Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations
Login

Filing Number:     803370
Filing Accepted:  1/24/2025
         Print Filing
Complainant
Last/Business Name *  
PERPETUITY HOLDINGS LLC   First Name  
Street Address * 1196 WEST 30TH STREET
City, State Zip * JACKSONVILLE, FL 32209
Email Address * JOSEPHROMANO21@GMAIL.COM
Complainant Type: * Insured
Insured
Last/Business Name*   PERPETUITY HOLDINGS LLC   First Name   FRANK
Policy # * 2AA410875 Claim #* P053103
Attorney
Attorney is Applicable
Last Name* CAMPIONE First Name * FRANK Initial J
Street Address* 501 W. BAY STREET, SUITE 100
City, State Zip* JACKSONVILLE , FL 32202
Email Address * JASON@CAMPIONELAWPA.COM
Violation
Insurer Type *   Authorized Insurer Unauthorized Insurer
 
Insurer Name*   EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY
NAIC Company Code 35378
 
Name of individual responsible for violation (if any):* COREY SHANK AND ALL OTHER CLAIMS HANDLERS OR REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING THE CLAIM
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.
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.
* Specific policy language that is relevant to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

SECTION I – PROPERTY COVERAGES AND SECTION I – PERILS INSURED AGAINST, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: COVERAGE A – DWELLING. ADDITIONAL COVERAGES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ORDINANCE OR LAW, AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL COVERAGES PROVIDED UNDER THE APPLICABLE POLICY. ALL OTHER APPLICABLE COVERAGE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL COVERAGE(S) PROVIDED BY ENDORSEMENT OR RIDER, THE DECLARATIONS PAGE, LOSS PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS, AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS PROVIDING COVERAGE OF THE CLAIM AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE INSURER. FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTIONS VIOLATED 69B-220.201(3) – CODE OF ETHICS. THE WORK OF ADJUSTING INSURANCE CLAIMS ENGAGES THE PUBLIC TRUST. AN ADJUSTER SHALL PUT THE DUTY FOR FAIR AND HONEST TREATMENT OF THE CLAIMANT ABOVE THE ADJUSTER’S OWN INTERESTS IN EVERY INSTANCE. THE FOLLOWING ARE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT THAT DEFINE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AND SHALL CONSTITUTE A CODE OF ETHICS THAT SHALL BE BINDING ON ALL ADJUSTERS: 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.
 
* Facts and circumstances giving rise to the violation.
Enter all words or phrases (one at a time) that should be used to filter.

Evanston Insurance Company, (“Insurer”) has committed the following in handling the Insured’s claim: 1. Failure to act in due diligence and good faith to resolve claims; 2. Placing financial interest of Insurer before that of the Policyholder and Claimant; 3. Not adjusting the claims promptly and fairly; 4. Not attempting in good faith to handle claims; 5. Looking for ways to deny full recovery to the Insured. On or about September 5th, 2024, Claimant suffered substantial damage to the exterior of the dwelling, due to wind damages, a covered peril under the policy. The policy provides insurance coverage for all the losses, damages, and expenses that Claimant suffered and incurred. The Insurer was provided with an estimate; however, the Insurer still failed to properly evaluate this claim and promptly settle although it has become reasonably clear that it should do so. The Insurer’s improper handling and delay in paying this claim has caused insurmountable damage to the Insured’s home that needs to be remedied immediately. Claimant gave the Insurer prompt and timely notice of Claimant’s claim once damage was discovered. The Insurer has not responded to the claimant’s demand. (1) Estimate for repair as well as other supporting documentation was provided to handling adjuster on October 23, 2024, (2) There are no Invoices for repairs or previous work or maintenance to the roofing to provide, and (3) No EMS documentation in claimant’s possession at this time. The Insurer’s actions amount to but are not limited to the following: 1. Not treating the policyholder with good faith claims conduct 2. Looking for ways to reduce recovery to the Insured 3. Not adjusting claims and evaluating loss properly, promptly, and fairly to provide full and prompt indemnity to the Insured 4. Not training, supervising, or managing adjusters properly so that prompt and full payments are made, but rather placing the company’s interests before the policyholder’s interests 5. Placing the financial interest of the Insurer over that of the Insured. Florida law imposes no requirement to specify a definite cure amount to a civil remedy notice. Talet Enterprises v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278 (2000). To cure the defects outlines in this civil remedy notice, the Insurer needs to pay the full amount necessary to bring the Insured’s home back to its pre-loss condition. The Insurer must also pay for any statutory costs and fees to which the Insured is entitled. This includes, but is not limited to, attorney's fees and costs, IF INCURRED, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428, plus a 2.5 multiplier in accordance with the principles of Rowe v. Patient's Compensation Fund.
