Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803166
Filing Accepted:  1/23/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
311 S. MISSOURI AVE LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 311 SOUTH MISSOURI AVENUE
City, State Zip * CLEARWATER, FL 33756
Email Address * WITHHELD
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   311 S. MISSOURI AVE LLC   First Name   CHRISTOPHER
Policy # * VBA95065900 Claim #* 7030202541
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* REEVES First Name * NICHOLAS Initial
Street Address* 4000 HOLLYWOOD BLVD, SUITE 685-S
City, State Zip* HOLLYWOOD , FL 33021
Email Address * NREEVES@CASSEL.LAW
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 13027
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* JODY OLFERS AND ALL OTHER ADJUSTERS, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR RETAINED BY COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THIS CLAIM.
Type of Insurance * Commercial Property & Casualty   
Reason for Notice *
Claim Denial
Unfair Trade Practice
Other : Violation of Adjusters' Ethical Requirements
* 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 violations asserted herein regarding Covington Specialty Insurance Company's bad faith actions are based heavily on the facts and circumstances asserted in the below section designated for same as well as violations of the portions of Florida Insurance Code and Florida Administrative Code upon which the bad faith statutes contained within Sections 624.155 & 626.9541, Florida Statutes, are based. With that said, the following policy language is relevant to Covington Specialty Insurance Company's statutory violations and bad faith conduct: A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. *** 3. Covered Causes Of Loss See applicable Causes Of Loss form as shown in the Declarations. *** A. Covered Causes Of Loss When Special is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means direct physical loss unless the loss is excluded or limited in this policy. *** j. Rain, snow, ice or sleet to personal property in the open.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Form DFS-10-363, Rev. 10/14/2008, contains a field for the insured to include its email address. Prior to filing the CRN, said form contains an instruction that, in the event the insured does not with for certain information to become part of the public record, the insured must simply include the term “WITHHELD” to satisfy the filing requirement. This is further established through the following statement with appears on Civil Remedy Notices which have been filed: Warning! Information submitted as part of this civil remedy notice is a public record. Data entered into this form will be displayed on the DFS website for public review. Please DO NOT enter Social Security Numbers, personal medical information, personal financial information or any other information you do not want available for public review. As any information contained herein becomes part of the public record, the insured has withheld its email address so as not to make same available for public review and indicated same accordingly. Furthermore, as the insured is represented by counsel, it would be improper for any representative of Covington Specialty Insurance Company to contact the insured directly for any reason utilizing its email address and, as such, the information is neither material to Covington Specialty Insurance Company’s ability to correct the violations contained herein nor required by the Department of Financial Services. Covington Specialty Insurance Company should direct all follow-up correspondences to the attorney listed above. Furthermore, as the above section requesting people with knowledge as to the allegations in the instant CRN often gets cut off, the following are those responsible for the violations alleged herein: Jody Olfers and all other adjusters, supervisors, management and individuals associated with or retained by Covington Specialty Insurance Company involved in this claim. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the insurer's violation as the insured understands them at this time: 311 S. Missouri Ave LLC (hereinafter the “insured”) purchased an all-risk property insurance policy, policy number VBA95065900 (hereinafter the “Subject Policy”) from Covington Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Covington”) which, at all times material hereto, provided property insurance for the property located at 311 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756 (hereinafter the “Subject Property”). On or about October 9, 2024, a hurricane caused direct physical loss and resultant ensuing damages to the Subject Property. The insured timely notified Covington of the loss. Covington assigned claim number 7030202541 to the loss (hereinafter the "claim") and assigned adjustment of the claim to Engle Martin who, in turn, assigned Jody Olfers a National General Adjuster with Engle Martin employed by Covington, to perform an inspection of the Subject Property. On October 19, 2024, the carrier inspected the Subject Property and observed the following damages sustained on October 9, 2024, during Hurricane Milton: interior water damage in nine office and storage room that are located on the south elevation of the property; water damage to the laminate flooring and conference table in the conference room; and water damage to the ceiling tiles in the copy room and kitchen. On November 13, 2024, almost one month later, the carrier sent a letter to the insured denying coverage for the loss in its entirety. The carrier’s coverage determination was based on the conclusion that there were no observed openings in the exterior wall or roof that would have allowed the water to enter the inside of the building. Despite failing to observe any openings in the roof or walls that would have allowed the water to intrude causing the damage, the carrier incorrectly determined that the water was able to enter the building as a result of surface/flood water, faulty installation of the solar tubular skylights, faulty maintenance of the gap between the exterior wall of the adjacent building, faulty maintenance and repair of the roof surface and air conditioning units along with wind-driven rain. Quite clearly, there were openings in the wall and roof that allowed water to enter the interior of the building during Hurricane Milton, ipso facto causing damage that was not there before the storm. Just because the carrier’s representative, Jody Olfers, failed to observe and or locate the openings, does not mean they did not exist during the storm. Furthermore, the subject, all risk, insurance policy only explicitly excludes damage caused by or resulting from “[r]ain, snow, ice or sleet to personal property in the open” which is not at issue in the subject loss. Because the carrier failed to properly investigate this claim, including retention of qualified personnel to determine the actual cause of the observed water intrusion from Hurricane Milton, as well as accurately applying the facts of the loss to the provisions of the subject policy, the subject claim has