO YEARS POST LOSS, TYPTAP INSURANCE CONTINUES TO STALL AND BALK AT THE INSURED’S CONTINUOUS ATTEMPTS FOR HELP AS THEY ARE LEFT IN A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND LEFT ONLY TO THEIR OWN VERY LIMITED RESOURCES TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE. MEANWHILE, THE INSURED CONTINUES TO BE TREATED LIKE A SECOND-CLASS CITIZEN FORCED TO REPAIR WHAT IS CLEARLY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AFTER CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE DAMAGE INSPITE OF TYPTAP INSURANCE BEING PLACED ON NOTICE AND BEGGED FOR HELP. IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE THAT TYPTAP INSURANCE COULD ACCEPT PREMIUMS, CONDUCT AN INITIAL INVESTIGATION, AND DENY OR FAIL TO OFFER ALL COVERAGES AVAILABLE. TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE INSURED PROPERTY, HAS NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH THEIR OWN UNLIMITED ACCESS INSPECTION AND PHOTOGRAPHS. TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON NOTICE THROUGH THE REPEATED CALLS FROM THE INSURED, THROUGH THEIR PUBLIC ADJUSTER AND THEN THEIR ATTORNEY, ASKING FOR UPDATES AND REQUESTING CLAIMS PAYMENT TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO ITS PRE-LOSS CONDITION. INSTEAD OF RE-INSPECTING THE PROPERTY AND ISSUING ALL AVAILABLE PAYMENTS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE POLICY, WHICH WAS IN FULL FORCE, TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS INSTEAD IGNORED THE INSURED AND WORSE, DRUG THEM THROUGH A BRUTAL AND PUNISHING GAME OF DELAY. ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2022, THE ADAMS LAW ASSOCIATION, RETAINED BY THE INSURED IN ORDER TO BEG AND PLEA FOR THE CARRIER TO PROPERLY ADJUST THE LOSS, PREPARED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, REQUEST TO ADJUST CLAIM AS WELL A COPY OF THE POLICY. IN THE CORRESPONDENCE AND TELEPHONIC CONVERSATIONS, THE LAW FIRM REQUESTED AND DEMANDED THE CARRIER ASSIGN AN ADJUSTER, REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY TO FULLY AND PROPERTY ADJUST THE LOSS. THE INSURED, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY, HAS REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THE CARRIER FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXCLUSIONS OR EXCEPTIONS OF THE POLICY. TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED AN EXPERT BUILDING REPAIR EXPERT ESTIMATE PREPARED BY PRIDE ESTIMATING AND APPRAISAL SERVICES ALONG WITH THEIR PHOTOGRAPH REPORT WHICH SUPPORTS THE BUILDING REPAIR ESTIMATE AS WELL COUNTLESS PHOTOGRAPHS, RECEIPTS, ESTIMATES AND INVOICES ALL PROVIDED BY CORRESPONDENCE DIRECTED TO THE ADJUSTER ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 TOTALING 140 PAGES. INSTEAD OF RESOLVING THE CLAIM AND PLEA FOR HELP, THE CARRIER IGNORED IT’S CUSTOMERS ATTEMPTS AND FORCED THE INSURED TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY AND FILE LITIGATION. ON SEPTMEBER 27, 2023, THE INSURED, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY, FILED A COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR THE CARRIER’S FAILURE TO OFFER COVERAGES DUE AND OWED. INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT AND ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THE CLAIM, TYPTAP, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS HAVE PLAYED A FOUL GAME OF DELAY, BUREDENING THE INSURED AND UNCESSARARILY DRIVING UP COSTS AND FEES. TYPTAP THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY HAS FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, FAILED TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY AND VIOLATED NUMEROUS COURT ORDERS ALL TO HIDE INFORMATION AND CONTINUE TO PLACE THE INSURED IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE NOW SEVERELY PUNISHED BY SIMPLY FILING A CLAIM. MULTIPLE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY HAVE HAD TO BE FILED AND STILL TO THIS DAY, TYPTAP REFUSES TO RESPOND, AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA RULES. TYPTAP HAS ALSO PUSHED THE INSURED’S CLAIM TO TRIAL, ONLY TO FORCE THE COURT TO RESET THE TRIAL BY PLAYING DELAY GAMES, AGAIN, COSTING THE INSURED MORE IN FEES AND COSTS. FINALLY, THIS CLAIM WAS ORDERED TO NON-BINDING ARBITRATION WHERE AFTER AN ARBITRATION HEARING WAS CONDUCTED AND NO INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED BY TYPTAP WHICH COULD HAVE SERVED AS SOME KIND OF DEFENESE TO THE RUTHLESS ACTIONS WHICH TYPTAP HAS USED TO PUNISH THEIR INSURED, NO EXPERT WAS IDENTIFIED AND NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS DECISIONS, THE ARBIRATOR ENTERED AN AWARD. THIS AWARD SHOULD HAVE SERVED AS YET ANOTHER OPPORTNITY FOR THE TYPTAP TO SEE ITS WRONGDOINGS AND IT SHOULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO THEIR INSURED TO SETTLE. INSTEAD OF SETTLING, TYPTAP CONTINUES TO IGNORE ITS INSURED, INSPITE OF A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE OF ITS WRONGDOING AND DISGUSTING POLICY OF DENYING COVERAGE AND PUNISHING AND BURDENING ITS INSUREDS. AS THE INSURED IS NOW FORCED TO PREPARE FOR JURY TRIAL, TYPTAP CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO SIMPLY COMMUNICATE. ON AT LEAST A DOZEN ATTEMPTS BY THE INSURED, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY, TO COMMUNCIATE AND DISCUSS CLAIMS SETTLEMENT, TYPTAP HAS ON EVERY SINGLE OCCATION, REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE. EVEN REFUSING TO RESPOND TO LETTERS AND EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS. AT THIS TIME, THE CARRIER STILL HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY REASON FOR THE CONTINUED CLAIMS DELAY AND TURNED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADJUSTING THE LOSS BACK ON ITS OWN INSURED. AT THIS POINT, THE CARRIER HAS REFUSED TO PROPERLY ADJUST THE LOSS AND REFUSES TO COMMUNICATE WITH ITS INSURED THROUGH EITHER FORMAL MEANS OR INFORMAL MEANS. THIS INACTION IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE CARRIER HAS REFUSED TO ADJUST THE LOSS BY REFUSING TO ISSUE FULL PAYMENT. THE INSURER’S FEIGNED ATTEMPTS TO ADJUST THE LOSS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN TO WRONGFULLY DENY OR DELAY THIS CLAIM. THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY TYPTAP INSURANCE IN THE HANDLING/ADJUSTMENT OF THE HOMEOWNER’S CLAIM WERE WILLFUL, WANTON, IN BLATANT DISREGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS, AND OCCUR WITH SUCH A FREQUENCY AS TO INDICATE A GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. §§ 624.155 AND 626.9541. IN FLORIDA THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS BREACHED THIS DUTY BY ITS IMPROPER HANDLING OF THE INSURED’S CLAIM OF LOSS. TYPTAP INSURANCE 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. TYPTAP INSURANCE HAS FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO THOROUGHLY, ACCURATELY, AND COMPLETELY INVESTIGATE AND EVALUATE THE INSURED’S INSURANCE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. FLA. STAT. § 624.02 DEFINES INSURANCE AS A CONTRACT WHEREBY ONE UNDERTAKES TO INDEMNIFY ANOTHER OR PAY OR ALLOW 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 HIS/HER DAMAGES AND TO PUT THEM BACK INTO THE POSITION THEY WERE PRIOR TO LOSS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. TYPTAP INSURANCE BREACHED THIS DUTY. THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY TYPTAP INSURANCE IN THE HANDLING OF THE INSURED’S CLAIM WERE WILLFUL, WANTON, AND IN DISREGARD OF 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. TYPTAP INSURANCE’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE A CLAIM 2. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN INSURED’S REQUEST TO ADJUST THE LOSS 3. FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE TO AN INSURED AFTER A CLAIM WAS MADE 4. CLAIM DELAY 5. FAILURE TO RENDER A CLAIMS COVERAGE DECISION 6. NOT CONDUCTING FULL AND PROMPT INVESTIGATION 7. FAILING TO PROVIDE REPORTS REQUESTED 8. NOT TREATING POLICYHOLDERS WITH GOOD FAITH CLAIMS CONDUCT 9. NOT ADJUSTING CLAIMS AND EVALUATING LOSSES PROPERLY, PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY TO PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED 10. FAILING TO IMPLEMENT PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS 11. NOT TRAINING, SUPERVISING OR MANAGING ADJUSTERS PROPERLY SO THAT PROMPT AND FULL PAYMENTS ARE MADE, BUT RATHER PLACING THE COMPANY’S INTERESTS BEFORE THOSE OF THE POLICYHOLDER. 12. FAILING TO OFFER ALL COVERAGES AVAILABLE IN SPITE OF THE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF WINDSTORM AND WATER DAMAGE. 13. UNSATISFACTORY SETTLEMENT OFFER. THEREFORE, TO CURE THE DEFECTS OUTLINED IN THIS CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE, TYPTAP INSURANCE MUST: (1) ADMIT FULL COVERAGE FOR THE INSURED’S LOSS; (2). TENDER COVERAGE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING STRUCTURE CAUSED BY THE WIND AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $227,286.60, $4,200 FOR DEBRIS REMOVAL AND $4,000 FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE. (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 COSTS INCURRED. A COPY OF THIS FORM SUBMITTED TO THE FDFS HAS BEEN SENT TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES PROVIDING THEM NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE: TYPTAP INSURANCE Attn: Claims Department and Sean Barnett PO Box 1120 Ocala, FL 34478 SENT VIA EMAIL & FAX: claims@typtap.com (813) 865-0173

Comments

User Id		Date Added		Comment
claims@typtap.com		03-18-2025		This is TypTap Insurance Company’s (“TypTap”) response to the second Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed on behalf of Belinda Jones (“Insured”). TypTap reviewed this second CRN and conducted a thorough review of the subject claim (“claim”) and confirmed it handled the claim properly. Regarding an aspect of the claim, TypTap issued payments for it on the information available to TypTap and the circumstances at the time of such payments. TypTap handled the claim in accordance with the policy and all statutory and regulatory requirements. TypTap denies each allegation of bad faith and improper conduct in the CRN. At all times, TypTap 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; fails to offer a valid cure as the CRN seeks extra-contractual damages; and relies 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 prior to the filing of this CRN and previously filed a CRN in relation to this claim. The foregoing shows abuse by the Insured and the Insured’s attorney of the CRN and legal processes and an effort to intimidate and gain leverage in an ongoing lawsuit. The second 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 strongly rejected, and it cannot serve as the basis of any action against TypTap. Upon request by the Florida Department of Financial Services, TypTap will provide to the DFS detailed correspondence TypTap 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