Comments
User Id Date Added Comment
frank@campionelawpa.com 02-18-2026 Claimant withdraws this notice as the claim has been remedied.
legalregulatory@markelcorp.com 02-19-2025 Markel 10275 W. Higgins Rd. – Suite 750 Rosemont, IL 60018 www.markel.com https://www.markel.com/privacy-policy February 19, 2025 VIA EMAIL – Jason@campionelawpa.com Frank Campione, Esq. Campione Law PA 501 W. Bay Street, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 RESPONSE TO CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE OF INSURER VIOLATIONS, FILING NUMBER 803370 RE: Insured: Perpetuity Holdings LLC Complainant: Perpetuity Holdings LLC Issuing Company: Evanston Insurance Company Our Claim Number: P053103 Policy Number: 2AA410875 Policy Period: 07/21/2024 to 07/21/2025 Date of Loss: 09/05/2024 (As Reported) Dear Mr. Campione, Markel Service, Incorporated, as claim service manager for Evanston Insurance Company (“Evanston”) previously acknowledged receipt of the above-captioned matter. Evanston has received a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations (“CRN”) filed with the Florida Department of Financial Services, notice number 803370. The CRN was purportedly filed on behalf of Complainant and Insured, Perpetuity Holdings LLC (“Complainant”). Please accept this as Evanston’s response to the CRN pursuant to Fla. Stat. 624.155. The filing accepted date of the CRN is 1/24/2025, thus this response is timely. The CRN alleges wrongdoing by Evanston in relation to a wind damage claim at 1196 West 30th Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32209 (the “Property”). Evanston welcomes the opportunity to respond to this CRN and specifically denies each and every allegation contained in the CRN in relation to this claim. With that said, Evanston believes that the CRN should be rejected and returned by the Department of Financial Services as it fails to comply with the specific information requirements as set forth in Fla. Stat. 624.155 and Florida case law. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the purpose of a CRN filed pursuant to Section 624.155, Florida Statutes, is to put the insurer on notice of an alleged violation, the circumstances surrounding same and indicate the details of the alleged violation to provide an insurer with sixty (60) days to “cure” the alleged claim defects. See Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 753 So. 2d 1278, 1283-4 (Fla. 2000). This is so that the insurer is provided an opportunity to resolve a first-party coverage dispute and otherwise avoid litigation. Id.; see also Lane v. Westfield Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Further, a notice must be sufficiently specific to provide the insurer with an opportunity to cure the alleged violations. This would include identifying the specific policy provision(s) at issue, citing specific language of the statutory provision(s) the insurer allegedly violated, and specifically identifying what actions the insurer must take to remedy the alleged violations. Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1299-1300 (S.D. Fla. 2008); see also Rousso v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82328 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2010). The CRN fails to satisfy the statutory requirements necessary of a CRN. Specifically, the CRN fails to set forth any specific policy language Evanston has purportedly violated. Instead, the CRN refers generally to sections within the policy and does not provide sufficient clarification to identify what within the policy language Evanston purportedly violated. Further, the CRN fails to set forth sufficient accurate facts to support the allegations contained therein and seeks a “cure” that is not available under the policy nor under Florida law. For example, the CRN seeks that: “The Insurer must also pay for any statutory costs and fees to which the Insured is entitled. This includes, but is not limited to, attorney’s fees and costs, IF INCURRED, pursuant to Florida Statute 627.428, plus a 2.5 multiplier in accordance with the principles of Rowe v. Patient’s Compensation Fund. Florida Statute 627.428 was repealed on or about December 16, 2022, approximately 1.5 years before the policy went into effect. Despite the CRN’s failure to comply with statutory requirements, Evanston hereby responds and provides the following factual summary of its handling of the Complainant’s claim. Evanston is confident the following summary of its claims handling will satisfy any inquiry regarding its conduct and demonstrate Evanston has always acted in the utmost good faith towards its insureds. To the extent that this response does not fully address and respond to the allegations set forth by the CRN, such deficiency is the direct result of the lack of specificity and the overall vague nature of the allegations contained therein. Evanston insures the Complainant under a commercial policy, policy number 2AA410875 for the Property with effective dates of July 21, 2024 through July 21, 2025 subject