not been investigated and adjusted in good faith and the insured has suffered damages. The insured has been left with no choice but to hire an attorney in order to file a notice of intent to initiate litigation subject to Fla. Stat. § 627.70152. Based on the documentation previously submitted, Covington could have reversed its coverage position and afforded coverage in line with the terms and conditions of the Subject Policy and governing Florida law or, at a minimum, requested a further inspection in order to attempt to find coverage by viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to the insured; instead, Covington chose to sit back and wait before Covington ever thought to act in a manner inconsistent with their own self-interest, forcing the insured into hiring an attorney, thereby coming further out of pocket and leaving less of the outstanding due and owing insurance proceeds for actual repairs. This delay in claims adjustment constitutes a pattern of de facto bad faith conduct. Through its actions/inactions, subject to the facts and circumstances understood at this time as outlined herein, Covington has violated the following sections of Florida Statutes: §624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could have and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its Insured and with due regard. §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; Additionally, through its actions/inactions, subject to the facts and circumstances understood at this time as outlined herein, Covington has failed to comply with the following sections of Florida Administrative Code: 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)(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)(k) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. As a direct result of Covington's actions, the insured has sustained irreparable harm. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned actions complained of herein, among others, are effectuated by Covington so often as to constitute a general business practice evidencing a motive to enhance Covington's profits and cause a detrimental effect to its policyholders. Covington clearly failed to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigations of claims. As a direct and proximate result of Covington's handling of the claim, the insured sustained extra-contractual damages, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs. Covington's implemented claims programs and practices that were improper which directly resulted in additional losses to its insured. Covington, as part of its routine business pattern and practices, employs outcome-oriented adjusters/vendors/experts who purposely looked for ways to minimize coverage instead of affording coverage to its policyholders. In contrast to the legislative intent which motivated the enumeration of an insurance adjuster’s responsibilities outlined in the Florida Administrative Code, the insured were not afforded the professional duties entrusted and imposed on Covington by the Public Trust. The outcome-oriented claim adjustment practices undertaken by Covington led to Covington's failure to adequately adjust the Claim. This notice is given in order to perfect the right to pursue the civil remedy authorized by Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, should Covington fail to cure the violations set forth in this Civil Remedy Notice within the given cure period. In order to cure the defects outlined in this Civil Remedy Notice, Covington must act as follows: immediately deliver payment of all insurance proceeds due and owing to the insured which would reasonably place the Subject Property back in its pre-loss condition or, alternatively, if appraisal is or has been requested, complete the appraisal process and deliver payment of the executed award; and keep the claim open for the adjustment of any supplemental claim and payment of any as of yet unincurred costs. If Covington disagrees with the extent of the cure requested or asserts that the payment of any of the above cure categories may not be required, Covington should cure to the extent it believes it must under the Subject Policy and governing laws to correct the allegations of bad faith contained herein. While it is not being requested as a cure for the bad faith alleged herein, the insured remains willing to entertain any reasonable counteroffer of settlement.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
rhardeman@rsui.com 02-25-2025 February 25, 2025 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Nicholas Reeves, Esq. Cassel & Cassel, PA 4000 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 685-S Hollywood, FL 33021 Re: Response to Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violation CRN Number: 803166 Acceptance Date: February 23, 2025 Claimant: 311 S. Missouri Ave LLC Claim Number: 7030202541 Policy Number: VBA95065900 Date of Loss: October 9, 2024 Dear Sir/Madam: The law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP represents Covington Specialty Insurance Company (“Covington”) in responding to the above-referenced Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violation, filing number 803166, accepted by the Department of Financial Services on or about January 23, 2025 (the “Notice”), on behalf of 311 S. Missouri Ave LLC (“the Claimant”). As a result, this correspondence is timely under the Florida Statutes. The Notice is statutorily deficient, and therefore invalid, for multiple reasons. See Julien v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 311 So. 3d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Demase v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 351 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). Generally, the Notice is riddled with errors and is devoid of any specific information supporting the alleged violations. These issues not only render Notice defective, but they also deprive Covington of the ability to respond to, and more importantly cure, the grievances contained in the Notice. First, the Notice lists “CHRISTOPHER 311 S. MISSOURI AVE LLC” as the name of the Insured. Covington has no insured by that name associated with the listed policy. The named insured for the listed policy is 311 S. Missouri Ave LLC. Second, the section related to the relevant policy provisions is deficient. It only lists the grant of coverage and the provision to personal property damaged by rain while out in the open. It is unclear to Covington how the grant of coverage or this specific personal property relates to the boilerplate allegations in the Notice. The Notice also fails to identity all of those who are responsible for the alleged violations. It lists one person and then a catch-all for anyone and everyone retained by Covington with respect to this claim. This sort of open-ended and amorphous entry is inconsistent with the purpose of the Notice and falls short of the specificity requirements set out by Florida Statutes. The section describing the facts giving rise to the Notice does not provide any specific information demonstrating how Covington’s conduct amounts to bad faith. Instead the Notice simply alleges