to the terms, conditions, endorsements and limitations set forth therein (the “Policy”). The Property is a two-story, four-unit apartment building. On September 13, 2024, Evanston received a first notice of loss from the Complainant claiming that the Property sustained damage due to a storm with heavy winds and rain resulting in shingles blowing off the roof and causing water leaks in the Property. The date of loss reported was September 5, 2024. On September 16, 2024, Evanston issued correspondence to the Complainant acknowledging receipt of the claim. On September 17, 2024, Evanston retained independent adjusting firm Davies Group to assist in Evanston’s investigation of the claim. Davies Group completed its inspection of the Property on September 20, 2024. Mr. Joe Romano was present for the inspection. Davies Group determined that, on the reported date of loss, the maximum windspeeds were 18 miles per hour. Davies Group found no damage at the exterior ground level of the Property. Davies Group inspected both first floor units (Unit 1 and Unit 2) as well as the two second floor units (Unit 3 and Unit 4). Davies Group found no loss-related damages to Unit 2; however, it did find unrelated flooring damage. Unit 1 displayed signs of water saturation to the hallway wall. This area of Unit 1 was determined to sit below the bathroom in Unit 3. Unit 3 had multiple ceiling repairs in the living room, kitchen, and bathroom; however, no visibly water stains were present to these rooms. The Unit 3 bedroom had what appeared to be both new and old stains to the ceiling. Davies Group identified a section of the kitchen wall in Unit 4 that appeared to have paint bubbling as a result of saturation; however, the kitchen cabinets were undamaged. Unit 4 also had stains on the ceiling and walls in the bathroom adjacent to the affected kitchen wall and a stain on the bedroom ceiling. The attic did not show signs of penetration or loss related to the claimed damages. Davies Group also inspected the three-tab shingle roof. The roof had two non-functional chimneys with prior repairs adjacent to the affected areas from Unit 3. There were four damaged shingles on the left slope and eight damaged shingles on the right slope. The damaged shingles were primarily present in and around the area of prior repair. The undamaged shingles appeared aged due to wear and tear. Evanston received the report from Davies Group regarding its inspection on October 14, 2024. On October 22, 2024, Evanston received a Letter of Representation from Campione Law indicating that Campione Law had been retained by the Complainant to represent the Complainant in the claim. Included in the Letter of Representation was a request for information pursuant to Florida Statute 627.4137. That same day, Evanston received an e-mail from Campione Law with an estimate containing a date entered of October 20, 2024, the estimate also included approximately ninety (90) photographs. On October 23, 2024, Evanston acknowledge receipt of the Letter of Representation from Campione Law via e-mail correspondence. On October 28, 2024, Evanston responded to the request for information pursuant to Florida Statute 627.4137 stating that Evanston is a surplus lines carrier and not subject to Florida Statute 627.4137. Instead, Evanston is subject to Florida Statute 626.9372 and responded accordingly via letter. On October 28, 2024, Evanston issued correspondence titled “Reservation of Rights” that was provided to Campione Law. In this correspondence, Evanston acknowledged wind damage had been found to the roof; however, there remained questions regarding what caused the interior water damage at the Property. As such, Evanston reserved its rights under the policy and continued its investigation. On November 6, 2024, Evanston received an e-mail from the Complainant’s representative requesting a status update on the claim. On November 8, 2024, Evanston responded and included Campione Law and stated that Evanston was in receipt of the Letter of Representation from Campione Law and was seeking to have an engineer inspect the Property on November 20, 2024. On November 15, 2024, Evanston received a Letter of Representation via e-mail on behalf of the Complainant from Your Insurance Attorney indicating that the Complainant had retained Your Insurance Attorney as its representative on the claim. On November 19, 2024, Evanston e-mailed Your Insurance Attorney acknowledging receipt of the Letter of Representation and stated that Evanston had previously obtained a Letter of Representation on behalf of the Complainant from Campione Law. Evanston asked that Your Insurance Attorney communicate with the Complainant and determine if the Complainant’s relationship with Campione Law was terminated, or which law firm appropriately represented Complainant. Further, Evanston informed Your Insurance Attorney that there was an engineer inspection set to take place on November 20, 2024. On or about November 19, 2024, Evanston was informed that the engineer hired to perform the inspection on November 20, 2024 had left the engineering company and the inspection could not proceed as scheduled. On or about November 21, 2024, Your Insurance Attorney verbally informed Evanston that Campione Law was no longer representing the Complainant and Your Insurance Attorney was properly representing the Complainant. On December 6, 2024, Evanston sent a follow-up email to Campione Law stating that a Letter of Representation had been received from Your Insurance Attorney and that Your Insurance Attorney had stated that Campione Law no longer represented the Complainant. Evanston requested that Campione Law contact the Complainant and provide clarification regarding the Complainant’s representation. No response was received. Thereafter, the inspection was re-coordinated with Your Insurance Attorney to take place on December 13, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Evanston received an e-mail from Your Insurance Attorney stating they no longer represented the Complainant. On December 13, 2024, an independent engineering firm, Jorgensics LLC (“Jorgensics”), inspected the Property on Evanston’s behalf. Jorgensics prepared a report regarding its investigation and findings dated December 30, 2024 titled: “Roof Damage Assessment”. The Roof Damage Assessment Report provided the following “Executive Summary of Findings and Opinions”: • Jorgensics performed a site visit on December 13, 2024, and the following were present: Mr. Justin Cox, P.E. (Jorgensics). • The tears located at upslope portions of shingle tabs were the result of exposure to high wind forces during one or more high wind events listed in the site-specific wind report and unrelated to the unlisted wind event on the reported date of loss. • Tears in shingles adjacent to areas of replaced shingles were the result of repair activity and inadequate workmanship. • Tears at lower portions of shingles and vertical tearing in shingles were associated with manual manipulation of the shingles and were not indicative of damage resulting from high wind forces. • The horizontal splitting of shingle tabs was the result of manufacturing deficiencies and thermally induced material expansion/contraction and were not associated with damage from high wind forces. • Multiple instances of construction deficiencies and poor-quality workmanship were noted at the roof of the subject structure, especially at and around the north and south chimneys. • The puncture in a shingle and roof deck substrate at the east roof plane was consistent with impact from an ammunition round and was not the result of wind-borne debris impact. • The shingle roof covering did not experience any damage from a hail event. • The pliable condition of the shingle roof covering indicated that the shingle roof covering was repairable, and complete replacement of the shingle roof covering in response to wind damage was not warranted. • Jogensics was not provided access to assess the interior of the structure during its visit to the site. Consequently, Jorgensics was not able to determine the causation or extent of interior moisture damage. • The soft condition of the roof deck observed adjacent to the north and south chimneys was the result of long-term deterioration of the roof deck over a period of many months to years prior to Jorgensics’ site visit due to repeated exposure to moisture that infiltrated the roof. The referenced moisture infiltration through the roof at soft portions of the roof deck was the result of construction deficiencies and was not the result of a storm-created opening. On January 6, 2025, Evanston e-mailed Campione Law regarding the confusion caused by Your Insurance Attorney as to which law firm was presently representing the Complainant. The correspondence further indicated that the engineer inspection took place; however, the interior inspection did not proceed and needs to be rescheduled. On January 8, 2025, Evanston received an estimate from Davies Group for the cost to replace the roof. On January 9, 2025, Evanston issued its second Reservation of Rights. The Reservation of Rights set forth that wind damage was found to the Property and Davies Group prepared an estimate for roof repair totalling $15,934.80, reiterated the request for a follow-up inspection by the engineer to permit interior inspection, and stated that the policy is not compliant with its co-insurance requirement. On January 14, 2025, Jorgensics inspected the interior of the Property. Jorgensics prepared a report dated January 22, 2205 and titled “Interior Damage Assessment”. The Interior Damage Assessment set forth the following “Executive Summary of Findings and Opinions”: • Jorgensics performed a site visit on January 14, 2025, and the following were present: Mr. Joseph Romano (the husband of the owner) and Mr. Justin Cox, P.E. (Jorgensics). • The following conditions were the result of exposure to moisture that infiltrated the roof covering: o Unit 1 – The stained ceiling finish in the northwest bedroom and deteriorated