that the Claimant disagrees with Covington’s coverage decision. For example, the Notice states, Quite clearly, there were openings in the wall and roof that allowed water to enter the interior of the building during Hurricane Milton, ipso facto causing damage that was not there before the storm. Just because the carrier’s representative, Jody Olfers, failed to observe and or locate the openings, does not mean they did not exist during the storm. Despite the claimed obviousness of these openings, the Notice does not provide or direct Covington to any information which demonstrates that Covington’s conclusion was incorrect. Instead, the Notice only sets forth conclusory allegations and provides no facts to support the Claimant’s contention that Covington acted in bad faith. The Notice cites three reasons for the Notice and claims Covington violated four statutory provisions. However, the Notice fails to provide sufficient facts or any meaningful explanation as to how or why they apply to Covington’s handling of the claim. We address each of these statutory provisions in turn: 624.155(1)(b)(1) Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this statutory provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains generalized and unfounded accusations that Covington refused to properly settle the claim in good faith with no specific factual examples to support the contention that Covington did not attempt in good faith to settle the claim at issue. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Statute § 624.155(1)(b)(1). 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Failing to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of claims. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this statutory provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington failed to conduct a proper investigation of the claim with no specific factual examples to support the contention that Covington has failed to adopt and implement proper standards for the adjustment and investigation of claims. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a). 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The narrative provided in Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this statutory provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains generalized and unfounded accusations that Covington misrepresented policy provisions relating to coverages at issue. The Notice contains no explanation, much less any allegation, as to what fact or policy provision Covington is alleged to have misrepresented. Notably, the narrative of the Notice contains no specific allegation that Covington misrepresented any pertinent fact or policy provision at issue. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Statute § 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b). 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d) Denying claims without conducting reasonable investigations based upon available information. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this statutory provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington denied the claim without conducting a reasonable investigation. However, the Notice provides no specific factual examples to support this allegation. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Statute §626.9541(1)(i)(3)(d). The Notice also cites five provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, but similar to the statutory provisions, does not provide sufficient facts or any meaningful explanation as to how or why they apply to Covington’s handling of the claim. We address each of these provisions in turn: 69B-220.201(3)(b)(2) An adjuster shall adjust all claims strictly in accordance with the insurance contract. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington failed to adjust the claim strictly in accordance with the insurance contract with no specific examples to support this contention. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Administrative Code 69b-220.201(3)(b)(2). 69B-220.201(3)(c) An adjuster shall not approach investigations, adjustments, and settlements in a manner prejudicial to the insured. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington approached the investigation, adjustment, and settlement of this claim in a manner prejudicial to the insured, but the Notice provides no specific examples to support this contention. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Administrative Code 69b-220.201(3)(c). 69B-220.201(3)(d) An adjuster shall make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after making a complete investigation. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington did not make truthful and unbiased reports of the facts after the investigation was completed. However, the Notice provides no specific examples to support this allegation. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Administrative Code 69b-220.201(3)(d). 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. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington did not act with dispatch and due diligence in achieving a proper disposition of the claim. However, the Notice provides no specific examples to support this allegation. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Administrative Code 69b-220.201(3)(f). 69B-220.201(3)(k) An adjuster shall not undertake the adjustment of any claim concerning which the adjuster is not currently competent and knowledgeable as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage, or which otherwise exceeds the adjuster’s current expertise. The narrative provided in the Notice does not provide a sufficient factual basis for the selection of this provision. Rather, the Notice simply contains conclusory and inaccurate accusations that Covington undertook the adjustment of the claim without having competent or sufficient knowledge as to the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage. However, the Notice provides no specific examples to support this allegation. Covington disputes the allegation it violated Florida Administrative Code 69b-220.201(3)(k). As outlined above, the Notice is vague, inaccurate, and inflammatory. This serialized and impersonal approach frustrates the purpose of the Notice and falls short of the specificity requirements set out by Florida Statutes. Claimant has failed to provide Covington with the specific information supporting the alleged violations. Without that information the Notice is defective. Covington is unable to respond to, and more importantly cure, the purported grievances contained in the Notice. Covington specifically denies and disputes the allegations contained in the Claimant’s defective Notice. The allegations contained within the Notice are without merit. Covington’s handling of the subject claim was conducted in good faith and in accordance with the requirements of law and the subject policy. Thank you for consideration of this matter. Sincerely, BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP /s/ Vincent Fernandez Vincent A. Fernandez, Esq. vfernandez@butler.legal 813.594.5139
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