wall finish in the hallway; o Unit 2 – No damage was associated with moisture infiltration through the roof; o Unit 3 – The portions of the ceilings that fell in the living room, kitchen, and northwest bedroom; the downward displacement of the living room ceiling; and the stained ceiling finish in the northwest bedroom; and o Unit 4 – the delaminated wall finish in the kitchen, the stained wall finish in the hallway closet, and the stained ceiling finish in the bathroom (observed in photographs provided to Jorgensics). The moisture infiltration through the roof was the result of construction deficiencies, age-related deterioration, and/or wind damage that occurred on one or more dates listed in the site-specific wind report provided in Appendix B of Jorgensics’ Roof Damage Assessment. The moisture infiltration through the roof was not consistent with storm-created openings on the reported date of loss. o Jorgensics observed multiple instances of patches to the walls and ceilings at various locations within the subject structure. The reason for the repairs to ceilings was not known, and the condition of the ceilings prior to repairs were indeterminate without additional photographic documentation. o The cracks within ceiling and wall finishes at various locations within the subject structure were associated with material expansion/contraction and/or differential foundation movement and were not the result of exposure to high wind forces. o The moisture-deformed laminate flooring in Unit 2 was the result of exposure to moisture due to vapor transmission through the concrete slab-on-grade and construction deficiencies and the distress was not the result of a storm-created opening or exposure to moisture infiltrating through the roof or walls. o The stained ceiling finish in the southeast bedroom of Unit 2 was the result of moisture infiltration below the south window in the southeast bedroom of Unit 4 (unit above) that was associated with insufficient application of sealant below the window and was not the result of a storm-created opening. o The deteriorated ceiling finish above the bathroom shower in Unit 2 was the result of exposure to moisture/humidity during normal shower usage and was not associated with moisture infiltration through the roof or storm-created openings. o The stains on the west kitchen wall and the deformation of the corner bead in Unit 2 were the result of exposure to moisture from repeated cooking activities and were not indicative of exposure to moisture that infiltrated the roof. o Although Mr. Romano had stated that there was moisture in the walls and ceilings throughout Unit 2, Jorgensics did not observe any indications of widespread exposure to moisture within the unit. o The ceiling undulation in the southwest bedroom of Unit 2 was the result of poor workmanship of the ceiling finish and was not associated with exposure to moisture. o The stained kitchen cabinetry in Unit 4 was the result of a prior plumbing leak and was not associated with moisture infiltration through the roof. On January 24, 2025, two days before Evanston received Jorgensics’ Interior Damage Assessment, Evanston received a Property Insurance Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation filed on behalf of Complainant, Notice Number 227128 (Notice of Intent). That same day, Evanston received the CRN that this correspondence responds to. Evanston timely responded to the Notice of Intent on January 29, 2025. Despite receiving the CRN, Evanston continued to investigate the claim. Evanston reviewed the findings set forth in Jorgensics’ Interior Damage Assessment. Thereafter, Evanston contacted Davies to prepare an updated estimate to account for the recent findings set forth in the Interior Damage Assessment. Davies prepared an updated estimate, which was provided to Evanston on or about February 14, 2025. The estimate prepared by Davies totalled $6,711.73 Replacement Cost Value and/or $4,410.63 Actual Cash Value prior to application of the applicable deductible. The applicable deductible is $15,934.80. Based on Evanston’s review of all available information, the covered damages associated with the Complainant’s claim fell below the deductible. Evanston issued correspondence to the Complainant dated February 17, 2025 titled “Partial Coverage Disclaimer” detailing the findings from Evanston’s investigation and Evanston’s determination that the claim fell below the deductible. The foregoing chronology clearly evidences that Evanston has not violated any statutes nor administrative codes in handling the Complainant’s claim. Instead, the facts demonstrate that Evanston has always acted timely and in good faith in its investigation of the Complainant’s claim and applied the clear and unambiguous terms of the Policy to the claim in coming to its coverage determination. The Complainant’s disagreement with that determination is not evidence of any wrongdoing by Evanston. As such, Evanston denies each and every statutory violation allegation and addresses each statutory allegation accordingly: Fla. Stat. 624.155(1)(b)(1) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. To the contrary, Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. At no time has Evanston acted dishonestly or unfairly towards the Complainant. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy of insurance. Evanston promptly initiated an investigation into the claim and promptly made a claim determination and timely provided same in writing to the Complainant. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(a) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has adopted and implemented standards for the proper investigation of insurance claims and has complied with those standards at all times during the investigation of the Complainant’s claim. The standards and methods utilized by Evanston in examining its claims have met and exceeded its obligations and industry standards. Evanston has conducted the handling of this claim to such standards and the Complainant has failed to allege any factual support or evidence to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(b) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the bases for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. Fla. Stat. 626.9541(1)(i)(3)(c) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent timely correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the basis for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. Evanston acted promptly upon all communications with the Complainant at all times throughout Evanston’s handling of this claim. Fla. Admin. Code 69B-220.201(3) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent timely correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the basis for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. Evanston acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times throughout Evanston’s investigation and handling of the Complainant’s claim. Fla. Admin. Code 69B-220.201(3)(B)(2) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent timely correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the basis for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. Fla. Admin. Code 69B-220.201(3)(C) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent timely correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the basis for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. Evanston acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times throughout Evanston’s investigation and handling of the Complainant’s claim. At no time did Evanston approach any aspect of the Complainant’s claim in a manner prejudicial to the Complainant. Fla. Admin. Code 69B-220.201(3)(D) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent timely correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the basis for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. Evanston always acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant throughout Evanston’s investigation and handling of the Complainant’s claim. Fla. Admin. Code 69B-220.201(3)(F) Evanston has not acted in violation of the above-referenced statute at any time. Further, there are absolutely no facts nor evidence contained in the CRN to substantiate the Complainant’s allegation that Evanston has acted in violation of this section. Evanston has acted fairly and honestly towards the Complainant at all times. Following the Complainant’s notice of the loss to Evanston, Evanston immediately performed an investigation to assess the cause and scope of the loss. Thereafter, Evanston sent timely correspondence to the Complainant that outlined in detail the basis for Evanston’s coverage determination, including citing to specific policy provisions pertinent to same. All of Evanston’s actions have been performed in good faith and for the purpose of moving the Complainant’s claim towards a just and proper determination of coverage under the Policy. By sending this response, Evanston in no way waives, but rather expressly reserves the right to raise any and all available objections and defenses to the Complainant’s claim and to the CRN. Further, please be advised that the Policy is governed by the terms, conditions and exclusions together with any endorsements set forth therein. This correspondence does not waive any such provisions of the Policy. Any action taken by or on behalf of Evanston or its authorized representative(s), whether in the past or future, to investigate the alleged loss, adjust any claim or request for payment, or in any other way related to or arising out of the Complainant’s claim or loss, shall not waive any terms, conditions, or any other provisions of the Policy. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this correspondence, please feel free to contact the undersigned at +1.800.446.6671 ext. 125417 Very truly yours, Corey Shank Claims Specialist MARKEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED Florida Adjuster License Number: W910058
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